2004 11 23 PCI
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
NOVEMBER 23, 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 2004-090
Beginning Minute Motion 2004-017
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.
Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes for the
2004.
B. Department Report
Regular Meeting of November 9,
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 and miscellaneous lots.
Action .............. Continue to December 14, 2004
B. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-528 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815
Applicant.......... Prest-Vuksic Architects/Dr. Steve Phan
Location........... Caleo Bay, approximately 300 feet north of Avenue 48
(Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 31248)
Request............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and consideration of development
plans for a one-story 10,000 square foot office building
on a 0.83 acre site
Action .............. Resolution 2004- and Resolution 2004-
C. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-523 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848
Applicant.......... RT Hughes Co., LLC
Location........... North side of Avenue 60, approximately 700 feet west of
Madison Street
Request............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and the subdivision of
approximately 4.02 acres into 16 lots and miscellaneous
lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004-
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
D. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-522 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32397
Applicant.......... Foxx Homes
Location........... West side of Washington Street, north of Laguna de la
Paz
Request............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and the subdivision of 28.43 acres
into 74 lots and other common lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004-
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-816
Applicant.......... K. Hovnanian Homes/Forecast Homes
Location........... Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street
Request............ Consideration of landscape plans for Tract 30092 (Piazza
Serena)
Action .............. Minute Motion 2004-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on December 14, 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 23, 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 19, 2004.
DATED: November 19, 2004
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special
equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at
777-7025, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations
will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City
Clerk's office at 777-7025. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a
Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all
documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for
distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00
p.m. meeting.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaMdoc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 9, 2004 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels 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, Associate Engineer Paul Goble,
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 26, 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. Environmental Assessment 2004-526, General Plan Amendment 2004-
103, Zone Change 2004-122, Specific Plan 2004-074, and Tentative
Tract Map 32879; a request for consideration of a subdivision of ± 199
acres into 303 single-family residential lots located at the southeast
corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Staff requested a continuance of the project to the
meeting of November 23, 2004.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
continue the project to November 23, 2004, as requested.
Unanimously approved.
B. Environmental Assessment 2004-525 and Site Development Permit
2004-814; a request of Entin Family Trust for consideration of
development plans for construction of a ± 23,760 square foot, two-story
office building located on the east side of Washington Street, ± 960 feet
north of Fred Waring Drive.
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 if the plans before the Commission
reflected the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
conditions. Staff stated yes.
3. Commissioner Krieger asked if the height was within the 40 foot
limit. Staff explained the height dimensions and how they met the
requirements.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant was requested to supply
smaller scaled drawings for the projects. Staff stated they are
requested, but not appropriate in every case.
5. Commissioner Quill asked if the Public Works Department had
reviewed the site in regard to the grading plan as the site is very
high where the old parking lot was for the medical building where
the pad elevation is five feet above the curb and the building will
be 36 feet to the top of the building. Associate Planner Paul Goble
there is no relative problems in regard to the grading. They will
meet the City's requirements in regard to grading. Commissioner
Quill asked about the retention. Staff stated the retention is on
site and underground.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if there would be covered parking. Staff
noted the location of the covered parking stalls.
7. Commissioner Daniels asked what the land was across
Washington Street. Staff stated it is Desert Breezes and Sedona
Homes development.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
8. Commissioner Ladner asked how the pad elevation would relate to
the street. Associate Engineer Goble stated it could be quite
varied in relation to the pad. In this case, the pad could be lower
if the Commission desires. Discussion followed
9. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Cesar Romero, representing the applicant, gave
a presentation on the project and explained the grade elevations.
10. Commissioner Quill asked about the scored detail above the
window. Mr. Romero stated it was a painted score or tile.
Commissioner Quill asked about the second story window on the
south and west elevation above the window. Mr. Romero stated it
is a foam applied band that will be colored the dark brown.
11. Chairman Kirk noted he had become aware that he may have a
potential conflict of interest in regard to this project and excused
himself and left the dais.
12. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any other questions of the
applicant. There being none, he 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 opened
for Commission discussion.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commissioner Resolution 2004-083 certifying a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2004-525, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, Vice
Chairman Quill, NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-084, approving Site
Development Permit 2004-814, as recommended by staff.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Kirk rejoined the Commission.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
C. Sign Application 2004-825, Amendment #1; a request of Santa Rosa
Plaza for consideration of a Master Sign Program Amendment for Santa
Rosa Plaza, located north of Calle Tampico, east of Avenida Bermudas,
and west of Desert Club Drive.
1. Commissioner Ladner excused herself due to a potential conflict of
interest and left the dais.
2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on the number of
days in a year the banners could be up. Staff clarified the
applicant requested 60 days per event, staff recommends 30 days
per event. The sizes vary depending on their location. Discussion
followed as to where banners existed in the City.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Gilbert Fraide, architect for the project, gave a
presentation on the project. Ms. Shirlee Worrall stated the "E" on
the monument sign would be of the same material and style as the
art work for the horses.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Quill asked if they knew the size of the banners.
Ms. Worrall gave their dimensions and stated they would like to
keep all the banners they are requesting and proceeded to explain
the location and purpose of the banners.
6. 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.
7. Commissioner Quill asked if anyone had an objection to the
banners.
8. Chairman Kirk stated the banners are internal to the project instead
of representing advertising, so he supports staff's
recommendation.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
9. Commissioner Daniels stated that if it is on their property, he has
no issue. He would leave the one at the entrance.
10. Commissioner Krieger stated he would agree with staff's
recommendation.
11. Commissioner Quill asked if about the "E" and "Embassy Suites"
signs on the side of the building.
12. Chairman Kirk stated he would prefer the "E", but they agree with
staff's recommendation.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Krieger to
adopt Minute Motion 2004-016, approving Sign Application 2004-
825, Amendment #1, as recommended by staff.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Krieger, Quill, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner.
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Ladner rejoined the Commission.
D. Environmental Assessment 2003-470, General Plan Amendment 2003-
091, Zone Change 2003-112, Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, Specific
Plan 204-071, and Site Development Permit 2003-762; a request of
Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, LP. for consideration
of: 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, for the
properties located at the northeast and southeast corners of Washington
Street and Avenue 50.
1. Chairman Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict of
interest and left the dais.
2. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
3. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Ladner asked how many homes were previously
planned for the parcel to the north and would they be allowed two
story units. Staff stated none on the north parcel and they are
limited to one story at 17 feet.
4. Commissioner Krieger asked if there would be deceleration lanes at
the entrances. Staff stated they are conditioned to have a traffic
engineer prepare a report to determine if it is needed.
Commissioner Krieger asked what the impact of traffic would be
on the intersections. Staff stated it was determined the level of
service for the streets would remain the same. This residential
project would generate less trips than a commercial project.
Commissioner Krieger asked if the 16 foot light poles would be
visible from the surrounding tracts. Staff stated there will be
some visibility, but less than what a commercial project would
have. The carports lighting would be under the roofs and in areas
near the north property line they are using bollards.
5. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address
the Commission. Mr. Marvin Roos, MSA Consulting, project
planners for the project, introduced the project team who gave a
presentation on the project.
6. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Ladner asked how many of their
residents own a vehicle and drive. Mr. Brian McLemore, Pacific
Retirement Services stated that as they enter they may own a
vehicle, but as they grow older they get rid of them. They
estimate one parking space per resident. Commissioner Ladner
asked if the 216 living units are hose that will have one car units.
Mr. McLemore stated yes.
7. Vice Chairman Quill asked if they have done any trip generations
on the 216 cars. Mr. McLemore stated a trip generation study has
shown that a retirement community has 30% less than a
residential community.
8. Commissioner Ladner asked if van services would be available.
Mr. McLemore stated yes, and explained the services to be
provided.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
9. Commissioner Daniels asked about the letter received in opposition
and one issue in particular was the containment of dementia
residents wandering into the community. Mr. McLemore stated
this specific portion of the facility is a lock down facility and
therefore, they will not be allowed to leave.
10. Commissioner Daniels asked if their other facilities they own were
of the same size. Mr. McLemore stated yes and gave the sizes.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the split in the property was an
issue. Mr. McLemore stated this is the reason for the tunnel
where golf carts could be used to move between the two sites.
They will implement a transportation program to assist the
transportation problems. Commissioner Daniels asked if they
would be better planned to be constructed next to a medical
facility. Mr. McLemore stated they have not found this to be
necessarily true. They have registered nurses on call 24 hours a
day with an emergency call system in place. Mr Chris Dalengas,
architect for the project, gave a power point presentation on the
project elevations.
11. Commissioner Krieger asked if the light poles would have shields.
Mr. Dalengas stated yes, so there would be no light directed
toward the sky. Commissioner Krieger asked if the residents of
the two story units could look down into the neighboring
residential projects yards. Mr. Dalengas stated they did not
believe this would be possible, but if the neighbor thought they
could, they would build a masonry wall to block that view.
12. Commissioner Daniels asked if it was possible to put the single
story casitas on the northern property. Reversing the two sites
and what implications would this cause. Mr. Dalengas stated the
southern site does not have enough acreage. Commissioner
Daniels asked what the implications would be to setback the two
story units further back. Mr. Dalengas stated they would lose
units on all three buildings, but he would not know how many.
13. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there is a front or back on the parking
structure to block views. Mr. Dalengas stated no. They designed
it with flat roofs to reduce the visual impact. Vice Chairman Quill
asked how the 16 foot lights would affect the project. He also
asked if the roof tiles were clay or concrete. Mr. Dalengas stated
they are concrete. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the residents were
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
in favor of the undergrounding of the utilities. Mr. Dalengas stated
they were in support of the undergrounding.
14. Mr. Rob Parker, representing RGA, gave a presentation on the
landscaping plan. Mr. Roos went over the conditions and
requested changes to conditions #8, #10, 54.B.1. & 2, 54.A.1.e,
54.A.1.a., 54.B.2. & 2., #39, in addition to the deceleration lane
leading to the two sites access points on Avenue 50 be eliminated
and confirmation that the 150 foot setback to the two story
structures required will not have to be further offset due to the
deceleration lanes being conditioned on the project.
15. Commissioner Krieger asked if there had been a traffic study. Mr
Roos stated Washington Street was done, but Avenue 50 was
only to determine the need for deceleration lane.
16. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this matter. Mr. Paul Cope, 78-766 Gorham Lane,
Palm Desert, signed up to live in the development. He has
investigated several of their other sites and was very impressed
with the developments.
17. Mr. Jack Nelson, 78-707 Saguaro, stated he was in opposition to
the project due to the change in density and the amount of traffic
it would generate. He does not want it in his back yard.
18. Mr. Bob Tayar, 79-945 Rancho La Quinta Drive, stated he
supported the project and hoped to be a resident at this facility.
19. M. Karen Kirk, 78-585 Saguaro, stated her opposition to the
project as she believed it will lower her property values. She
submitted a petition of residents who were in opposition to the
project.
20. Mr. Les Webber, 160 Tomahawk Drive, Palm Desert, stated his
support of the facility.
21. Ms. Helen Marie Nelson, 78-707 Saguaro, stated her opposition to
the project in regard to density, and how it would devalue their
property.
22. Mr. Jack Harper, 50-665 Grand Traverse stated his support of the
project.
23. Ms. Sandra Hawk, 78-770 Spy Glass Hill, stated her support of
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
the project. Her concern was what could be developed here if this
was not being proposed.
24. Mr. John Sharn 78-650 Saguaro, stated his support of the project.
He works at a project such as this and it is a progression of
individuals who move from the country club environment to these
facilities.
25. Mr. Bob Taher, 79-945 Rancho La Quinta Drive asked for those in
support of the project to stand. A majority of the audience stood
to show their support.
26. Dr. Neda Nealstron, 50-095 Doral what is going to be done with
the traffic noise that exists currently?
27. Mr. Tom Anderson, 78-731 Saguaro, questioned the ten foot
setback from the property line to the carport and he did not see
that in the rendering. Vice Chairman Quill stated it is being
provided. In addition, they will underground the power lines.
Staff then discussed with him where the light poles would be
located.
28. Ms. Norma Main 78-715 Saguaro Road asked how they could
build the wall higher when the City has a maximum six foot height
for the wall. Staff stated it could be done in a combination of a
berm and wall. The Specific Plan does allow for a development to
deviate from City standards and guidelines to allow a wall higher
than the Code allows. Ms. Main asked the height of the single
family home that was shown on the power point. Staff stated the
peak would be 17 feet. She stated she was opposed to the
project.
29. Ms. Patricia Duarte, 53-400 Avenida Forensa, asked how the
traffic on Avenue 50 would be affected by this project. Her
concern was the children traveling to school along Avenue 50.
Vice Chairman Quill stated the level of service will not be impacted
by this project. In other words the added traffic will not be that
much greater than what exists.
30. There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing
was closed and open for Commission discussion.
31. Commissioner Daniels asked staff if they had any issues with the
condition changes as requested by the applicant. Staff stated
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
items 1 and 2 the applicant will correct and the changes will be
made accordingly. Item 3 should be deferred to the Public Works
and Fire Department to make certain it is allowed; Item 4 must be
specific widths per the Code; Item 6 will be referred to Sunline and
the Public Works Department to determine if it is acceptable; Item
7 is a standard condition and should remain; Item 8 should be
referred to CVWD. Staff would prefer the berms be landscaped.
32. Mr. Marvin Roos, stated they have held community meetings to
resolve the remaining issues and most of the issues raised, they
believe have been met.
33. Commissioner Daniels asked about the lights at night and the
carport. Mr. Roos stated there will be a berm and wall down to a
wall at the west end to block the glare.
34. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
35. Commissioner Ladner stated she would welcome this project
behind her.
36. Commissioner Daniels agrees this is a great project but the real
challenge is to determine if this is the right place for it. He would
like to resolve the remaining four conditions.
37. Commissioner Krieger stated he supports the project.
38. Vice Chairman Quill does see a problem with the metal roof on the
parking structure as the lights under the roof will always be there.
The roof should be a the that could be low profile to block any
lights into any resident on the north. He would suggest they use a
single Mission S-clay tile. Their items #1, #2, #3 can be approved
subject to Public Works Department approval; Item #5 to reduce
the 8 foot sidewalk should remain on Washington Street and
Avenue 50; If they will eliminate any ingress into the project on
Washington Street north bound he would agree to removing the
south side deceleration; Item #6 would like to see the bus turnout
at this location, but it needs to be worked out with Sunline; Item
#39 he would not like to see the landscaping removed, but will
have to agree with CVWD requirements. With respect to raising
the wall at the request of the homeowners on Saguaro, it should
be allowed to go to an elevation of seven feet from the finish floor
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
elevation of their home. This is in addition to the tile roof of the
parking structure.
39. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-085, recommending
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-470, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
40. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-086, recommending
certification of General Plan Amendment 2003-091, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
41. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-087, recommending
approval of Zone Change 2003-1 12, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
42. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-088, recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-089, recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2004-071, as recommended and revised.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
44. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-090, recommending
approval of site Development Permit 2003-762, as recommended
and revised:
a. Condition added: The carport roofs adjacent to the north
property line shall use a single Mission "S" clay tile that is
low profile to block any lights into any residences on the
north.
b. Condition #8.A.1: Shall be approved subject to Public
Works Department approval.
d. Condition #54.A.1.a.: bus turnout may be deleted if
approved by Sunline Transit. If deleted the deceleration
lane shall be used for a bus stop;
C. Condition #39: the landscaping on the CVWD Evacuation
Channel face shall be subject to CVWD approval.
d. Condition #99: is amended to refer to the first floor
windows at the ends of the independent living building.
d. Condition added: The perimeter wall along the north
property line of the north site may be a maximum seven
feet high as measured on the north side of the wall.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Krieger to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 23, 2004, at
7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:53 p.m., on
November 9, 2004.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-9-04.doc 13
PH A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 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 December 14, 2004. Staff has been working with the applicant on completing
and revising various items, but the final project will not be available in time to allow
review of the project at this meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Move to continue consideration of Environmental Assessment 2004-526, and its
associated applications, to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of
December 14, 2004.
Prepared by:
L
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2004
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-528
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS / DR. STEVE PHAN
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2) CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A ONE-
STORY, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 0.83
ACRE SITE.
LOCATION: CALEO BAY, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 48
(2 & 3 OF PARCEL MAP 31248)
ENGINEER: SAXON ENGNEERING SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-528;
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT MAY HAVE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT; HOWEVER,
MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE
PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVELS; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
IS RECOMMENDED.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) / COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
(CC)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT LAND (MARRIOTT HOTEL SITE)
SOUTH: VACANT; RANCHO LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT
EAST: LAKE LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT
WEST: FOXX HOMES SITE
BACKGROUND:
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Stfrpt SDP 04-815 Phan reveiwed by ss.doc
The project site is located on the west side of Caleo Bay, approximately 300 feet north
of Avenue 48 (Attachment 1). This property is part of a previously approved
commercial Parcel Map (TPM 31248) for the area bounded by Caleo Bay, Avenue 48
and Washington Street. The map subdivided the property into 7 lots; the Walgreen's
store is the first building constructed on Parcel 1 of this map. The project is located
on a 0.83 acre site, consisting of parcels 2 and 3 (Attachment 2). The remaining
parcels are vacant.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to construct a single -story, ± 10,000 square foot office
building. The applicant will be required to merge the two lots prior to the issuance of
building permits. The remainder of the vacant parcels will be processed under separate
permits in accordance with the Zoning Code.
ArrthitPrtti irP
The building's architecture is Contemporary Mediterranean style to match the
Walgreens store. The project consists of a single -story, 10,000 square foot office
building, approximately 28 feet in height, below the maximum height allowed of 40
feet. Architectural features include smooth and light dashed plaster, 2-piece clay tile,
El Dorado stone, foam fascia, wrought iron accents, and glazed glass with bronze
anodized aluminum trim. The structure has architectural elements including towers
and wall pop -outs that accentuate the building's facade. Windows are also recessed
that further accentuate the building.
Landscaping
Landscaping includes a variety of drought tolerant plants and materials common with
the Walgreen's landscape and in other developments in La Quinta. The building meets
the required landscaping setback of 10 feet minimum. Street perimeter landscaping
exists which, was installed as part of the Walgreen's building construction. Additional
landscaping will be installed along the perimeter of the building. Tree wells in the
parking lot are proposed at 6' x 6'. The tree wells along the building frontage will
have tree grates to provide more pedestrian space along the building frontage.
Planters will provide space for shrubs to accentuate the doorways of the office suites.
Lighting
The parking lot lighting proposed consists of a "shoe box" type fixture mounted on a
four (4) inch square steel pole eighteen feet (18) feet in height. The lighting fixture
will be the same as the existing fixtures in the Walgreen's parking lot and be installed
within the parking lot of the site.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Stfrpt SDP 04-815 Phan reveiwed by ss.doc
Access
The Parcel Map provides three access points to the project. These access points have
recently been installed and will serve all parcels through common easements. These
access points are located on Washington Street, Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay. The
applicant has indicated that the parking lot will be completed entirely to match the
existing Walgreen's parking lot.
Parkin
Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Code requires one (1) parking space per two -hundred
(250) square feet. Based on 10,000 square feet of retail space the required parking is
forty (40) spaces. The applicant proposes forty-seven (47) spaces for the current
proposal, but will build the entire parking lot for the remainder of the parcels. The
applicant will be conditioned to provide sufficient parking for all uses at build out
(Condition #39.G.).
Signage
No signage is proposed at this time. The applicant will submit an application to be
processed under a Planned Sign Program.
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC)
At the October 6, 2004, ALRC meeting, the Committee discussed the project and
recommended approval with one minor amendment which included that the center
tower on the north facade include stone. This has been added as Condition of
Approval (#55). The meeting minutes are attached for your review (Attachment 3).
Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October
29, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no
letters have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments
received will be handed out at the meeting.
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 from public
agencies and City Departments have been included in the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
V ,,
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Stfrpt SDP 04-815 Phan reveiwed by ss.doc
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve EA 2004-528 and SDP 2004-815 pursuant to Sections 9.210.020
of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached
Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , certifying a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment
2004-528 pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving Site Development
Permit 2004-815, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Plan Set
3. October 6, 2004, ALRC meeting minutes
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Stfrpt SDP 04-815 Phan reveiwed by ss.doc t
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-528 PREPARED FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-528
APPLICANT: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 23rd day of November, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by Prest-Vuksic Architects for approval of a single -story, ± 10,000 square
foot office building, generally located on Caleo Bay, approximately 300 feet north of
Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows:
APN: Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 31248,
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2004-528),
and determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant
impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact has been certified; 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 certifying said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-528.
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 graded due to prior development
approvals relating to Lake La Quinta.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Reso EA 04-528.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-528
NOVEMBER 23, 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 in that the site has been graded due to prior
development approvals relating to Lake La Quinta.
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.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment 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 2004-528
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.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California, as.follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Reso EA 04-528.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-528
Prest-Vuksic Architects
November 23, 2004
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2004-528 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2004-528 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23'd day of November, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORC1, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Reso EA 04-528.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: Environmental Assessment 2004-528; Site Development Permit 2004-815
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48. APN: Parcels 2 and
3 of Parcel Map 31248
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Prest-Vuksic Architects
44530 San Pablo, Suite 200
Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. General Plan Designation: Community 7. Zoning Designation: 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.)
The Caleo Bay Park site is a 2.4 acre site which is proposed to eventually have 5 single story
office buildings. The total square footage proposed for all 5 buildings would be 27,550 square
feet. The Site Development Permit will allow the construction of the first of these buildings,
which will total 10,000 square feet. Access to the site will be provided from Avenue 48 and
Caleo Bay. A centralized parking area is proposed, which will provide 121 parking spaces.
The number of spaces designated for the first building is forty (40). The site comprises the
currently occupied Walgreens drug store.
In conformance with CEQA, this Initial Study addresses not only the development of the
single story office building, but the development of the entire 2.4 acre site.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Walgreens (Community Commercial)
South: Avenue 48, golf course and single family residential (Low Density Residential, Golf
Course/Open Space)
West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation partially developed site (Low Density
Residential)
East: Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
November 8, 2004
Date ,
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVH, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 1 k
-3-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic
X
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Aerial photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area? (Application materials)
I. a)-d) Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. The
proposed project, however, will be located easterly of the already improved parking lot
for the Walgreens drug store, which includes considerable landscaping. The proposed
project will include single story office buildings, the first of which reaches a maximum
height of 28 feet. This building height is consistent with that of the adjacent drug store,
and of the residential development located to the south and east. The first building
proposed includes muted tones and stone veneers which will improve its aesthetic
appearance. There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site.
Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be less than significant.
The construction of the office building will cause an increase in light generation,
primarily from parking lot lighting, car headlights and landscape lighting. The bulk of the
activity of the site, however, will be during daytime hours. The City regulates lighting
levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not be
significant.
y as
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The site is in the center of La Quinta's urban core, and several miles from the nearest
agricultural area. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property or on adjacent
properties. There will be no impact to agricultural resources.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
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) Vehicle trips will be the most significant generators of air pollutants as a result of the
development of the site. The entire office park has the potential to generate 27,550
square feet of space. The most intense office use is medical/dental offices. This land use
has the potential to generate up to 996 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and
an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be
generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 720, Medical/Dental Office Building"!
-7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
996 x 15 = 14,490
PMIo PMIo PMto
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 1,344.60 34,959.60 7,171.20 - 149.40 149.40
Pounds at 50 mph 2.97 77.17 15.83 - 0.33 0.33
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 996 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. If the entire remaining
vacant land were to be graded at once, it could result in the generation of 132 pounds per
day, for a limited period while grading operations are active. For the construction of the
first building, it is likely that approximately 26 pounds per day would be generated. Both
these dust generation numbers may be high, given the fact that rough grading has already
occurred on the site, and limited grading is likely to be required to prepare the site for the
proposed office buildings. The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management
Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts
associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
-8-
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaping of Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay shall be installed immediately
following precise grading for the first building on the site.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
11I. d) & e) The project will consist of offices which are not expected to generate objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
-9-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
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 MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservationplan? General Plan
-10-
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The site is significantly impacted, and is not covered in native vegetation. The site has
previously been rough graded and grubbed. When the Walgreens drug store was
constructed the applicant was conditioned to apply a soil stabilizer on the remaining
property. This has been done and will remain on the property until such time that it is
developed. The site is not within an area of potential habitat for species of concern
identified in the General Plan. The site is within the boundary of the Coachella Valley
Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Plan fee area, and will be required to pay the fees in place at
the time building permits are received. Impacts to biological resources are expected to be
insignificant.
-11-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (General Plan
MEA p. 123 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5?
(General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) The site has been previously graded, further impacted by adjacent development of the
drug store, and has a low potential for surficial archaeological resources. There is,
however, a potential that buried resources do occur on the site which will not be
uncovered until grading and excavation occur. As a result, the following mitigation
measure shall be required:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential archaeological
resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time as a qualified
archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended mitigation measures.
The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community
Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all
activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
V. c) The proposed project site lies outside the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancient
lake Cahuilla. No paleotological resources are expected to occur on site, and therefore no
impacts to such resources will result from implementation of the proposed project.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. All of the office buildings 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.
y a
-13-
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.
9
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p.
95 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
;r
-15-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The proposed project could generate up to 27,550 square feet of professional office space,
some or all of which may be used for medical offices. Should medical offices occur on
the site, some may utilize or dispose of hazardous materials. Such an office would be
under the jurisdiction of county and state agencies, and would be highly regulated in the
handling of these materials. These various agencies will inspect any on site facility which
handles hazardous materials, and assure that potential impacts associated with these
materials are less than significant.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
9;!
-17-
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use in the medical offices, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a
Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to
accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is
implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result
in a surplus of water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within
the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring
that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant will be
required to prepare on site hydrology analysis which provides for on site retention of
these storm waters. The City Engineer will review the hydrology study for the proposed
project, and approve its findings prior to construction of the project. Impacts associated
with storm water drainage are therefore not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA, and no housing is
proposed.
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Community Commercial on the General Plan and Zoning
maps, which allows a wide variety of land uses tailored toward the region, rather than
only City residents. The location of the proposed office buildings, which are likely to
serve residents of both La Quinta and surrounding cities, is appropriate for this site. The
entire project will be required to comply with development standards of the Zoning Code
for the Community Commercial designation. The first building conforms to these
standards.
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.
9 (:
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
P P-7
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p.
111 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The proposed construction of five office buildings on the subject property will have limited
impacts on the noise environment. The site is surrounded on two sides by roadways, which
provide a buffer to the residential land uses to the east and south. Office uses are likely to
operate primarily during the less sensitive day time hours. Although noise levels are
expected to rise during construction, these potential impacts will be short term, and will still
-21-
not increase CNEL noise levels to exceed the City's standards. 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.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed 27,550 square feet of professional office space will not have an impact on
population and housing. 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.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The
project will be required to pay development impact fees and mandated school fees in
place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The development of five office buildings will have no impact on the City's recreation
system.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
Or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Site Plan)
f) 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.
-26-
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 the service. Overall
impacts to traffic are expected to be less than significant.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-28-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
providers.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
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 graded, and potential impacts associated with cultural
resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level through mitigation measures
contained in this report. No biological impacts are anticipated with development of the
project site.
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
professional office opportunities.
rq
-30-
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 generate PM10, Section III above, includes a number of mitigation measures to
reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
The Initial Study prepared for the Walgreens drug store, EA-02-460 was used in the preparation
of this Initial Study.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-31-
c�
0
Vb
w
O
0
U
cd
W
O
Z
O
a
U
d
OaF00,>
dwwdd
00
0
0
N
O
U
o
N
a�i
�p
¢'
O
N
Ci
,D
>
N
O
O
zz
a�
U
d
d
�a
A
U
W
d
F
d
A
dAW
WA
�WUW
OU
a
o�
�
on
t
b
o
Gz7
o
o
r
o
0
►`�
U
U
U
Cd
vEn
i
.r. O
O
O
"Cot
tCd
a
a
Q
Q
a
a
Cd
U
U
m
U A
GQ
as
as
'G
a�
U N
"
tti
4.
►'�
u
N
m
4.1
0
U
N
bo
0
0
a
0 b
�..
cn
�u
F
d
A
U pq
�A
a�
U
U�
a
�
�
o
H
Q.
b
o.
b
�
Q
a
w�
z
0
a
�
W
�
�
d
O
Cd on
Ha>a
v,
orb
H
V
Cd
MM�
OW
V o
o
U
F,
a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW A SINGLE -STORY,
± 10,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 0.83
ACRE SITE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815
APPLICANT: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 23`d day of November, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by Prest-Vuksic Architects for approval of a single -story, ± 10,000 square
foot office building, generally located on the west side of Caleo Bay, approximately
300 feet north of Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows:
APN: Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 31248,
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 83-68), in that Environmental Assessment 2004-528
was prepared and determined that although the project could have a significant
adverse effect on the environment, mitigations measures have been imposed that will
reduce the impacts to less than significant levels; therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact has been certified; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section
9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The project as proposed is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the land use is permitted under
the Community Commercial Land Use designation.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The project is consistent with the
development standards of the Community Commercial Zoning District, including
but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass,
exterior lighting, parking, circulation, open space and landscaping.
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed
project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental
Assessment 2004-528 was prepared for this project with a certification of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Reso SDP 04-815.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
4. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed building,
including but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials,
colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, is
compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design
prevalent in the City, in that it lacks the bulky mass of a commercial building
due to the articulation, stucco exterior finish, desert tone colors, the roofs; the
proposed building is adequately set back with architectural variations so as to
minimize the appearance of a large structural mass.
5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited
to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, screening of
equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements
such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible
with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City in that
the proposed project meets the development standards of the City's Zoning
Code.
6. Landscape Design: The landscaping plan for the proposed project, including but
not limited to, the location, type, size, and coverage of plant materials, has been
designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, screen undesirable
views and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual
appearance of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the
surrounding area in that the variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs and ground
covers provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping
space.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2004-815 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached
hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of November, 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
1.4 ,)
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Reso SDP 04-815.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
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\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC Reso SDP 04-815.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 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 Perimt 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. AA
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 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 design professional can obtain the California Stormwater
Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use
in their SWPPP preparation.
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4► Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
F. The approved SWPPP and BM Ps 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 specific plans, and/or as
required by the City Engineer.
8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric
layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median
curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes,
deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be
accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the
appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact
the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape
setback requirement
9. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved Parcel Map No. 31248, the applicant shall grant the
necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. All required perimeter landscaping setbacks have been dedicated by Parcel
Map 31248.
4 �
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 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 on the Final
Map.
11. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street, Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay from lots
with frontage along Washington Street, Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay is restricted,
except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit, or as
otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access
restrictions are as shown on the recorded Parcel Map No. 31248.
12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
13. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the
date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City
Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section
13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line
item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale
specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal
q r�
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal
Note. A thru C to be submitted concurrently.
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on annotated print of the
building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California
Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment
must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A
copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department
in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building
floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements, retaining and
perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets, adjacent buildings and
existing and proposed handicap parking shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans
at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. Precise Grading Plans
shall also require approval by the Community Development and Building and Safety
Departments.
15. 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.
16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through
a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a
file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
17. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
19. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
20. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on applicable improvement plans that a soils report has
been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
21. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. '4 p
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
22. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the Site Development Permit
Plan, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these
Conditions of Approval.
23. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
"Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for
Parcel Map No. 31248 and as revised for this site development permit. Nuisance water
shall be disposed of in an approved manner."
25. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or
equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall
be designed to contain first flush storm water and nuisance water surges from
landscape area, commercial activity and off -site street nuisance water. The sand filter
design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of
water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water
requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow.
26. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots
Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will
be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback
and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and
mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
27. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
50
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
28. 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.
29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
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. 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
33. 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.
34. 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 Lot 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
35. 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. ri
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
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.
36. 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.
37. The applicant shall remove and replace the existing sidewalk as needed at all
locations where it is cracked, uneven at joints, or otherwise damaged pursuant to
Streets & Highways Code Section 5610. This requirement applies to all sidewalk
located in the public right of way adjacent to the property being developed.
38. The applicant shall advise any prospective buyer of any parcel on this Site
Development Permit of its continuing obligation to maintain all sidewalk located in the
public right of way adjacent to its property in a good state of repair pursuant to
Streets & Highways Code Section 5610.
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
39. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). In
particular, the following are conditioned with this approval.
A. The parking stall length along Avenue 48 west of Building E should be a
minimum of 18 feet to accommodate the proposed handicap -parking stall.
B. The parking stall length fronting Buildings A, B, C and D shall be a minimum of
18 feet to accommodate the proposed handicap -parking stalls.
C. The handicap ramp provided for Building A shall be redesigned to provide for
the 4-foot clear ADA accessibility across the Building.
D. Accessibility routes to other buildings and public streets shall be shown on the
Site Plan.
E. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required
including accessibility routes between buildings.
F. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better
evaluate ADA accessibility issues.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
G. All parking lot improvements for the remainder of the site shall be constructed
as if the entire site was built out, with building pads left vacant for future
development.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated
turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the
approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other
improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer.
A. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public
streets are limited to the access locations approved in the approved Parcel
Map No. 31248 and these conditions of approval.
CONSTRUCTION
40. 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
41. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
42. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
43. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
44. 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.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-816 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
45. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
51. 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
52. 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.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-815 - PHAN
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
53. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
54. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection to
the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
55. The applicant shall add stone to the center tower on the northern building facade.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Phan SDP 04-815\PC COA SDP 04-815 Phan.doc
ATTACHMENT
r
i
w
•
w
3
I
r 0
ATTACHMENT
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.
finanimously approved.
C. Site Development Permit 2004-815; a request of John Vuksic for
consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a single story,
10,000 square foot office building on a 0.83 acre site located on the
west side of Caleo Bay, approximately 270 feet north of Avenue 48.
1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced John
Vuksic and Jon Gray, who gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Christopher asked if the bright orange was
proposed to pick up the color of the Walgreens store. Staff
stated the desire was to have a continuation of the architecture
and colors in this area.
3. Committee Member Thoms stated that on the north elevation
the stone should wrap around the tower.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has no objection to the
project. He asked about the size of the parking lot tree islands.
Staff noted the Code requirement has not been amended to
require the 8-feet by 8-feet.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\l0-6-04 WD.doc
61
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
October 6, 2004
5. Committee Member Christopher noted the elevation facing
Avenue 48 needs special attention given to the landscaping to
buffer the view corridor for the homes to the south. He asked if
there was a lighting plan submitted. Mr. Gray stated the
lighting was already installed on the site and any additional
fixtures needed would be the same.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to
adopt Minute Motion 2004-030 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2004-815, as recommended and amended:
Condition added: Center tower shall have stone added.
Unanimously approved.
D. Site Development Permit 2004-816; a request of K. Hovnanian
Homes/Forecast Homes for consideration of architectural and
landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plans for Tentative
Tract Map 30092 located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and
Monroe Street.
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Steve
Chaparro and Angela Wilson, of Forecast Homes, who gave a
presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Thorns asked why there were no swimming
pools. Mr. Chaparro stated they typically do not show a pool.
Committee member Thorns asked if the developer's
responsibility was only to landscape the front yard. Mr.
Chaparro stated yes, the rear yard is the property owners.
3. Committee member Bobbitt asked if there was a HOA and what
was their responsibility. Mr. Chaparro explained. Committee
Member Bobbitt stated the Phoenix should be planted away
from any traffic area. They should be nursery grown or
inspected by the landscape architect before installation. He
then asked about the retention basins.
5 14
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\10-6-04 WD.doc 6
PH C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2004
CASE NOS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-523
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848
APPLICANT/PROPERTY
OWNER: RT HUGHES CO., LLC
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY
4.02 ACRES INTO SIXTEEN LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 60 APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST
OF MADISON STREET
ENGINEER: MDS CONSULTING
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-523;
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT;
HOWEVER, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON
THE PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND GOLF COURSE (GC)/
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) AND GOLF COURSE (GC)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT LAND, ANDALUSIA AT CORAL MOUNTAIN
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA
SOUTH: VACANT LAND, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DIKE
EAST: TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISES
WEST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; DATE ORCHARDS
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Stfrpt TTM 32848.doc
BACKGROUND:
The site is vacant and located on the north side of Avenue 60, approximately 700 feet
west of Madison Street (Attachment 1). The site lies between an existing single-
family residence with a date farm and Tract Map 32201 (Choice Enterprises) approved
by the City Council on July 20, 2004.
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ±4.0 acres
into 16 single-family lots and miscellaneous lots for a private gated development. The
lots range in size between 10, 215 to 12,100 square feet. Lots A and B would be
used for storm and nuisance water retention and comprise an area 10, 430 square feet
in size. Based on ± 4.0 acres, the maximum number of lots allowed would be 16; the
maximum density allowed under the Low -Density Residential Land Use designation.
Access
Access would be taken from Avenue 60, via a private 32-foot wide roadway (curb -line
to curb -line) with a cul-de-sac street at the end of the street. The project will not have
a manned gatehouse. The gates will be operated via remote control. The entry area is
designed with a U-turn to accommodate passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into
the development. Staff requests that the entry be redesigned to accommodate
emergency access. The Fire Department requires a minimum of a twenty foot wide
right-of-way; therefore, sufficient space needs to be provided to accommodate
emergency personnel. A condition (#55) is proposed that would require a
modification to the entry.
Landscaping
Avenue 60, west of Madison Street is designated in the General Plan as a local street
with a 60-foot right-of-way. Based on this roadway designation, the required
landscape setback adjacent to Avenue 60 is ten feet. In addition to the required ten
foot landscape setback, the applicant has provided an additional thirty-five foot
retention area with additional landscaping.
Residential Units
No residential unit plans are proposed at this time. When the plans for this tract are
submitted they will be processed under the appropriate Zoning Code requirements.
This would also include review and approval of any perimeter walls and landscaping.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Stfrpt TTM 32848.doc
Historic Preservation Commission
Archaeological and Paleontological reports for this project were presented and
accepted by the Historic Preservation Committee on October 21, 2004. The applicant
has been conditioned to have an archaeologist and paleontologist on -site to monitor
the project during all grubbing, grading and trenching operations.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 29, 2004, and
mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters have
been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS
Findings to recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-523 and
approval of Tentative Tract Map 32848, can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- recommending to the City
Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment 2004-523, subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 32848, subject to Findings and
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Tentative Tract Map 32848
Prepared by:
Martin Magaria
Associate Planner
r f
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Stfrpt TTM 32848.doc I ,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
32848
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-523
APPLICANT: RT HUGHES CO,. LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23rd day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by RT Hughes Co., LLC for Environmental
Assessment 2004-523 for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ±4.0 acres into 16
single-family lots and miscellaneous lots generally located on the north side of
Avenue 60, approximately 700 feet west of Madison Street, more particularly
described as follows:
APN: 766-080-008
WHEREAS,
said Environmental
Assessment has complied with the
requirements and rules
to implement the
California Environmental
Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970, as
amended (Resolution 83-63), in
that Environmental
Assessment 2004-523
was prepared and
determined that
although the project
could have a significant
adverse effect on
the environment,
mitigation measures
will be imposed on the
project that will reduce impacts to
less than significant
levels; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
make the following findings to justify recommending to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the project site has been conditioned to
mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant
levels.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-523
RT Hughes Co., LLC
November 23, 2004
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any
wildlife resources on the site.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than
significant levels as identified in the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project in that the site will be developed
consistent with the density designated under the General Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which
would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
will be imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-
523 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Reso EA TTM 32848.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-523
RT Hughes Co., LLC
November 23, 2004
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2004-523 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file
in the Community Development Department and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2004-523 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23'd 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
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Reso EA TTM 32848.doc
Environmental Assessment 2004-523
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32848
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: North side of Avenue 60, approximately 700 feet west of Madison Street.
APN: 766-080-008
5. Project sponsor's name and address: RT Hughes Co., LLC
78900 Avenue 47, Suite 201
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning Designation: Low Density
Residential Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
A Tentative Tract Map to divide 4.02 acres into 16 single family lots and miscellaneous lots
for landscaping/retention, and streets. The proposed tract would result in a single cul-de-sac
access road from Avenue 60, access all 16 lots.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant desert lands, scattered single family residential (Low Density Residential, )
South: Avenue 60, Vacant desert lands (Low Density Residential, Open Space)
West: Agricultural, Low Density Residential
East: Vacant desert lands (approved Tract 32201)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
/ Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
riUtilities
r-1Mandatory
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
November 8, 2004
Date
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVH, 'Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. r,, ,C.,
-3-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
I I
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Avenue 60 is not designated an Image Corridor in the General Plan. The site is relatively
flat, and located in an area of the City which does not have significant physical features.
The BOR levee is located southwesterly of the site. Views of the Coral Mountains are
available to the west of the property. The development of single family residential homes
on the subject property is limited in the Zoning Ordinance to one and two stories in
height. The proposed lots will be a minimum of 10,215, and generally exceed this size.
There will be only limited building coverage on the lots from single family development.
The proposed project will not result insignificant aesthetic impacts to surrounding lands.
The primary source of light and glare upon buildout of the site will be from automobile
headlights and landscaping lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow
lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not be significant.
'I
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The project site is vacant land, and most lands surrounding it are vacant desert lands.
Lands on the west are in agriculture with a single-family residence, in an area of about 5
acres in size. The site does not have any Williamson Act contracts on the land. Other
agricultural activities occur further east, past Monroe Street. Country club development
occurs at the southeast and northeast corners of Madison and Avenue 60. The site is in an
area experiencing urbanization, and is not of a viable size for long term agriculture.
Impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be negligible.
w r)
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) It is expected that vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will be the most
significant generators of air pollutants. The proposed project will result in 16 single
family homes, which have the potential to generate up to 153 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, e Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached.
-7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(hounds per dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
153 x 15 = 2,295
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 206.55 5,370.30 1,101.60 - 22.95 22.95
Pounds at 50 mph 0.46 11.85 2.43 - 0.05 0.05
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs /day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 153 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 106.1 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. A 6 foot perimeter block wall is proposed.
The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of
any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be
mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
-8-
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaping on the Avenue 60 parkway shall be installed immediately following
project precise grading, as will the project's perimeter wall.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and will not result in objectionable odors, nor
will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
-9-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General
Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 f)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
w t:
-10-
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site does not occur in an area of potential habitat for species of
concern in the General Plan. The site is only sparsely vegetated, and does not include
large trees. The site is located immediately east of disturbed agricultural lands. As an
isolated, and relatively small parcel, the site provides limited, and low quality habitat for
sensitive biological resources. There is no riparian or wetland habitat on the property.
The project site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Impacts to biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
-11-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
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 Sec. 15064.5? (Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey... CRM TECH,
October 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5?
(Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey ... CRM TECH,
October 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (Paleontological Resources
Assessment ... CRM TECH, October 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resources analysis was completed for the proposed project site 2. The analysis
included both records searches and on -site investigation. The on site survey identified
three isolates on the site. The study found that although limited resources were identified
on the site, the high number of resources previously identified on lands surrounding the
project site led to a potential for buried resources on the site. Should these resources be
uncovered during project grading, impacts could be significant. In order to mitigate this
potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and
grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities
on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the first house on the project site.
V. c) A paleontological survey was prepared for the proposed project site 3. The study found
that the project site is within the historic lake bed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study
further found mollusk shells on the project site. Development of the site could result in
2 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Tentative Tract Map 32848," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2004
3 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Tentative Tract Map 32848," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2004. a
-12-
significant impacts to paleontological resources without mitigation. In order to assure that
these potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. A surface collection of mollusks shall be completed prior to initiation of any earth
moving activity on the project site.
2. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching
activities in areas of undisturbed lakebed soils. The paleontologist shall be
empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate
potential resources. The paleontologist shall be required to submit to the
Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report
on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
Y tw
-13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. The homes to be built on the site will be required to meet the City's and the
State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements
for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This
-14-
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than
significant level.
Depending on the depth to groundwater, the project site is located in an area subject to
liquefaction. Special construction methods may need to be implemented to mitigate the
liquefaction hazards, if they occur. In order to assure that this potential impact is
mitigated to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to the
City Engineer, for review and approval, a liquefaction study which determines
whether the project will be subject to liquefaction. Any recommendations made in
the study shall be implemented in project construction.
The proposed project is not located in an area subject to rockfall or landslides. The site
does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to connect to the
CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed.
The site is located in an area of moderate blow sand potential. The mitigation measures
included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated
with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
-15-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? ("Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems
Southwest, October 2004)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? ("Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems
Southwest, October 2004)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
-16-
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VH. a)-h) The construction of 16 homes on the subject site will not have an impact on hazards and
hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs
through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous
substances generated in the home.
A Phase I environmental assessment was completed for the subject property4. It found
that although trash and other debris are located on the site, there is no evidence of
hazardous materials in the site soils. The site is not on the County list of sites which have
had issues with hazardous materials. The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air
strip.
Impacts are expected to be negligible.
4 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, October 2004
-17-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIR. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. 1II-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
ray
-18-
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use for residential use and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water
Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate
growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water
conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of
water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within
the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring
that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed project
includes retention basins immediately north of Avenue 60 to accommodate project flows.
The City Engineer will review final plans and hydrology analysis to assure that these
basins are sufficient to adequately retain water, prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Impacts associated with storm water drainage are therefore not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and is
consistent with this designation.
The project site is not within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-3 Zone, and consists primarily of coarse
sands. The site is located in a residential area of the City, and is not considered suitable
for mineral resources.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p.
111 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The project site is located in an area which is currently very quiet, and which will
continue to experience limited noise levels in the future. The project will be surrounded
by a block wall, which will reduce noise levels on the site. Noise levels on Avenue 60 in
this area of the City are not expected to exceed the City's standards, because of the
limited traffic generated in this area.
-22-
Noise will be generated during project construction. There are no sensitive receptors
located adjacent to the project site. The development of the site will be limited to hours
prescribed in the Municipal Code.
Impacts associated with noise at the site are expected to be less than significant.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The construction of 16 homes will not induce substantial population growth. The site is
currently vacant, and no one will be displaced. Impacts associated with population and
housing are expected to be negligible.
-24-
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.)
XIH. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general
government. The project will be required to pay development impact fee and mandated
school fees and park in lieu fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to
reduce the impacts to those services.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation
facilities throughout the City.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 32848)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TTM 32848)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 32848)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The development of the 16 homes will generate about 153 daily trips. The project is
consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and was therefore analysed
as part of the General Plan EIR. The traffic on Avenue 60 at buildout of the General Plan
was expected to remain at acceptable levels of service in that analysis. Impacts associated
J,
-27-
with traffic are expected to be less than significant. The project does not include
inadequate parking or unsafe designs. Overall impacts to traffic are expected to be less
than significant.
-28-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-29-
XVI. a)-g) 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.
-) s
-30-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has the potential to impact cultural and paleontologic resources. These impacts
have been mitigated above to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal
of the General Plan.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
-31-
XVH. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and the site
will generate PM10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to
reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-32-
i
0
0
a
.k
0
0
Q
O
b
o
rA
a�
00
o
z
o
a
W
••
�zab
O rO
IZ
iO..aU
o00
adaa
3d
1
1
y
J
00
N
M
�
o
�
�
a
U
�••�
H
N
�
O
o
H
Z
H
N
fy
O�
W
py
A
U
W
d
75
Q
A
U pq
�WA
�WUW
OU
o
0
7w
�
U
U
o cl
a�
a�
CA
to
on
Cd
b
u
00
F"
c
W
to
o
o
`°
O En O O cn
ou
on
aJ
to
w�
V]
U
'
to
�,
to
L+
9
.,
U
U
U Q
0A
00
~
OU
.ti
�
a�
'C7
M
O N
O
.14
U
N ~
M
Cd
O
dcud
c
y
�
a s
v
N
b
°n.
c
a,cod
onto
E•�
►.
> �.
b
y
Q '+�•
N
bA
U
cd V1
cC
O ccd
q
A
d�
qo
$
\�
QQ
H
S
to
5
d
A
k
$
3
c
q
/
#
�
cl
&
R
Q
�
/
2U
k
W
®
o
�
d
rA
m
&
k
§2
§d
/
/
.
§ 7
2/d
/a
0-4/2
2§
ƒ
k
&
'�./
4.
2k
/
kk
�Cd
k
�
/ƒ
— q
C,3cn
$ �
G %
d •§
dq
M «
53
§ U
deb
w
A
\�
0
-
KQ
\/
k
�
W
H
�
�
k �
k
o
§
A
§
�
�
cd
R
U
k
■
is
w
W
�
U
/
§
d°
0
k/2
'
k�k
ƒ
�k�
g
�
0
�
k
�
�
A 2
/®
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 TO SUBDIVIDE ± 4.0
ACRES INTO 16 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848
APPLICANT: RT HUGHES CO., LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23'd day of November 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by RT Hughes Co, LLC, to subdivide ±4.0 acres into
16 single family lots and miscellaneous lots, generally located on the north side of
Avenue 60, approximately 700 feet west of Madison Street, more particularly
described as follows:
APNs: 766-080-008
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 32848 has complied with the
requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental
Assessment 2004-523 was prepared and determined that although the project
could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures
will be imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant
levels; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts has
been recommended for approval; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend to
the City Council approval of said Tentative Tract Map 32848:
1. The proposed tract map will be consistent with the City of La Quinta General
Plan in that the property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) which
allows single-family residential uses.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision will be consistent with
the City of La Quinta General Plan in that all streets and improvements in the
proposed project will conform to the General Plan policies and programs.
Access for the land uses on the site will be provided from an existing street in
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Reso TTM 32848 Hughes.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32848
R T Hughes Co, LLC
November 23, 2004
the immediate area. The density and design for the tract will comply with the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
3. The design of the proposed subdivision and improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife,
or their habitat in that, the City of La Quinta Community Development
Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2004-523, and based
upon this assessment, the project may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment; however, mitigation measures will be imposed on the project to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The subject site is physically
suitable for the proposed land division, and currently development exists to the
west of the site and grading has taken place on the east side of the site, which
has reduced the amount of habitat suitable for any fish or wildlife.
4. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems in that the applicant will be conditioned
to meet all applicable requirements of the City of La Quinta to provide a safe
environment for the public.
5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision in that there is an existing street that
will provide direct access to the site. The required easements will provide
access to the site or support necessary for infrastructure improvements and
maintenance for the proposed project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Tentative Tract Map;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 32848 to the
City Council, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of November, 2004, by
the following vote, to wit:
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Reso TTM 32848 Hughes.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32848
RT Hughes Co, LLC
November 23, 2004
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC Reso TTM 32848 Hughes.doc .-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 — R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative
Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall
comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410
through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La
Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web
Site at www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies:
Fire Marshal
Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• SCAQMD Coachella Valley
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
ea
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the
applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of
Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit
by the City.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean
Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water
Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less
than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project
that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall
be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan
("SWPPP").
The applicant or design professional can obtain the California
Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at
www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation.
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including
acceptance of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall
be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed
and accepted by the City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street
right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this
development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Avenue 60 (Avenue 60 (Local Street, 60' ROW) — The standard
30 feet from the centerline of Avenue 60 for a total 60-foot
ultimate developed right of way.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street
right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for
this development include:
a. Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow
line shall have a travel width of 32 feet with parking restricted to one
side, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents
and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing
enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's
shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation.
b. CUL DE SACS - the cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on
the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as
shown on the tentative map.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right
and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the
approved construction plans.
12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right
and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the
approved construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal
packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite
street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following
design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment
including lane widths, any left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop
turnout(s), if required. The geometric layout shall be accompanied with
sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length
of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of
way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback
requirement.
13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary
prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the
applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written
request by the City.
PAReports - PC\1 1-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
14. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide
public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private
streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the
express written approval of IID.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
16. Direct vehicular access to Avenue 60 from lots with frontage along Avenue
60 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative
tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The
vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative
Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement
is approved by the City Engineer.
19. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish
accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's
map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files
shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a
basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in
a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept a raster -image file of such Final Map. The Final Map shall be of a 1 "
= 40' scale.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or
licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
20. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with
the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
21. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the 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: A through D shall be submitted concurrently.
E. Off -Site Street Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal,
1 " = 4' Vertical
F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal
The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan
sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk,
mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
e (x
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
G. 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.
H. 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.
22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes
for elements of construction on the Public Works Online Engineering Library
at:
http://www.la-guinta.org/publicworks/tractl/z onlinelibrary/0 intropage.htm.
23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all
approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City
Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in
order to reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD
format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the
City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
24. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and
off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a
fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA")
guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of
its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be
required by the City.
25. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and
between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of
guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative
Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement
Security), LQMC.
26. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal
of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the
proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey
monumentation.
27. 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.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall
also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the
Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the
applicant's detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
28. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development,
or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the
City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final
building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of
the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements), LQMC.
30. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other
purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City
Engineer.
31. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter
6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge
permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc F,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the
Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils
engineer, or by an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been
prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in
an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive
Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading
permit.
32. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded,
undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or
stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the
Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
33. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have
undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section
9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement.
The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback
area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape
lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The
maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed
4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (61 of the curb,
otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1.
All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and
one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
34. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City
Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the
tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed
elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval.
35. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one
foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments.
36. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
adjoining properties and the lots within this development.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns,
maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade
differential.
37. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of
the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the
elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall
submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial
conformance finding review.
38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant
shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified
engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if
any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad
soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if
submitted at different times.
39. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard
Regulations), LQMC. If any portion of any proposed building lot in the
development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on
the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to
ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level
of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95%
Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are
so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by
FEMA, that the above conditions have been met.
r)RAwA(;F
40. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basins to comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No.
97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year
storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved
C:,; 0
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
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.
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.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
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.
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
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
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.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 60 (Local Road, 60' R/W):
a) Widen the north side of the street along all frontage
adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate
width on the north side as requirements of these
conditions. The north curb face shall be located twenty
(20') north of the centerline.
Other required improvements in the Avenue 60 right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a. All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b. 5-foot wide sidewalk with landscaping provided between
the curb and the sidewalk as approved by the Community
Development and the Engineering Departments.
C. An additional street widening along all frontage adjacent
to the Tentative Map boundary of fourteen feet (14')
south of the centerline to accommodate east bound
traffic.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Lot "C" - Construct 32-foot wide travel width as shown on the
tentative map measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow
line, provided parking is restricted to one side and there is
adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the
applicant makes provisions for perpetual enforcement of the
restrictions.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
2) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located
within the curb return and away from the intersection when
possible.
3) Signs shall be posted with CC&Rs in place to designated the
side of the street where parking is prohibited.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Private Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed according to the lay -out
shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater
at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading
plan.
55. All gated entries shall provide for three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street;
and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit
at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do
not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around
(minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated
entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry,
one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two
travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or
as approved by the Fire Department. Additionally, 20 feet of total paved
roadway surface shall be provided on the egress gate.
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:
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" 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:
Primary Entry (Avenue 60): All turn movements are permitted.
59. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs
and sidewalks.
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. Off site street improvements shall be in place prior to occupancy of the 4th
residence.
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
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
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 drought tolerant landscaping in the required
setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas.
65. Drought Tolerant landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and
setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped
by a licensed landscape architect.
66. The applicant shall submit the drought tolerant landscape plans for approval
by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking
by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed
by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of 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.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
68. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that
meet with the approval of the City Engineer.
69. 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.
70. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
PAReports - PC\1 1-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
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.
71. 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
72. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
73. 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
74. 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.
75. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
76. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures in the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan attached to the Environmental Assessment for this project.
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32848 - R T HUGHES CO., LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
77. Any residential unit models for this tract shall require a Site Development
Permit to be processed under the appropriate Zoning Code requirements.
Said Site Development Permit shall also include all perimeter walls and
landscaping.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\RT Hughes TTM 32848\PC COA TTM 322848.doc
ATTACH M E N1
SITE LOCATION MAP
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2004
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-522
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32397
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2► CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 28.43
ACRES INTO 74 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
LOCATION: 47-555 WASHINGTON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-522 WAS
PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 32397 IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970,
AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, WITH
MITIGATION MEASURES THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT;
THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE
CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSIDERATION
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SURROUNDING
ZONING: NORTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SOUTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
EAST:
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)/ OPEN
SPACE (OS)
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Hornes\PC staff rpt.TT32397.doc
BACKGROUND:
This site, on the west side of Washington Street north of Laguna De La Paz, was the
location for the La Quinta Arts Foundation facility approved by the City Council by
Specific Plan 2000-042 on June 6, 2000 (Attachment 1). The site has been graded
and improved with festival grounds, driveways, lighting and a parking lot.
Applicant Request
Tentative Tract 32397
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 28.43 acre site into 74 single-family
residential lots (Attachment 2). The existing RL zoning on the property requires a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. All lots are consistent with this requirement.
Proposed residential lot sizes range from 9,800 to 23,400 square feet. All residential
lots are proposed to have driveway access from 36-foot width internal private streets.
Access into the property is proposed at approximately the mid -point of the property on
Washington Street with right -in and right -out turning movements. The Entry Drive is
proposed to have a 12 foot landscaped median with 18 foot wide drive lanes.
The applicant has provided cross sections illustrating the view of the proposed project
from the mid -point on Washington Street, and three pads at Laguna de La Paz. The
applicant proposes to re -grade the site to accommodate the project with a 23 foot rise
in elevation from the Washington Street curb to lot 40; and proposing pad heights
from 2-7 foot higher than adjacent existing pads to the south. The proposed grades
allow site drainage. The second cross section illustrates the view from three pads at
Laguna de La Paz with adjacent one-story, 22 foot in height dwelling units and 10-25
foot building setbacks from the south property line and, existing pad heights, dwelling
unit locations and heights for three units at Laguna de La Paz.
Washington Street is designated an Augmented Major Arterial and Image Corridor in
the General Plan. Although no additional street widening is required, a 66 foot half
street right-of-way is needed. The Zoning Code restricts the maximum structure
height to 22 feet for all buildings within 150 feet of any General Plan designated Image
Corridor.
The applicant proposes a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover with earth
mounding, synthetic rocks, and a perimeter retaining wall. The landscape palette
includes Mexican fan palms, Acacias, Palo Verde, Desert Willow, Ironwood, mesquite,
and Smoke trees.
The applicant is proposing a meandering landscape setback (average 20 foot) adjacent
to Washington Street with a meandering wall and sidewalk adjacent to proposed
retention areas located inside the gated community. The proposed wall functions as a
'fl
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC staff rpt.TT32397.doc
retaining wall as well as a privacy and noise barrier wall. The proposed entry design
into the proposed project makes a dramatic and unique statement with the use of lush
landscaping, earth mounding, and synthetic rocks as high as 20 feet with transponder
activated metal gates for vehicle access
A homeowners' association will be formed to maintain retention basins, common
landscape areas, private roads, and perimeter landscaping.
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW:
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 3, 2004 (Attachment 3).
The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2004-035 recommending approval of the
Washington Street preliminary landscaping and entry feature.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 12, 2004. All
property owners within 500 feet of the entire development were mailed a copy of the
public notice.
Public Agency Review
The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public
agencies on September 21, 2004. Agency comments received have been made a part
of the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The applicant's request to subdivide 28.43 acres of land into 74 residential lots is
consistent with the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance provided the
recommended Conditions of Approval are met. Findings necessary to approve this
request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City
Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
for Environmental Assessment 2004-522; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 32397, subject to attached Findings
and Conditions of Approval.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC staffrpt.TT32397.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tentative Tract 32397 and Cross Section Exhibits
3. Washington Street preliminary landscaping and entry feature
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC staffrpt.TT32397.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32397
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-522
APPLICANT: CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
23d day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
of Canyon Ridge L.L.C. for certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-522 for
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 32225, referred to as the "Project" for the subdivision of
28.43 acres into 74 residential lots, generally, located at 47-555 Washington Street
and more particularly described as:
A.P.N: 643-090-024, and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.
seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the
151h day of November, 2004 to the Riverside County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on November 12th, 2004, such notice was also mailed to all landowners
within 500 feet of the Project Site, and all public entities entitled to such notice; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following findings recommending to the City Council certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation
procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC RESO EA 2004-522 Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-522
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted: November 23, 2004
Page 2
the Project, and based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon,
and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, that there could be a
significant environmental effect resulting from this project; however, the
mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to less than significant. The
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the Project and or made part of the approval of the project and
these measures will mitigate any potential significant effect.
2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-522.
3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history, or prehistory.
4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends.
5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental
Assessment.
6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have
been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC RESO EA 2004-522 Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-522
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted: November 23, 2004
Page 3
8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the Planning Commission.
10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the Planning Commission decision is based upon is in the La Quinta City
Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253.
11. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during
Project implementation.
12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project
has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish
and Game Code § 711.2.
13. The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment
2004-522 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community
Development Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of November, 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC RESO EA 2004-522 Reso.doc 01
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-522
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted: November 23, 2004
Page 4
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC RESO EA 2004-522 Reso.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
2
C.
0
E
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32397
Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Fred Baker
760-777-7125
Project location: Northwest corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48 (extended) APN:
643-090-024
Project sponsor's name and address: Canyon Ridge LLC
76061 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
Residential
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Tentative Tract Map proposes to subdivide 28.43 acres into 74 single family residential
lots of at least 9,800 square feet, as well as lettered lots for streets, landscaping and retention.
The site will be accessed from Washington Street, with a primary drive in the southern third of
the site, and a secondary street at the northern boundary of the site.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant desert lands, parking lot and St. Francis of Assisi Church (Low Density
Residential, )
South: Existing single family residential in Laguna de la Paz (Low Density Residential)
West: Vacant desert lands, hillside (Open Space)
East: Washington Street, Vacant partially improved lands (Community Commercial)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
We
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Systems
]DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, 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.
zoo
Sigmiur Date
-2- to
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
0 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- 11.
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
112
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
L (Application materials)
I. a)-d) Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. As such,
special landscaping and setback requirements will be applied to the project site. The
proposed single family residential development will generate single and two story single
family homes, some of which will be located on a knoll in the northern portion of the site.
The scale of single family homes in this area will not impact views of the adjacent hillsides,
and will have a minimal impact on viewsheds in the area. There are no rock outcroppings
or other natural features in the vicinity of the project site, other than the Santa Rosa
mountains. Impacts associated with buildout of the project site will be less than significant.
The primary source of light and glare upon buildout of the site will be from automobile
headlights and landscaping lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow
lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not be significant.
-5- 1
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Il. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
( General flan Land Use Map)
I1. a)-c) The project site is located in an urbanized section of the City, and is not located near
agricultural land uses. The closest agricultural lands are several miles to the south and east
of the site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site, and the zoning of the
property is Low Density Residential. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources
associated with the proposed project.
W
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? (SCAQIM CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CF?QA 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 Vallee)
i
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The proposed project will result in 74 single family homes, which have the potential to
generate up to 708 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, 6t' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached.
-7-
i 1. 15
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Dounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip
Total
Total. No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Length (miles)
miles/day
708
x
15
=
10,620
PM10
PM10
PM10
Pollutant ROC
CO
NOX Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 955.80
24,850.80
5,097.60 -
106.20
106.20
Pounds at 50 mph 2.11
54.86
11.25 -
0.23
0.23
SCAQMD Threshold
(Ibs./day) 75
550
100
150
Assumes 708 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 dailv thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization,
access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. The site has been partially
developed, including a decomposed granite parking area, and turfed display areas. The
removal of these facilities will generate particulate matter as well. Under mass grading
conditions, the 28.43 acres could generate up to 750.6 pounds of dust per day. The
existing parking areas are considerably below the grade of the finished pads for the
proposed project. Fill will therefore be required to bring these areas to ultimate grade.
This has the potential to generate fugitive dust. 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.
-9- 16
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.
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.
Once unloaded, fill shall be watered regularly to assure that blowing dust is kept to
a minimum.
6. No stockpiling shall be permitted. Imported fill shall be immediately distributed on
the site.
7. No imported fill shall be brought to the site during wind events exceeding 25 miles
per hour.
8. 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.
9. 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.
6. 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.
7. Landscaping on Washington Street shall be installed immediately following project
precise grading, as will the project's perimeter wall.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and will not result in objectionable odors, nor
will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
}. 17
Potentially
Less Than
i
Less Than No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 tY.)
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? ("Biological
Assessment..." James Cornett, 2000)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? ("Biological Assessment... " James
Cornett, 2000)
r
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? ('Biological
Assessment... " James Cornett, 2000)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (`Biological Assessment... " James
Cornett, 2000)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X j
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
-10- 18
FJVff:A, p. 79 1Y) j
L
I'V. a)-f) Biological resource analysis was conducted for the previously approved La Quinta Arts
Foundation project2. This analysis, combined with consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, resulted in a series of
mitigation measures in association with the project's adjacency to the Santa Rosa
mountains, which are considered part of the critical habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn
Sheep, for which a Recovery Plan has been adopted.
The proposed project does not propose the construction of homes on the hillsides. The
construction of facilities for drainage and rockfall hazards along the western property line
may require excavation and/or blasting above the toe of slope, which has a potential to
impact bighorn sheep. In order to assure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant
level, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
No blasting, ripping or excavation shall be permitted above the toe of slope, as
defined in the La Quinta Municipal Code, between January 1 and June 15 of any
year.
2. The Homeowners' Association (HOA) for the proposed project shall monitor the
project site any signs that bighorn sheep are entering the site. The HOA shall
request a list of indicators used to identify sheep presence from DFG prior to
grading of the site. The HOA shall take steps to ensure that any observations of
bighorn sheep on or near the project site are reported to DFG and the City
immediately. If information suggests that bighorn sheep are entering the project
site, the HOA shall construct, at its expense, an 8-foot fence between the
development and the hillside. The fence shall not contain gaps of greater than 1 I
centimeters (4.3 inches). The Foundation shall notify DFG immediately upon
receipt of the information suggesting that bighorn sheep are entering onto the
project site, and seek any further guidance DFG has to offer regarding the
construction of the fence. The fence shall be constructed within three months of
the receipt of information suggesting that bighorn sheep are entering onto the
project site. If requested to do so by DFG, the HOA shall, at its expense,
construct temporary fencing to the specifications of DFG to prevent bighorn sheep
from entering the project site pending construction of the fence. Any and all
fencing constructed will be subject to the City's Hillside Conservation Overlay
District.
3. The project developer shall submit a plan, approved by a biologist, which
demonstrates that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers used on the
site will not be harmful wildlife.
4. All exterior lighting shall be aimed away from the hillside.
5. The project landscaping plan will not expose wildlife to toxic materials. All exotic
or toxic plans, such as Oleander and Prunis, and plants which are known to invade
or degrade bighorn sheep habitat, such as tamarisk, fountain grass, shall be strictly
prohibited. The landscape plan shall be approved by a certified biologist, which
approval shall state that the proposed landscape materials are not known to be
2 "Biological assessment and Impact analysis of the proposed La Quinta arts Foundation Center," prepared by James W.
Cornett, April 1999 and 2000.
-1
harmful to wildlife. Prohibited plant materials shall be included in the CC&Rs and
provided to each homeowner adjacent to the hillside.
6. The project proponent and HOA shall design its project so as not to facilitate
persons to enter onto the hillsides from the project site. To the extent that any
portion of the project site begins to be used by persons to enter into the hillsides,
the HOA shall post notices discouraging such use.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to biological
resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.
20
-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? ("Archaeological
Investigations... " ASM Affiliates, 2000)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5?
('Archaeological Investigations..." ASM
Affiliates, 2000)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan N4EA, Exhibit
5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) Two cultural resource investigations were conducted for the project site'. The first
consisted of a site investigation and report, which recorded a potentially significant site.
and recommended further analysis. The second consisted of an on -site excavation of the
recorded site. The project site includes three previously recorded sites, and one site
recorded during the first site survey in 1998. Testing and data recovery had previously
been completed on the three previously recorded sites in 1991. The occurrence of
multiple mesquite hummocks makes it likely that additional resources are located on site,
and careful grading and on -site monitoring were recommended in the first study. The
second study, completed to report on the testing and data recovery at CA-RIV-6214.
This process concluded that the site is not significant beyond the recovery performed for
the study. Because there have been previously deeply buried sites found in this area under
sand dunes, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving or
excavating activity on the undeveloped portions of the site, especially the dune in the
northwest corner. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he or she shall be
empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the resource is properly identified
and studied. The monitor shall file a report with the City of his or her findings, including
disposition of any resource identified.
V. c) The project site is outside the traditional lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No
paleontologic resources are expected on the site.
"A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the La Quinta Arts Center Project,". and "Archaeological
Investigations of CA-RIV-6214...." prepared by ASM Affiliates, December 1998 and April 2000, respectively.
-13- n .4
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-
j
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)
iii} 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)
(1) 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
h\hibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. The homes to be built on the site will be required to meet the City's and the
State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for
seismic zones. The site has been previously developed in its eastern portion, and will
require filling. 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 the filling of the site will be completed in a manner which results in proper
compaction of the site.
1 i, 22
-14-
The proposed project is not located adjacent to an area subject to landslides and rockfall.
No development is planned, however, on the slopes of the hillsides. The project proponent
has included a rockfall barrier along the western property line to protect those homes
located immediately east of the site. Impacts from these hazards are expected to be
insignificant. 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.
!c: 23
-15-
Potentially
Less Than
i
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant I
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
!
hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
("Report of Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment," Earth Systems Southwest, October
2004).
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
`.iection 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment? ("Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems
Southwest, October 2004)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
-the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
X
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
m
24
plan? (General Plan NEA p. 95 ft)
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
c�r where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of the proposed homes will not have an impact on hazards and
hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs through
its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous substances
generated in the home. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
PU 25
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
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
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
ff:)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runofl7 (General Plan
'.EIR P. III-187 ff.)
Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
_
�-+
Fate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187
;) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use for residential use and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water
Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate
growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water
conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water
in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping
and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures and
appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring
that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The proposed project will have to convey waters coming from adjacent hillsides, as well as
on site drainage. The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The
proposed tract map includes retention basins in on the eastern property line, adjacent to
Washington Street. The City Engineer will approve the site hydrology study, to assure that
these basins are sized to accommodate the storm flows on the site.
The project proponent is also proposing the construction of a swale along the western
property line, to convey water from the hillsides to a drainage easement between lots 45
and 46, and into the project streets. This system will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer, to assure that flows are conveyed in conformance with the City's standards.
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.
' 2
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
i
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
j
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 f)
UX. a)-c) The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan. The proposed
project is consistent with this designation.
The project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and fees in place at the time that building
permits are secured will be collected.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-20-
:)i; 28
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 consists primarily of coarse
sands. The site is located in a fully urbanized area of the City, on a major roadway, and is
not considered suitable for mineral resources.
iU 29
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
i
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? ("Acoustical Analysis,"
Eilar Associates, 2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ("Acoustical
Analysis," Eilar Associates, 2004
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
("Acoustical Analysis," Eilar Associates, 2004)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
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)-f1 A noise impact study was completed for the proposed project4. The study found that the
noise levels currently on Washington Street exceed the City's standards for sensitive
receptors. Since the project is proposing residential structures, the noise levels must be
mitigated to an exterior level of 65 dBA CNEL, and the interior noise levels must not
exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The study further analysed the site plan for the proposed project,
and found that with construction of the two walls, one twenty feet from the eastern
4 "Acoustical Analysis Report Canyon Ridge," prepared by Eilar Associates. November 2004. 3
-22-
property line, and one along the eastern property line of the eastern -most lots, would
reduce the exterior noise levels for the homes in this area to the range of 58.0 to 48.8 dBA
CNEL, depending on the location. These levels are well below the City's standard, and
will assure that the residents are not significantly impacted by noise.
Noise will be generated during project construction. The proposed project is located
immediately north of the existing Laguna de la Paz. It is likely that the grading of the site
will result in noise levels which exceed the City's standards. However, since these noise
levels are temporary and short term, they can be mitigated as follows.
1. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours prescribed in the Municipal
Code.
2. All storage and staging areas, as well as equipment servicing areas, shall be located
along the northern property line of the proposed project. No storage or staging
shall be permitted adjacent to Laguna de la Paz.
3. All construction equipment shall be mufflered and adequately maintained
throughout the construction of the project.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with noise at the
site are expected to be less than significant.
-23-
31.
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
j
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 74 single family homes will not induce substantial population growth.
The site is currently partially developed but vacant, and no one will be displaced. Impacts
associated with population and housing are expected to be negligible.
�.' U 32
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than I
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
i
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 sales and property tax which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general
government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees and park in lieu
fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those
services.
� 6 33
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation
facilities throughout the City.
34
-26-
Potentially=Significantw/
Than
No
Significant
ficant
Impact
Impact
act
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.)
I
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X �
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 32397)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TTM 32397)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 32397)
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 designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan land use
map. The site could accommodate up to 114 dwelling units. 74 dwelling units are
proposed. The site will generate approximately 708 average daily trips, which are well
within the trip generation analysed in the General Plan EIR. That document found that
traffic on Washington Street at buildout of the General Plan would operate at an
acceptable level of service. Since the proposed project will generate fewer units than
35
-27-
originally envisioned, the impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be
slightly lower than previously analysed.
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. Overall impacts to
traffic are expected to be less than significant.
)16 36
-28-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
es
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.)
-T--
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
i
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
I
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.)
37
-29-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
providers.
38
-30-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has the potential to impact biological resources. These impacts have been
mitigated above to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal
of the General Plan.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and
the site will generate PM10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures
-31- J 39
to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have also been mitigated to a
Iess than significant level.
40
-32-
XVHI. 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.
The Initial Study prepared for the La Quinta Arts Foundation (EA 2000-394) was used in the
preparation of this report.
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.
�M
-33-
i
F
d
A
U pq
�AW
�W
OW
o
o
c
A
-/Farr
y
bi0
y
U
U
U
r„
cl)
v,
rn
o
4r
w
o
0
04
V
UCd
>^+
Cd
O ti O to
to
tq
to
to
to
to
c
s4 c
a Rio
A
A
Q
A
A
A
a+
o
rA
z z
°�'
At°'o
A03
Cd
a
°
°
to
°
�°
to
U
U
GQ
U A
GA
LA
N
z
O
.�
V.
4rUv
° °
to
>
°
FEn^
O
F
0
3
0
N
•��
v
o�
�
A N
3 .b
�
to
o
�,,
O
O
4.
Q,
�'io
to �
0
a
0�
o
o
b
3b
¢
�.
1
cd
Ell
H
d
A
U
pq
�A
OU
CA
bD
bA
W
x
uC)
UQx
w
�
O
c
>
't
g
d
w
arA
rA
•w
a�
O+
to
►~
N
. dcoo
'
O
z
/
F
1.4 ra
e
A
U pq
�A
av
U�
U
U
cad
A
x
�z
OO
A
�
a
b
GU
bio
o �
o �
U
t
y,
o Cd
on
cad
y �J
A
U pq
�A
a�
V
U�
o
0
0
En
co
�
U
U
U
A
Q
A
rA
Q
a
Q
ap
Q
W
on
on
oq
GC
GQ
a]
z
b
�
o
o
�CA
00
to
C
°z
�C
U°�
cd
via
EU
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 28.43 ACRES INTO A 74 LOT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
APPLICANT: CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23'd day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Canyon Ridge L.L.C. for the subdivision of approximately 28.43 acres
into 74 single-family lots plus amenity and street lots, generally located at 47-555
Washington Street and more particularly described as:
A.P.N.: 643-090-024, and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2004- 522 in accordance with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63). Based upon this Assessment, there may be a significant
adverse effect on the environment; however, mitigation measures have been imposed
on the project that will reduce the impacts to less than a significant level; therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for approval; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify
recommending approval of said Tentative Tract Map 32397:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
The project is within a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the
amended 2002 General Plan Update. Tentative Tract Map 32397 is consistent with
the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions
contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and mitigation
measures are also met pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2004-522.
B. The design, or improvement, of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
45
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC RESO RESO TT32397.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32397
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted November 23, 2004
All streets, lot density and designs and other related improvements in the project
conform to City standards. All on -site streets will be private. Access for the single-
family lots will be provided from internal streets planned under the Tentative Tract
Map.
C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife,
or their habitat.
An environmental analysis concluded that this project will not cause substantial
environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because the site is
disturbed saltbush habitat, impacted by agricultural activity and recent adjacent
roadwork. The animal species found during the survey did not identify any species of
concern. The site is disturbed and surrounded by developed areas, and its loss as
biological habitat will not be significant.
D. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public
health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State,
and Federal requirements.
E. The design of the lot, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision in that the proposed internal streets will be privately
owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned improvements
within the Tentative Tract Map.
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single-family lot. All
required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary
infrastructure improvements.
F. The design of the lot, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems in that the Fire Marshal, Sheriff's Department, and the
City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public
health conditions and the project is appropriately conditioned.
G. The design of the lots and grading improvements, including the pad elevation
differentials within the tract bare an acceptable minimum in that the tract design
preserves community acceptance and buyer satisfaction.
PAReports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC RESO RESO TT32397.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32397
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted November 23, 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract
Map 32397 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 23`d 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
M
P:\Reports - PC\11-23-2004\Foxx Homes\PC RESO RESO TT32397.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397 - CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2004
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final
Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with
the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58
(the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-
DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of
land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than
one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water
Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater
Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use
in their SWPPP preparation.
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2► Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
'AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of
project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the
City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific
plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) — The
standard 66 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total
132-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional
variable right of way dedication at the proposed primary entry measured
72 feet west of the centerline of Washington Street to accommodate
existing improvements. At a minimum, right of way requirements along
the Tentative Tract Map shall be measured 12 feet west of the existing
curb face.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS 50
':\REPORTS - P011-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall
have a 36-foot travel width where streets are double loaded. The travel width
may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, and provided there
is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant
establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the
CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to
recordation.
The applicant shall design the roadway between Lots 42 and 43 to a minimum of
32 feet. The applicant or design professional shall realign roadways for through
movement traffic especially in the north/south directional streets. Median noses
shall be adjusted to allow for such directional through movement.
The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to remove the roadway
between Lots 42 and 43 if future development to the west is not permitted. As
an option, the applicant may remove construction of the roadway in the street
improvement plan review process as approved by the City Engineer.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map
with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the
tentative map.
2) Cul de sacs shall have a minimum clearance of 15 feet from the back of
curb to any perimeter wall.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric
layout, drawn at 1 equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median
curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes,
deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be
accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the
5 A.
)AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact
the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape
setback requirement.
13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of
the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary
right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
14. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility
easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such
easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of
IID.
15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final
Map.
16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
17. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street from lots with frontage along
Washington Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the
tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The
vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
52,
'AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
19. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the
date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City
Engineer.
20. The applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the Saint Francis of Assisi
Church for perpetual access to the shared access drive at the proposed Washington
Street and Lake La Quinta Drive intersection.
FINAL MAPS
21. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map. The Final Map shall be of a 1 " = 40' scale.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
22. 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.
23. 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
53
\REPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
D. Storm Drain Plans 1 " = 40' Horizontal
NOTE: A through D shall be submitted concurrently.
E. Off -Site Street Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
Vertical
F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal
The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn
at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming
design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
G. On -Site Street Improvement/Signing & Striping Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
H. Entry Rock Fagade/Monument Plan* 1" + 20' Horizontal
* To include sufficient street improvement and existing conditions for sight distance
determination.
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.
H. 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. 5 4
'AREPORTS - P011-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top
Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building
floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
24. 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.
25. 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
26. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site
improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and
executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction
of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree
to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
27. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the
applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion
of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
28. 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.
55
,AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
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.
29. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to:
A. Construct certain off -site improvements.
B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its
costs by others.
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map.
D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others.
E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or
the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such
improvements.
30. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall
submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site
improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for
checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit
cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
56
\REPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
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.
31. 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
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,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. 57
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
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 (61 of the
curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All
unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (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.
38. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development. City Engineer may require lowering
of pads elevations along the south side and other improvements to reduce height
differences.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
39. Prior to any site grading or re -grading that will raise or lower any portion of the site
by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
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.
58
\REPORTS - P011-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
r)RAINArF
41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be
retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall
extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either
the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
42. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
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 separate infiltration system. The sand filter design shall
be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per
sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line
requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow.
43. Underground storage retention chambers design and the supporting hydrology report
shall be as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant or any successor shall
maintain the underground storage retention chambers in perpetuity.
44. 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.
45. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
59,
\REPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
49. 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.
50. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
51. Drainage swales along the mountain to the west of the property shall be reinforced
gunite treated as approved by the City Engineer. Such treatment may be required for
the Swale along the south property line as approved by the City Engineer.
UTILITIES
52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
53. 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.
54. 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.
60
\REPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
55. 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.
56. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1► Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial; 132' R/W):
a► No additional street widening is required.
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) The applicant shall reconstruct the curb returns, curb and gutter,
sidewalk and storm drain facilities along Washington Street along
the Primary Entry as shown on the tentative tract map. The
applicant shall locate all boulders and monuments at the Primary
Entry to provide adequate sight distance for ingress and egress
vehicles. At a minimum, there shall be fifteen feet of clearance
provided west of the sidewalks.
d) The applicant shall reconstruct the curb and gutter, sidewalk and
storm drain facilities along Washington Street along the portion
of the existing northerly entrance when it is abandoned and the
signalized intersection at Washington Street and Lake La Quinta
Drive is operational. The west curb face shall be forty eight feet
(48') west of the Washington Street centerline.
Prior to the above mentioned abandonment, the applicant shall
reconstruct the existing northerly entrance for emergency access
use only as approved by the City Engineer.
e) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. Reconstruct the existing 8-foot
wide meandering sidewalk at the redesigned Primary Entry and
61.
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
construct a 8-foot wide sidewalk across the existing northerly
entry when abandoned and the signalized intersection at
Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive is operational.
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) Final rock entry design shall be approved by the City Engineer
and the Community Development Director
57. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure
they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices
and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
58. The applicant shall remove and replace the existing sidewalk as needed at all
locations where it is cracked, uneven at joints, or otherwise damaged pursuant to
Streets & Highways Code Section 5610. This requirement applies to all sidewalk
located in the public right of way adjacent to the property being developed.
The applicant shall advise the HOA of its continuing obligation to maintain all
sidewalk located in the public right of way adjacent to its property in a good state of
repair pursuant to Streets & Highways Code Section 5610.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements measured gutter
flow line to gutter flow line where the residential streets are double
loaded.
2) Construct full 32-foot wide travel width improvements measured gutter
flow line to gutter flow line where the residential streets are single
loaded provided parking is restricted to one side and there is adequate
off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant makes
provisions for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions in the CC&R's.
fi
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING' COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to
recordation.
3) Construct full 28-foot wide travel width improvements measured gutter
flow line to gutter flow line where parking is prohibited and there is
adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant
makes provisions for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions in the
CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department
prior to recordation.
4) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the
curb return and away from the intersection when possible.
5) The applicant or design professional shall realign roadways for through
movement traffic especially in the north/south directional streets.
Median noses shall be adjusted to allow for such directional through
movement.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Construct constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative
map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout
shown on the rough grading plan.
2) Cut de sacs shall have a minimum clearance of 15 feet from the back of
curb to any perimeter wall.
Private Streets and Cul de Sacs shall have a porous grade paver pavement
structure as approved by the City Engineer.
D. TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON WASHINGTON STREET AT THE PROPOSED DRIVE
ACROSS LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE
1) The applicant is responsible for 25 % of the cost to design and install the
traffic signal at the Future Street Extension across Lake La Quinta Drive.
Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 25 % of the cost to
design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on site grading
permit. The security shall remain in full force and effect until the signals are
warranted. The traffic signal shall be installed within 1 year from the start of
onsite development.
63
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
59. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound
traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall
provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be
24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane
shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors
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.
60. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Augmented Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
61. 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.
62. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Primary Entry (Washington Street): Right turn movements in and out are
permitted. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited.
B. Temporary Emergency Access (Existing northerly entrance on Washington
Street): Emergency Vehicle access only. To be abandoned when the proposed
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
Street Extension is constructed and signalized intersection at Washington
Street and Lake La Quinta Drive is operational.
63. 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.
64. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
CONSTRUCTION
65. 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
66. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
67. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
68. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
69. 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.
65
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
70. 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
71. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
72. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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
76. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
77. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
rZM
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
78. 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.
79. 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 MARSHAL
80. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection
and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet
from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20
PSI. Fire hydrants are also required every 660 feet on the outside of the perimeter
walls.
81. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
82. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot outside turning radius.
83 Flag lots are not permitted for safety reasons, check lot 35.
84. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior of the first floor as measured by outside path of travel.
85. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 18 feet clear and unobstructed
width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height, and a turn
through the center divider not to exceed every 100 feet.
86. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall be
located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle
to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single
traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used.
87. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a
rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin
force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall 6 7
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
remain open until closed by the rapid entry system.
88. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval.
89. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting
and/or signs.
MISCELLANEOUS
90. All perimeter wall designs including height, color, material, design shall be reviewed
by the Architecture and Landscape Committee and the Planning Commission.
91. Proposed street name, with a minimum of two alternative names per street, shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. The street name
shall be approved prior to recordation of the map.
92. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2004-502 shall be
met.
93. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community
Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project.
94. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless
recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of Division 13 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
95. Minor lot configuration modifications required to comply with these conditions and
Fire Marshal requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department and Public Works Department.
96. Approval of production home designs and landscaping requires approval of a Site
Development permit application by the Planning Commission.
97. Within 24 hours of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, the
developer shall submit to the Community Development Department, a check made
out to the County of Riverside for $64.00 to allow filing of a Notice of Determination
for Environmental Assessment 2004-502 as required by State law.
6R
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32397
CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
98. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the developer shall meet the Parkland
Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13.48 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
99. All dwelling units shall be single story and shall not exceed 22 feet in height.
m
AREPORTS - PC\11-23-2004\FOXX HOMES\COA TT 32397.DOC
ATTACHMENT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-816
CONDITION REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TRACT
30092 (PIAZZA SERENA)
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MADISON
STREET
K. HOVNANIAN HOMES/FORECAST HOMES.
FORECAST HOMES
Staff is requesting a continuance of this item to the Planning Commission meeting of
December 14, 2004, as the revised landscape reductions did not arrive in time to
allow review of the project at this meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Move to continue consideration of the condition review of the landscape plans for
TT 30092, Piazza Serena, to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting
of December 14, 2004.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
perptsdp8161scapecont