The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 10 14 PCT-itit 4 4 Q9m& 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 OCTOBER 14, 2003 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2003-076 Beginning Minute Motion 2003-016 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of September 23, 2003. B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Item ................. CONTINUED —SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003- 777 Applicant .......... St. Francis of Assisi Location ........... 46-895 Highway Palms Drive Request ............ Consideration of a request to allow the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a 3,012 square foot Youth Center and related improvements on a .027 acre site. Action .............. No action required — application withdrawn B. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462, SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754 Applicant .......... Jefferson -Waring, LLC Location ........... Southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive Request ............ Consideration of: 1) certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and 2) review of development design guidelines and standards for a commercial shopping center; and 3) review of development plans for 50,000 square foot market, 18,432 square foot drug and retail store, 20,970 square feet of retail shops, 10,000 square foot restaurant uses, and 3,000 square foot gas station on a 10.7 acre site. Action .............. Resolution 2003-_, Resolution 2003-_, Resolution 2003- C. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2002-618, AMENDMENT #2 Applicant .......... Stamko Development Co. Location ........... South side of Highway 1 1 1, east of La Quinta Drive Request ............ Consideration of an Amendment to a planned sign program Action .............. Minute Motion 2003- D. Item ................. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-007 Applicant .......... Centex Destination Properties Location ........... Northwest of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Coachella Drive Request ............ Consideration of a Development Agreement to establish operational guidelines for a proposed 280 unit residential resort development on 44.612 PC/AGENDA acres as required by Condition #14 of City Council Resolution 2003-90 for Specific Plan 2003-065 Action .............. Resolution 2003- E. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-786 Applicant ......... Washington 1 1 1, LTD Location .......... South side of Highway 1 1 1, west of Adams Street in Washington Park Request .......... Consideration of development plans for two commercial buildings Action ............ Resolution 2003- F. Item ............... SIGN APPLICATION 2003-725 Applicant ........ Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. for McDonalds Restaurants Location ......... 78-962 Highway 111 Request .......... Consideration of a deviation from the 111 La Quinta Center Sign Program to allow non -channel letters. Action ............ Minute Motion 93- G. Item ............... SIGN APPLICATION 2003-727 Applicant ........ Paragon Signs, Inc. for Dr. Matthew Werner Location ......... East side of Washington Street, north of Omri & Boni Restaurant Request .......... Consideration of a sign program for 47-250 Washington Street Action ............ Minute Motion 93-000 H. Item ............... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-077 Applicant ........ City of La Quinta Location ......... City-wide Request .......... Consideration of an Amendment to the La Quinta Zoning Code pertaining to the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance Action ............ Resolution 2003- Item ............... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-076 Applicant ........ City of La Quinta Location ......... City-wide Request .......... Consideration of an Amendment to certain sections of the Zoning Code pertaining to front and side yard setbacks as well as home sizes within residential zones Action ............ Provide direction to staff PC/AGENDA VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vlll. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding future Planning Commission meeting dates. B. Review of City Council meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 28, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 23, 2003 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to excuse Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Director Steve Speer, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of August 12, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 16, Item 14 be corrected to read, "He recommended moving the signs along Washington Street further north". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Daniels abstaining. 2. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 29436 — Extension #2; a request of Trans -West Housing for consideration of a one year time extension to file a final map for a subdivision of 190 acres into 1269 single family lots located on the north side of Eisenhower Drive, approximately %Z mile west of Washington Street. Planning Commission Minutes September23, 2003 1. Chairman Kirk noted this item required no action and continued with the public hearing. B. Sign Application 2002-618, Amendment #2; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of an amendment to a planned sign program for the shop buildings sign regulations for the property located on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, between Adams Street and west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman 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 Tyler asked if by adding two lines and with the reduction in letter size, would the sign still be readable? Staff stated yes. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if it changed the overall square footage and staff stated no. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Russ Beckner, representing the applicant, gave an explanation of the request, and stated he was available to answer any questions. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification as to whether or not the white could be used. Staff stated it was not being eliminated, it was just allowing other colors. 7. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 8. There being no further discussion, It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to adopt Minute Motion 2003-013 approving Sign Application 2002-618, Amendment #2 as recommended. Unanimously approved. G:\bsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-23-03WD.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September23, 2003 C. Village Use Permit 2003-018; a request of Patrick and Monica Adams for consideration of a request to construct a two-story, 4,066 square foot commercial office building with one caretaker unit located at the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Mendoza. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associated 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 Tyler asked if the trees were existing and would they be retained as it appeared one would be removed. Staff stated they would be retained. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain the conditions requested by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC). Staff explained the changes requested by the ALRC. Commissioner Tyler discussed the parking issues and stated he would like to see a more definitive explanation of what the ALRC is requesting. Discussion followed regarding the ALRC requests. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Patrick Adams, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if the trees would be retained and the applicant described the landscaping plan. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if Mr. Adams had a design of the waterfall. Mr. Adams displayed a picture of the waterfall. Chairman Kirk asked if he knew the uses planned for the site. Mr. Adams stated he would be living in the upstairs and using one of the tenant spaces. He anticipates the downstairs would have no more than two tenants. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. G:\bsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-23-03WD.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September23, 2003 7. Commissioner Quill stated he likes the changes as proposed and the only issue is the type of window to be used. He would prefer the mullion windows as they are consistent with the downtown look. 8. Commissioner Daniels stated he does not agree with requiring a certain type of window. The applicant should have the option of determining his own style. 9. Commissioner Tyler agreed. 10. Chairman Kirk stated he agrees and appreciates the changes made by the applicant. A mixed use is a good addition to the Village. 11. There being no further discussion, It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-075 approving Village Use Permit 2003-018,as recommended by staff and amended by the Commission: a. Condition #10: amended to read, "Direct vehicular access from any portion of the site with frontage along Avenida Mendoza and Calle Tampico is restricted..." b. Condition #17.J.: deleted C. Condition #42.F.: amended to read, "Windows in the upper and lower building levels shall match between the upper and lower trim." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. D. Environmental Assessment 2003-479, General Plan Amendment 2003- 094, Zone Change 2003-1 15, and Tentative Tract Map 31348 - Point Happy Ranch; a request of Madison Development LLC for consideration of: 1► certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; a change in the land use and zoning designations from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Community Commercial and Open Space to Low Density Residential and Open Space; and 3► the subdivision of 37.70 acres into 75 lots for the property located at 46- 201 Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci informed the Commission about the request by the applicant to continue the item. GAbsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-23-03WD.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September23, 2003 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there was a motion to continue the project. 3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to continue the project to October 28, 2003. Unanimously approved. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2003-785; a request of Trans West for consideration of development plans for six prototype residential plans for the property located on the north side of Eisenhower Drive, west of Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff had verified the perimeter wall had been previously approved. Staff stated it had been approved. Commissioner Tyler asked why staff had not added the ALRC condition about the rock veneer matching the mountains. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated this was a statement not a condition. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Geoff McComic, the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions and gave a brief explanation of the project. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-014, approving Site Development Permit 2003-785, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None B. Sign Application 2003-720; a request of Old town La Quinta LLC for consideration of a sign program for "Old Town" located on the south side of Calle Tampico, east of Avenida Bermudas. GAbsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-23-03WD.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September23, 2003 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if the signs conform with the existing sign program. Staff stated some do, but there are some changes. Mr. Wells Marvin, the applicant, stated he was directed to submit a sign program that indicated the changes he was proposing. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the applicant was proposing more changes than staff was able to approve administratively, therefore the request is before the Commission for consideration. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2003-015, approving Sign Application 2003-720, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Mr. Wells Marvin asked that the Commission consider changing the Code in regard to building permit fees charged for signs. Staff explained this was an issue for the Building and Safety Department. X. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: 1. Discussion regarding Planning Commission meeting dates. a. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission of the Joint Meeting with the Council. b. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission's pleasure in regard to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting date of November 1 1 ", as it was a holiday and City Hall would be closed. Following discussion, it was determined to cancel the meeting unless there is a need to reschedule one. 2. There was no report of the City Council meeting of September 16, 2003. G:\bsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-23-03WD.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September23, 2003 XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 14, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California GAbsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-23-03WD.doc 7 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-777 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,912 SQUARE FOOT YOUTH CENTER AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON A .027 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: 46-895 HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE; ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 643-191-005 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SECTIONS 15302 AND 15303 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) UP TO 4 DU/AC ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL); SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL); ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CHURCH EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL); SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL); SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BACKGROUND: The applicant converted an existing home in an adjacent neighborhood into a Youth Center. The 1,500 square foot home sits on an 11,800 square foot (0.27 acres) lot and is located on Highland Palms Drive in the Singing Palms neighborhood (Attachment 1). The home was converted to a Youth Center approximately 8 years ago; however, Staff was not able to find entitlements for the Youth Center and requested that the applicant apply for a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the use. The Youth Center is used during the day for various youth classes and in a limited capacity in the evening hours for adult meetings. On July 8, 2003, this request was brought before the Planning Commission for consideration. The applicant was requesting approval of the following: 1. A Conditional Use Permit to allow a Youth Center to operate within the Low Density Residential Zoning District and, 2. A Site Development Permit to allow the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a 3,912 square foot Youth Center and related improvements. At that meeting, residents from the surrounding neighborhood raised concerns about impacts of the Youth Center in the residential neighborhood. Based on those concerns, the Planning Commission denied the Conditional Use Permit stating that the use was not compatible as noted by the comments expressed by the residents. However, the Planning Commission approved a temporary Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions in an effort to mitigate the immediate impacts to the surrounding residents and to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with the residents to address their concerns. 1. The Conditional Use Permit is granted for 90 days. 2. The hours of operation are limited to 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., seven days a week. 3. The maximum number of children present shall be limited to 30 at any given time. 4. Access to the property shall be taken from the Church parking lot. Emergency access only can be taken from Highland Palms Drive. After taking action on the temporary Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission voted to continue the Site Development Permit to the October 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, to allow the applicant time to meet with surrounding residents and redesign the project. The project is now back before the Planning Commission. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant has decided to withdraw the Site Development Permit for the Youth Center (Attachment 2). The new Pastor Monsignor, Tom Wallace, has instead decided to reside in the residence, and eliminate the use of the Youth Center. Since the Conditional Use Permit was approved on July 8, 2003, there was a fifteen day appeal period which lapsed on July 24, 2003, before the Conditional Use Permit became effective. Ninety days from this date is when the Conditional Use Permit will expire, which is October 22, 2003. The Youth Center shall cease operations within the existing residence at that time. The Youth Center will move their operations back to the church site and operate in the existing classrooms at the Pastoral Center. RECOMMENDATION: Site Development Permit 2003-777 is therefore withdrawn as requested by the applicant, and no further action is needed. Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. Letter from Brian Devlin, dated October 6, 2003. Prepared by: r j Martin Magana Associate Planner 67') it ASSESSOR'S MAP SK843 PG. /9 RivERsw couNry, cAtIF. poR E112 IVW114 SEC. 30, T55, R 7E m 8.40l81-83 Tract No. Z117 ;5 1 'ic- ATTACHMENT 617-06 100 SIEP.1.9z ATTACHMENT S . FRANCS Of ASS151 CATxOUC COMMUNtTV October 6, 2003 To: Martin Magana ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CATHOLIC CHURCH 47-225 WASHINGTON BL. LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 Voice (760) 564-1255 FAX 564-0763 In regard to our application for a Site Development Permit at 47-895 Highland Palms Drive we decided to withdraw our request for a Site Development Permit at that location. Our new Pastor Monsignor, Tom Wallace, will use this location as his residence. However, in order to be good neighbors Monsignor has authorized the Building and painting of a block wall to diminish the problem of automobile headlights. We hav also completed the trimming of the trees as per the neighbors' request. Sincerely, Brian Devlin Construction Manager St. Francis of Assisi PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462 SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: EDWARD BARKETT/JEFFERSON-WARING, LLC REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER; AND, 3) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMETN PLANS FOR: A) 50,000 SQUARE FOOT MARKET B) 18,432 SQUARE FOOT DRUG AND RETAIL STORE C) 20,970 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SHOPS D) 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT USES AND, E) 3,000 SQUARE FOOT GAS STATION LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE (APN: 604 070-003). ARCHITECT: NADEL ARCHITECTS, INC. ENGINEER: DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462; BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THEREFORE, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)/ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) BACKGROUND: This project was continued from the September 9, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to revise the site plan for the project. The project site is vacant, approximately 10.7 acres in size, and located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive (Attachment 1). The Esplanade residential subdivision is located north of the site across Fred Waring Drive. The Monticello residential subdivision is located south of the site and a public park is located immediately west of the property. East of the site, across the street, are vacant lands in the City of Indio. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a Specific Plan and Site Development Permit (Attachment 2) to construct a neighborhood commercial shopping center. The Specific Plan will establish development design standards for the commercial shopping center. The Site Development Permit is to allow the construction of the following: 1. 50,000 square foot market; 2. 18,432 square foot drug store; 3. 20,970 square feet of retail shops; 4. ± 10,000 square feet of restaurant uses; and, 5. 3,000 square feet for a gas station. Proposed buildings for pads A, B, and C will be processed under separate applications in accordance with all applicable zoning codes. It is anticipated that Pads B and C will be restaurants (with one possibly having a drive-thru) and Pad A will be a gas station. Architecture The design theme of the commercial center will be a Mediterranean style architecture including flat, hip and gable roofs with tile, varied off -set facades to break up the building massing, covered walkways and accent features such as PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc medallions, tile, color banding, textured plaster, colored stucco finishes, fabric awnings, trellises, columns with connecting arches, and decorative wrought iron. Building Heights Under Section 9.90.040 of the Zoning Code, building heights under the Neighborhood Commercial zone are restricted to 35 feet. Also, for buildings within 150 feet of a Primary Image Corridor, or a Major or Primary Arterial, are further restricted to a maximum of 22 feet in height. The intent is to reduce a project's visual impact and building mass along Major Arterial streets such as Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. The applicant is proposing building heights ranging from 18 feet to 41 feet in height. The height of the buildings within the 150 foot setback range from 18 feet to 38 feet. A portion of the building exceeding the restricted height of 22 feet are the parapet walls. The Zoning Code allows architectural features ( chimneys, towers, gables and spires) to extend 15 feet above the maximum structure height if approved as part of a Site Development Permit, or other permit. The parapet walls are not considered architectural features, therefore the Specific Plan requests heights above the maximum allowed to accommodate the parapet walls. These parapet walls will help screen roof top equipment from public view. Building and Landscape Setbacks The Zoning Code requires building and landscape setbacks of thirty (30) feet and 20 feet, respectively. Minimum building setback requirements include 30 feet from Primary Image Corridors (Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive), residential and open space districts. The buildings are set back at least 230 feet from Jefferson Street, 75 feet from Fred Waring Drive, 45 feet from the residential district and 35 feet from the open space district. Minimum landscape setback requirements include 20 feet from Primary Image Corridors and 15 feet from residential and open space districts. The applicant has provided landscape areas ranging from 20 to 50 feet along Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. Landscape areas along the residential district to the south are 15 feet in width. Landscape areas along the western boundary (Open Space district) range between six (6) and 22 feet, averaging 14 feet in width. The Specific Plan requests a varying landscape width rather than the 15 foot minimum. This still allows sufficient space to accommodate landscaping within the setback areas. PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc The conceptual landscape plan for the site consists of a wide variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers. The proposed landscaping will provide visual relief, compliment the buildings and provide an overall design that includes drought tolerant landscaping that is prevalent throughout the City. Access Vehicular access is provided to the site from four entrances. Two entries are off of Jefferson Street and two are off of Fred Waring Drive. All of the driveways have restricted access. The driveways closest to the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive are right-in/right-out only. The driveways furthest away from the same intersection are right-in/right-out/left-in only. The Zoning Code requires undivided two-way driveways be a minimum of 28 feet wide. Three of the entrances are proposed at 35 feet wide. The entrance to the far west along Fred Waring Drive is proposed at 40 feet to allow sufficient space for delivery trucks to enter and exit the site. All site entrances are proposed to have decorative paving to accent the project entries. The applicant proposes a drive-thru as part of the drug store. The drug store will be located on the northern side of the main building area and have a drive-thru. The drive-thru will be covered by a shade structure that will be integrated with the building design to match the architecture. Parking Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Code requires one (1) parking space per 250 square feet of retail space and one (1) parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant space. Based on 94,902 square feet of retail and 7,500 square feet of restaurant uses, the shopping center is required to provide a total of 455 spaces. The applicant proposes 458 spaces. Section 9.150.080, of the Zoning Code requires that buildings between 1,000 and 19,999 square feet be required to provide at least one loading berth and, buildings between 20,000 and 79,000 square feet are to provide at least two loading berths, measuring 45 feet long by 12 feet wide. The loading berths for the market and drug store are located toward the rear of the building (west elevation). The drug store is required to have at least one loading berth and the market is required to have two loading berths. The applicant has provided sufficient space to accommodate the loading berths. The loading berths for the market are sunken approximately three feet below ground level to allow easier loading and unloading of the trucks. It also reduces visual impacts of trucks from surrounding areas. PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc Staff recommends that the loading berths for the market be relocated to the northwest side of the building so as to reduce noise and lighting impacts to the residential neighborhood immediately to the south. Easements Originally, the applicant had proposed parking along the entire western boundary of the site. The project was redesigned to transfer the parking spaces along the rear of the buildings to the front. In doing so, the building was moved further back towards the rear property line. State Building Codes require a 60 foot wide "no - build" zone or easement measured perpendicular from the rear of the building. The site's property line lies 37 feet west of the rear of the main building. The 60 foot easement extends approximately 23 feet into the City's park (Attachment 3). The City needs to issue a 23 foot wide "no -build" easement (at the applicant's expense) for the benefit of the project, in order to allow the construction of the main shopping center building where it is currently proposed. Lighting Lighting for the building facades will be compatible with the building architecture and designed to be low level lighting. The parking lot light poles will be equipped with a recessed lamp and a flush lens not to exceed 18 feet in height. The applicant will be conditioned to have the lighting fixtures shielded so as to prevent light from spilling onto adjacent land uses. Grading and Drainage The site has already been mass graded during construction of the Monticello residential subdivision. Average elevations are at 45 feet above sea level. Grade elevations for the site are proposed to range between 42 feet at the southeastern portion of the site to 47 feet at the northwestern portion of the site. All grading is proposed to be balanced on -site. Stormwater run-off for the site is proposed to be directed to a number of catch basins throughout the site and conveyed to an underground retention system. All stormwater will be retained on -site without the use of above ground retention basins. The proposed landscape areas will catch some stormwater with a majority being directed to the retention system. PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc Signage The signage shown on the elevations are conceptual. The applicant will be required to submit detailed plans showing the proposed signage for the site to be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval under a Planned Sign Program. In addition, the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive is designated in the General Plan as a secondary gateway into the City. The applicant is not required to design and install a monument sign but at a minimum, has to provide an area for the sign in the future. The applicant has provided an area at the southwest corner of the intersection for the City to install such a sign in the future. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) This project was presented to the ALRC at their May 7, 2003 meeting. The Committee discussed the project and identified certain issues for consideration by the Planning Commission. These include: 1. More open spaces shall be created by the landscape architect. 2. Incorporate some decomposed granite in the planters between the vehicle overhang and the western property line. 3. Use a different type of tree that is substantial on its own for the parking lot. 4. More sensitivity be given to the western building elevation. 5. The secondary gateway sign design shall be brought back to the ALRC for review. The ALRC meeting minutes are attached for your review (Attachment 4). The applicant has addressed most of the ALRC's comments as follows: 1. The applicant provided more open spaces for pedestrian use along the front of the building. 2. No decomposed granite has been incorporated into the planters along the western property line because the applicant has removed the parking spaces and widened the landscape area. 3. The applicant proposes a Southern Live Oak tree instead of African Sumac tree for the parking lot. PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc 4. The western building elevation has been left as originally proposed. 5. No secondary gateway sign has been proposed. As mentioned earlier, the applicant is only required to provide an area for the sign in the future. Public Notice This project was originally advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 31, 2003, 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. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to adopt Resolutions approving EA 2002-462, SP 2002-062, and SDP 2002-754 can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2002-462) pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of SP 2002-062, subject to findings and conditions; and, 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of SDP 2002-754, subject to findings and conditions. PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. Specific Plan and Site Development Permit Plans 3. "No -build" Easement Plat Map 4. May 7, 2003, ALRC meeting minutes Prepared by: Martin Magana Associate Planner PC Stfrpt SDP 02-754-4.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462 APPLICANT: JEFFERSON-WARING, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 10th day of June, 24th day of June, 91h day of September, and the 14th day of October, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-462 to allow a Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center on a 10.7 acre site, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as follows: APN: 604-070-003, WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-462) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for the project, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; 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 no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-462. 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 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Environmental Assessment 2002-462 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 California history or prehistory in that the project site has already been graded due to construction of an adjacent residential subdivision. 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 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 in that they are developing as 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 have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2002- 462 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. PC RESO EA 02 462.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Environmental Assessment 2002-462 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2002-462 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 2002-462 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of October, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RESO EA 02 462.doc Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2002-062, Site Development Permit 2002-754 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: Southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive APN: 604-070-003 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jefferson -Waring, LLC Edward Barkett 2800 W. March Lane, Suite 250 Stockton, CA 95219 6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood 7. Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Commercial 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project site consists of 10.7 acres at the southwestern corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The proposed Specific Plan is required to establish the design standards and guidelines for a commercial development of up to 116,500 square feet on a 10.7 acre site. The site plan within the Specific Plan shows a 102,402 square foot project, consisting of seven building areas. The project will include a 50,000 square foot supermarket, an 18,500 square foot drugstore with drive -through, in -line stores associated with supermarket and drugstore, a gasoline service station at the corner of Jefferson and Fred Waring, two 5,000 square foot free-standing buildings, a 7,200 square foot freestanding building, ancillary facilities and associated parking. The Site Development Permit implements the Specific Plan, and allows the construction of the shopping center. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Fred Waring Drive, Low Density Residential development South: Low Density Residential development West: City Park, Low Density Residential development East: Vacant desert lands in the City of Indio -1- 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic ri Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: z!ignatum -ffect on the -ed. effect on the ;ause revisions in the A MITIGATED . the environment, and ant impact" or lent, but at least one rsuant to applicable es based on the earlier L IMPACT REPORT addressed. effect on the )een analyzed irsuant to applicable at earlier EIR or i measures that are Date` -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVH, "Earlier Analyses," maybe 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 -4- agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a), b), c) Both Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive are designated as Primary Image Corridors in the General Plan. In addition, the intersection is designated for a Secondary Gateway Treatment. Since the location is a major entry to the City both from City streets and from the I-10 Interstate freeway, its aesthetic value is significant. The Image Corridors in the City were established to preserve aesthetics, reduce urban visual clutter, and improve the quality of life in the City. The proposed Specific Plan meets the standards for height and setbacks in Image Corridors, and impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. The west elevation, which represents the back of the market, drug store and in -line shops, faces a City park and residential development beyond. This side of the buildings, as the "back of house," shows no significant architectural detail or articulation to relieve the monotony and improve the aesthetic appearance of the structure from a public place. The aesthetics can be improved through the addition of cornices, pop -outs, and other details which will provide some architectural interest. Without mitigation, these potential impacts could be significant. -5- In order to reduce aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. The west elevation (per Figure 13 of the Specific Plan) shall be redesigned to add building articulation, to include "pop outs" and moldings at regular intervals, to relieve the architectural monotony of the current design. 2. The same level of architectural detail applied to the facade of each building or series of buildings shall be applied to each elevation. Particular care shall be taken with all building elevations with exposure on either Jefferson Street or Fred Waring Drive. I. d) Lighting within the proposed project will include parking lot and security lighting. The City's standards will apply, which require that all light be contained within the property on which it is located. No spillage onto adjacent residential and park lands will be permitted. These standards will ensure that impacts associated with on -site lighting are mitigated to a less than significant level. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (No ag. land in proximity to project site) II. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert lands, which has been previously graded. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the parcel. The proposed project will have no impact on 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) The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not generate emissions in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria pollutants (see below) and therefore will not obstruct implementation of applicable air quality management plans. III. b) & c) The proposed project will impact air quality from two primary sources: the generation of vehicular traffic to and from the site; and the generation of dust during the construction process. Both these potential impacts are addressed below. The proposed project will result in the generation of 2,713 trips at buildout `. Based on this trip generation, the SCAQMD has established formulas to calculate emissions, which are shown in the Table below. "Jefferson Street/Fred Waring Drive Intersection Analysis," letter report, prepared by urban Crossroads, February, 2003. -7- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total Length (miles) miles/day 2,713 x 10 = 27,130 Pollutant ROC CO NOX PM10 PM10 PM10 Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 5.39 140.14 28.75 - 0.60 0.60 SCAQMD Threshold 75 550 100 150 (lbs /day) Assumes 2,713 trips/day and average trip length of 10 miles. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75 F, light duty autos, catalytic. The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution from the proposed project are not expected to be significant. The construction of the proposed project will generate dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The site is also in a very severe wind hazard area (General Plan Exhibit 8.4), which increases the potential for the generation of PM10 as a result of grading activities at the site. The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 10.7 acres of land. This has the potential to generate 282.48 pounds of fugitive dust per day during the grading of the site. Since the site will be mass graded and then built in phases, potential also exists for on -going fugitive dust for unbuilt areas. The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and as an on -going issue. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include the following control measures. 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 -8- The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street shall be installed immediately upon completion of precise grading of the first phase of development. 8. All portions of the site not part of the first phase of development on the site shall be landscaped or chemically stabilized within 30 days of the termination of mass grading on the site. The project proponent shall submit a landscape or stabilization plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading permit on the site. As development occurs, only that building area or pad location shall be disturbed. Phases not yet under construction shall be maintained in a stabilized or landscaped condition until constructed upon. 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 11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan. III. d) & e) The proposed project will have little parking adjacent to residential dwellings. The buildings on the site will shelter the residential units from pollution being generated by automobiles. -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, X either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) -10- 0 Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) IV. a)-0 The project site has been previously and recently graded, and does not have potential as habitat for species of concern. No impacts to biological resources are expected to occur as a result of development of the project. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in Government Code Sec 15064.5 ("Interim Cultural Resources Report, Hotel 111 Project Site," CRM Tech, December, 1998 and "Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Sec 15064.5? ("Interim Cultural Resources Report, Hotel 111 Project Site," CRM Tech, December, 1998 and "Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.) 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? "Interim Cultural Resources Report, Hotel 111 Project Site," CRM Tech, December, 1998 and "Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.) V. a) - d) The project site has been previously and recently graded. No impacts to cultural or paleontologic resources are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to 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? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) 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? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) 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) i)-iv) The proposed project lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. A geotechnical study will be required for the construction of the proposed project. The risk of liquefaction on the site is considered low. -12- VI. b) The site is located in a very severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be required to implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant level. VI. c)-e) The soils on the subject property have a low expansion probability, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The soils will require over -excavation, as required in the City's standards for construction under the Uniform Building Code. These standards will ensure that the stability of the soils is mitigated. The project will be connected to sanitary sewer provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, and will not rely on septic tanks. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) -13- e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) 0 For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The proposed project will include typical commercial development found in a neighborhood shopping center. The proposed gasoline service station will be required to meet regional, state and federal standards for storage of gasoline products, and will be subject to on -going jurisdiction of these outside agencies. Should any of the businesses which locate in the center wish to store or transport hazardous waste, they will be required to secure all necessary permits from the Riverside County Health Department and other agencies, as needed, to allow for such storage or transport. The standards imposed by these agencies will lower the potential impacts associated with hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIE. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) -14- 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? (Project Grading, Site Hydrology) 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? (Project Grading, Site Hydrology) 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? (Project Grading, Site Hydrology) 0 Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) -15- VIII. a)- e) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows. The City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on -site. The proposed project includes an underground retention system, to be located beneath the parking lot. The retention basin will be fed by a series of pipes. The City Engineer will review all proposed plans for the system, and approve them prior to the initiation of any construction of the site. The City Engineer will also require regular scheduled maintenance of the system to assure its proper functioning. The City Engineer will also require the use of water purifying devices, to ensure compliance with NPDES standards for the underground retention basin. These City standards will lower the potential impacts associated with on -site flood control to a less than significant level. The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. As a commercial project, the buildout of the proposed project will generate a lower need than residential projects of similar size. The proposed project will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. 0 & g) The proposed project does not occur in a 100 year flood plain and does not propose residential development, and will therefore not place housing or other structures in such a flood plain. 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.) -16- IX. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant, and designated for commercial development. The construction of the proposed project will not divide an established community. The project site is located within the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay fees in place at the time of building permit issuance. No impacts to the Plan are expected from the buildout of the proposed project. 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 project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain mineral resources. 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? (MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Project description) -17- c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Project description) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan land use gyp) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The proposed project is located at an intersection which does and will generate relatively high noise levels. Commercial development, however, is not considered a sensitive receptor, and the potential impacts at the center are expected to be less than significant. The site is, however, adjacent to existing residential land uses on its south boundary. Residential land uses are considered sensitive receptors, and noise levels must meet the City's standards for such uses. The proposed project will include buildings along the south side which will be the back of businesses. The primary potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project and adjacent residential land uses will be associated with vehicular noise. The loading and unloading of trucks at the back entrances of the shops in the Shops 1 and Shops 2 building could potentially result in temporary noise levels in excess of the City's standards. These are, however, temporary and occasional impacts, which are not expected to be sustained for long periods of time. Of particular concern would be impacts during the quieter evening and night-time hours. A short-term inconvenience and nuisance could occur without the implementation of the following mitigation measure: 1. The project proponent shall include prohibition on deliveries to Shops 1, Shops 2 and Pad C during the hours of 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. in the project CC&Rs. A copy of the CC&Rs shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. -18- XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities. The residential land uses occurring on the south property line will be impacted by construction noise. In order to assure that these residents are not significantly impacted by construction noise, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Construction staging areas, and stationary equipment such as generators and service areas, shall be located in the northern half of the site. 2. The construction hours stipulated in the City's noise ordinance shall be strictly adhered to. XI. b), d) & e) The project land uses are not expected to generate groundborne vibrations. The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING n 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 site is currently vacant, and will not displace existing housing or people. Although the project will create some jobs, the number is not expected to be significant, and will be absorbed in the normal growth of the community and surrounding communities. No impacts to population and housing are expected to occur as a result of the proposed proj ect. -19- 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 and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The proposed project will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools. To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will result in the construction of commercial retail buildings, which will not impact recreational facilities in the City. 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) -21- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Project description) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-b) The proposed project will generate 2,713 trips per day. The City has approved a General Plan Amendment which redesignates Fred Waring to a major arterial from Washington to Jefferson, to bring it into conformance with the Regional Arterial Program. These include the construction of three through lanes, dual left turn lanes and a dedicated right turn lane on Fred Waring. These improvements will assure that the intersection operates at an acceptable level of service. XV. c)-g) The project will not impact air patterns. The proposed project design currently exceeds City standards for parking, and does not include unsafe design features. The site plan provides for emergency access points. Alternative transportation in the form of bus stops will be implemented throughout the area based on General Plan policies and programs. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS B 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.) -22- 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 f) XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required to pay connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed to incorporate future needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities at the site. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The project site has been previously graded, and does not contain potential habitat for fish or wildlife. The construction of the proposed project will not degrade the quality of habitat in the area. Nor will the project have any impact on cultural resources. XVII. b) The project is consistent with the long term goals of the General Plan, and is currently designated for neighborhood commercial development. The project is on the northern boundary of the City, in an area which is rapidly urbanizing, and therefore represents a logic extension of development. There is no potential for the project to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals. -24- XVII. c) The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable. The project is consistent with that analysed in the General Plan EIR. Buildout of the General Plan in this area was found to be less than significant, with mitigation. The mitigation measures imposed with adoption of the General Plan, combined with those imposed on this project, will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. XVII. d) The project has identified impacts associated with aesthetics, noise and air quality, which all affect human beings. However, a number of mitigation measures are proposed which reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 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. None 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. -25- 5, F� A d� AWW �x a U UU o � � •a En b b a CA o w "0 Z 'b � � .° ° 4-4 °41 o ° o o z y 0 ch �. cdd N co .b EA y • y ° �./ o to i0@-1iJCIS o cn o on � ° � ° Cd :3 cb ob cd C U `" U N U A H O a�i a�i A a¢i A aap A 9 Sipto bb CC AA AA AA U v v m w E" H C O O cl N cd W >, -0 ,C d � a O v c0iCo p cd cd p rn a) Cd Q .. CCCHQQQ .�w x 4. �� ch PLO Ln • A ., U o U •� U .� O b0 ate+ bA 4-4 V U L' O O CD h Ncl i ° is. CI a�a rA ^ y A 00 b Cd ti b b b -' � 04 U A AQ r..• OG � U A � o c ri .b o >' w a N N cn ° A M cd � .:3 °+ + O C/) y ccd L' o a V) ¢. R3 U O 'b o o Y � a CdGn o U.n �d PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON A 10.7 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062 APPLICANT: JEFFERSON-WARING, LCC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 10t" day of June, 24" day of June, 9t" day of September, and the 14' day of October, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Jefferson -Waring, LLC for approval of development principles and design guidelines for a Specific Plan to allow a Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center on a 10.17 acre site, generally located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 604-070-003. WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-462), and determined that while the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the project is compatible with the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Land Use designation. 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed project will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan for the project. Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Specific Plan 2002-062 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 3. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is compatible in terms of land uses, in that it is consistent with the type of development allowed under the City's General Plan under the Neighborhood Commercial designation. 4. Property Suitability: The proposed project is suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that the site is zoned for neighborhood commercial uses in accordance with the Specific Plan, Zoning Code, and the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Specific Plan; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2002-062 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 14`h day of October, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California PC RESO SP 2002-062.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Specific Plan 2002-062 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RESO SP 2002-062.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Specific Plan 2002-062 Conditions of Approval -Recommended October 14, 2003 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 Parcel Map, or any Parcel 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. The conditions of approval for this Specific Plan (SP 2002-062) are binding with the conditions of approval of Site Development Permit (SDP 2002-754) for the same project. 3. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 4. Approval of this Specific Plan is subject to compliance with Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code, as applicable. 5. Development of this site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits approved and contained in the files for Site Development Permit 2002 -754 and Specific Plan 2002-062. SP 2002-062 COA.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCVIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON A 10.7 ACRE SITE. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754 APPLICANT: JEFFERSON-WARING, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 10th day of June, 24" day of June, 9th day of September, and the 14" day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Jefferson -Waring, LLC, for approval of development plans for a Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center on a 10.7 acre site, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as follows: APN: 604-070-003, 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 2002-462), and determined that while the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; 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 recommending to the City Council approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project as proposed is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that neighborhood commercial shopping centers are allowed under the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use designation. 2. Consistency with the Specific Plan: The Specific Plan for the proposed project, has established development principles and design guidelines, and the improvements associated with the project are consistent with the provisions of PC RESO SDP 02-754.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2002-754 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 the Specific Plan in that the project meets the minimum requirements for the building setbacks, building mass, architecture, landscaping, exterior lighting, parking and circulation. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2002-462 was prepared for this project, and while the project may have a significant impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 4. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development in that they provide architectural variation in terms of varied roof heights and design elements consistent with other developments in the City. 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, and appearance are compatible with surrounding development in that they are consistent with the design and quality of development prevalent in the City. 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 buildings, screen undesirable views and provide an unifying influence to enhance the visual appearance of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers provide an aesthetically pleasing landscaped site that is seen throughout out the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit; PC RESO SDP 02-754.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2002-754 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2002-754 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 141h day of October, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RESO SDP 02-754.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 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 Parcel Map, or any Parcel 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. The applicant shall submit an application for a parcel map to subdivide the property as conceptually shown in the Specific Plan. Said Parcel Map will require a public hearing by the Community Development Director at a future date and time. Any Parcel Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: e Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department o Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department o Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) s Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. 1. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the applicant shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): a. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). b. Temporary Sediment Control. C. Wind Erosion Control. d. Tracking Control. e. Non -Storm Water Management. f. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. 5. 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. 6. The approved SWPPP anad BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 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 Parcel 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: 1. PUBLIC STREETS a. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — 60-foot from the centerline of Jefferson Street, for a total 120-foot ultimate developed right of way. b. Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — 60 feet from the centerline of Fred Waring Drive for a total 120-foot ultimate developed right of way; additional 5 foot dedication will be required measured from the existing 55 foot right of way along Fred Waring Drive. Additional right of way dedication is required as needed at the Jefferson Street intersection to accommodate 200-foot long dual left turn lanes (10 feet each, 20 feet total), three through eastbound lanes (eleven feet each, 33 feet total), a 4-foot bike lane and a deceleration/right turn only lane (1 1 feet). The additional right of way dedication shall be 9 feet wide and 100 feet long, plus a variable width dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate the curb transition. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 9. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map are necessary prior to approval of the Parcel Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: 1. Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The applicant shall supplement the landscaped set back as needed to reflect the new right of way configuration. 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 Parcel Map. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Parcel Map. 12. Direct vehicular access to Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive from any portion of the site from frontage along Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive are restricted, except for those access points identified on the circulation plan of the approved Specific Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded parcel map. 13. 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. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 14. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of- way or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 15. 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 Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. PARCEL MAPS 16. Prior to the City's approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Parcel 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 Parcel 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 Parcel Map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the following categories. 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. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal On -Site Rough Grading/Drainage Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal Site Development Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Signing and Striping Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal 18. "Site Development Plans" shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Site Development Plans" shall normally include all surface improvements, including but not limited to: parking layout, finish grades, curbs & gutters, ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. "Street & Drainage Plans" shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. Off -Site Street and Signing and 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. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City Resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 19. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS 20. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the applicant may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 21. The applicant shall construct improvements, install survey monumentation, and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. 22. If improvements and/or monumentation installation are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement and monumentation installation costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 23. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 24. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 25. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot), which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches 0 8") behind the curb. 26. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: 1. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 2. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and 3. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. 4. 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 Parcel Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 27. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 28. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. 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. 29. 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 Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 30. 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 Site Development 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 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 1. 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. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. Particularly, the applicant shall coordinate the drainage design with the City sponsored improvement project on Jefferson Street for applicable curb and gutter grades and catch basin requirements. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour, or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. The design and construction of the underground retention system for the project shall be approved by the City Engineer in the improvement plan review process prior to the issuance of any building permits. The PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 approved design shall incorporate mechanisms for perpetual maintenance and operation of the system by the applicant or his successors. UTILITIES 34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 35. 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. 36. 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 37. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 38. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. 1. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Jefferson Street -([Major Arterial; 120' R/W) — Jefferson Street is scheduled to be improved as part of a City sponsored improvement project. The applicant shall pay a cash fee to the City for the outside 20 feet of improvements, including the curb and gutter. In addition to the cash fee, the applicant shall construct the following: 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk from intersection at Fred Waring Drive southerly to the south boundary of the property to match existing improvements. 2) Fred Waring Drive -(Major Arterial; 120' R/W) — Widen the south side of the street along the project boundary to comply with the amended General Plan and requirements of these conditions listed below. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include: Construct 72-foot roadway improvements (4-foot median nose, travel width to include two 10-foot left turn lanes, three 1 1-foot eastbound through lanes, 4-foot bike lane and 1 1-foot deceleration/right turn only lane, excluding curbs). The applicant is advised of conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 29323 as amended. Construct an 8-foot meandering sidewalk along the project frontage. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curbline 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. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 Construct 14-foot wide raised landscape median, plus variable width median transition as needed to accommodate the dual left turn lane mentioned above. Modify the Traffic signal at Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Construct necessary modifications to accommodate the improved roadway section. (The pavement/restoration improvement work located beyond 20 feet from the outer curb face (i.e. in the arterial core) is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program). 39. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTran's design procedures 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 (or approved equivalents of alternate material): Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.50" c.a.b. 40. 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. 41. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: 1. Jefferson Street - Primary Entry (southerly portion of site): Left turn in, right turn in, right turn out. Left turn movements out are prohibited. The applicant shall design the median island on the Entry Street to direct traffic to the right to facilitate a right turn only movement. Appropriate signing and striping shall be provided. The design of the median island and associated signing and striping shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. If the previously mentioned Jefferson Street PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 Improvements project is not constructed, the applicant shall design and construct a t temporary median to facilitate the left turning, only, turning movement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Associated signing/striping is subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. - Secondary Infry (napikarly pertien 8f 00 Right turn in, right turn out. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. The median island on the Entry Street shall be designed to direct traffic to the right to facilitate right turn only movement. 2. Fred Waring Drive — Primary Entry (westerly portion of site): Left turn in, right turn in, right turn out. Left turn movements out are prohibited. The applicant shall design and construct the Fred Waring Drive median to facilitate the left turn in, only, turning movement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The median island on the Entry Street shall be designed to direct traffic to the right to facilitate a right turn only movement. Appropriate signing and striping shall be provided. The design of the median island and associated signing and striping shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. - Secondary Entry (easterly portion of site): Right turn in, right turn out. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. The median island on the Entry Street shall be designed to direct traffic to the right to facilitate right turn only movement. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 45. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 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 46. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 47. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the 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. 50. 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 51. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 52. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. 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 56 The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 57. 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 58. 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. 59. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-754 October 14, 2003 60. Prior to completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of such reapportionment. MISCELLANEOUS 61. The applicant shall submit detailed plans showing the proposed signage for the site to be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval under a Planned Sign Program. 62. Lighting for the building facades shall be low-level lighting and be compatible with the building architecture. In addition, the applicant shall be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Dark Sky Ordinance. 63. The parking lot light standards shall be equipped with a recessed lamp, a flush lens, and shall not to exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. Said standards shall be shielded so as to prevent light from spilling onto adjacent land uses. 64. The applicant shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Department requirements. 65. The applicant will be required to pay a school mitigation fee at the time a building permit is issued. PC SDP 02-754 COA.doc ATTACHMENT '`� r aD.�t-:^'... • O dip 1 � 1 �' y R •! •1� 4} .42 Ll Sae, • ,:_�� Y � :.w.�.x•.— �.:�.�,�- _ �' . - , � - 1 E ~i '�� J .33 � artl 7!Y CLtt � ` �j•_=€d uS&Io xo to w !Hater • � .• � __ '+��w f4 ��'�� :< g �.� ^_ (f� 1� '. y .\, II �i` • C•� ••C, fr LLI ,\ ` !'X D.. �• '.y - _s9"� } ' ��. PC. , �. a �` ,r r AVENUE ul G J 1 x 4 air � .� �O. ! ��! .p• ` 11 �� D � •le _ Ttaiie Park Dudsk&AMOCIcim ATTACHMENT FRED WARING DRIVE WELL Lo: SITE �I co. LA QUINTA CITY PARK/ RETENTION BASIN FH r z C m Lo N 23' ,o PRIVATE RETENTION i BASIN LOT i . Palm Desert Office: 75-1 50 Sheryl Avenue. Suite C & A S S O C I A T E S Palm 341'.fi 692211 Professwnat Teams for Comptes Pro;eots Fax 760.346.611 8 DRUG i i I I 60' NO -BUILD EASEMENT MARKET 37' IF — SHOPS j -� 2 SHOPS NO -BUILD EASEMENT PLAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF JEFFERSON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN COMMERCIAL SITE SCALE: 1 "=120' AUGUST, 2003 ATTACHMENT # Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes9L p y May 7, 2003 Lopez stated only at the entry around the date palms trees for vertical color. He stated they were considering planting shrubs in front of the wall. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to pay attention to what type of material is used on the wall as most of the plants are low and design will be important. The wall will need some type of architectural stele. Mr. Lopez stated they have been looking at the existing waif to the north. It is stuccoed with a reveal and they are looking at options such as making a transition with a pilaster. 4. Committee Member"Cunningham stated they should submit three concepts for review. Mr. Lopez showed an example of one they are considering- Slumpstone is one material they prefer and he showed examples of wall materials they were considering. Committee .Members commented on the examples. 5. Committee Member Thorns asked that it be a light colored wall with squeeze joints, a square double detailed cap with natural cement joints, laid up in a soldier coarse with a different complimentary contrasting color. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2003-01, approving the preliminary perimeter landscaping plans for Tentative Tract Map 30521, as amended: a. A conetete mow strip shall be provided; / b. Perinl`eter wall be a light colored slump block wall, with squeeze joints, light, a square double detailed cap laid up in a ;soldier course with different complimentary contrasting color. C. Landscape architect to pick the field palm trees. d. Landscape architect shall submit a concept grading walkway layout path to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the civil engirjeer drawings being prepared. AJnanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2003-754; a request of Ross Canon/Marinita Development Company for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a shopping center located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\5-7-03.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 7, 2003 1. Associate Planner Martin Magana gave a report on the request and introduced the project's representative, Mr. Ross Canon, applicant, Mr. John Berg, engineer, and Mr. Charlie Trokage, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked what was happening west of the project. Mr. Canon explained it was open space with a park, well site, and retention basin. 3. Committee Member Thoms asked for a definition of the truss look on the top. Mr. Canon stated it was a treatment given to the top of the building to break them up. It will be a scoring in the stucco for a shadow effect. Committee Member Thoms stated he likes the architecture and it has a good color selection. His objection is that all shopping centers are a function of the neighborhood and look the same. The design is dictated by major tenants which do not normally lend much to architecture. This, however does have good architecture in breaking up the mass of the buildings. He just does not see the creativity in the site plan. It seems the architect shows little imagination. It would be nice to have something different. Mr. Canon stated the site design is dictated by the major tenant. Committee Member Thoms stated they should not be governed by the tenants requirements. Mr. Canon stated they chose to use a landscape architect to break up some of the parking lot. Committee Member Thoms stated he believes the landscape architect should take the niche areas and create more people spaces. Mr. Canon noted the area they had provided for pedestrian use. Committee Member Thoms noted this is only one space and there should be more of these in the Center. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated the buildings are architecturally alive and have enough articulation to make it look more like a village center. He agrees with Committee Member Thoms in regard to the pedestrian collector area. His objection is the rear elevation. Mr. Canon stated they are intending to plant trees to screen it from the west. 5. Staff stated that the General Plan designates a secondary gateway for the City at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue. Committee Members asked who would be responsible for reviewing the design. Staff stated it is yet to be determined. Committee Members asked that the design of the City gateway sign come to this Committee for review. G:\WPDOCSWRLC\5-7-03.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 7, 2003 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he too is concerned with the rear elevation. He appreciates that no plantings are next to the building. Commercial developments typically have too many plant beds where pedestrians will walk through them and they become unattractive. It appears Brachy cyiton (Bottle Tree) are to be used and they are a messy, hearty tree and in this location it might work. The Rhus Lancea is a supple tree that will require double staking and it is in a narrow area and they ideally need an area that is 8 X 8. There needs to be some type of plantings/trees that will stand up by themselves. The Sumac would be an excellent example. The growth habits need to be considered when determining what to use where. Discussion followed. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2003-017 approving Site Development Permit 2003-754, as amended: 1. More people spaces shall be created by the landscape architect. 2. Incorporate some decomposed granite in the planters between the car overhang and the western property line. 3. A different type of tree that is substantial on its own to be used in the parking lot. 4. The Secondary Gateway sign design at the northeast corner of the site shall come back to the ALRC for review. 5. More sensitivity given to the rear elevation with planting. Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2003-764; a request of Paul Ehline/Medallist Development, fnc. for review of landscaping plartt'"for four prototype units at PGA West Norman Estates located at"S1-480 Madison Street. - I. Associate Planner Martin,Magana gave an overview of the project and introduced, Mr. 1=rank Scole and Pauf Ehline, landscape architect and developer for the project respectively, who were available to answer questions on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns stated he likes the models but it needs a better roof treatment such as the better "S" tile. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\5-7-03.wpd 5 PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-618, AMENDMENT #2 LOCATION: THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1 EAST OF LA QUINTA DRIVE APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM BACKGROUND The applicant received an Amendment to their approved Sign Program on September 23, 2003. This request was for the "shop building" only. The approved changes allowed the Community Development Department to approve the sign face color and, two lines of text within a height limit of 36 inches. All other provisions of the Sign Program remained as approved. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a modification to the requirement pertaining to Retail Building "A". The current sign limitations are as follows: SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE Facing Highway 1 1 1 (north) 152 square feet Facing Parking Lot (west) 190 square feet (5'x38') Facing Dune Palms Road (east) 50 square feet Facing Avenue 481h (south) 50 square feet TOTAL 442 square feet Retail Building "A" was originally proposed as one building with one user. The current layout is for three buildings with multiple users; Marshalls, Petsmart and a third building, which does not have an identified user. Marshalls is requesting three signs containing the word "Marshalls"; one on the west, north, and east sides. PETSMART is requesting two signs; one on the west and one on the east. Each sign contains the word "PETSMART", two eyebrows and a dot. In addition, on the west elevation the word "Banfield" is on the right side of "PETSMART" and "Grooming" is on the left. The requests for the two known users are as follows: Max. Max. LOCATION letter height MARSHALLS letter height PETSMART Facing Highway 4' 4'x20.96' = 84 sq. ft. 0 0 111 (north) Facing Parking 5' 5'x26.25 = 131.5 sq. ft. 4.5' 4.5x31.21 = 140.45 Lot(west) ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ 1' 1' line/space =1 x26.25 = 4' 4'x9' = 36 sq. ft. 26.25 sq. ft. (eyebrows & dot) 1.67x1 1.25 = 18.79 sq. ft. 1.67' (Banfield) 1.25' 1.25x10.21 =12.76 sq. ft. (Grooming) Facing Dune 4' 4x20.96 = 84 sq. ft. 4' 4'x17.38 = 69.52 sq. ft. Palms (east) ------------------------------ 2' 2'x7' =14 sq. ft. (eyebrows & dot) Facing Avenue 0 0 481h (south) TOTAL _ 325.75 sq. ft. 291.52 sq. ft. To compare the height of similar large retailer signs, staff has identified some of the large box user sign heights (maximum letter height of the largest sign) in the City Of La Quinta: NAME (location of signs) MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT OF SIGNS Wal-Mart (front only) 5' with 2' SUPPER CENTER below _ Target (front and bulls -eye on rear) 2.17'with 12' diameter bulls -eye logo Lowe's (front) 5' Staples (front) 3.25' _ Stater Brothers (front) 4' _ Big Five (front) _ 2.75' Ross (front) 4' with 2' DRESS FOR LESS below _ Home Depot (front and side) 4' with BELOW 2.5' HOME IMPROVEMENT 0A As noted above, some of the big box users have rear signs and signs located on the building sides. The existing sign program permitted signs on all four sides of the one building. The proposed request is to maintain this right. Based upon the applicant's request and staff's review of the Sign Program, staff is recommending approval of the requested Amendment. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Minute Motion 2003-_ approving Sign Application 2002-618, Amendment #2, as requested. Attachments: 1. Sign Exhibits 3 /f+74 m kJ �r"it�n z N. _ ip i=2mJNoo m &y i. J 01=V JGU V•N�JF NJHml-ir-f LSNU ZW� z ? r Ml Idl --- I NOR o oa �' a rani" �� UO�-U>ODU' �'o£ oa�o NUF-EU' as czi`or UrmF-SI-F F_SNU �W = ,cu y�y E u 2 tl ¢ tt m W to �C to 2 rn A $a w ^'w P¢ 'e— E @ am o wX p g m a5 wa E N 2 w: . F dl LBO o wy Cy CD m co I%t( CO _ � a E it -- -------- cz CIO Lip LIH da ON fs LL C: V-i at u cu C5 CY) CN a Qt' LLJ LU M VIA'a YMaP31 "OPWw04"V 8 NM SVWM AS MM3M 3W NO=X)OaM a0! 33a u Ol siHm 11V "owoo oNwv 9 N96 wwou 30 AWUM DU 2 smmv ISDU 9Z£0-£CS-LZL XYd ® LSLL-£LS-LZL ® SZ££-9i9-ooe Z91££ 'VIA IlaiVAMY310 0 MON 3nN3AV U19t1 069V ANVd ®3 DNINMV 18 ND1S SVNOHJM Lu r �a n .e NET - gWU �NO�N m zoo Ty� Y WoJg 4 u 3 VLu J '' z W a ro= a 8 V 3 i II 33 h.Ig O g- u W V a axe x S n 'n U La / V1'"vie \ / U0a —Ap J 4 CO m Z z 2 Q �y W Z C) C 0 w J v�gt �2 O O N 2 0 l7 IS O a a�ii w 2' C FO o= D O Cw o� W m x z v Ng=t ^'ow' tom$ ?¢ z a 0 ov'oj�z my--�.v= wC.c o .- Lam. N LU W W J J W z z Q = = O LU II Q W � m W J J L) J V) i z 0~ 0 C� w F W to d Q w 0 Q. LL dam;, yTdr4, r;,i� �f- f� 1 I W Ln cr 0 0 H C z C L z L C LL LL t7 I w V) _ LL N cc W J J W z z vo � n zLij m J Q J U J v1 SZ£0 ELS LU M 0 LSLL-£LS-IU 0 9LEE-9L5-Ouv Md•bUVMWM"ONI'oOONNW _— x•�m.,. m s� alu3vwv3e wavneauosmwrm <wr un Z91f£'dtj'M31tlM8V310®WZlON3f1N3Atl4tBll06S4 +3 NSM MOM AS MM3M 3W NOU=oaa wi Mn S.0 O1 LN91a IW"ONI'009NWMV9 NSS WMM 30 AMUOad 3N 9SMMVW OU i3r racxn usm nv3iw Wav a3rwmnm WS Ot �m t 1 S3M 13314 eaum3oxJ+,ofu m'IAN ai3U3tla 13 IN 1111N%335 voiO3wsmims g��0®SBp/p �pa�gp B9� a9R9�� A ploo B® eilfi Y' u 31v0 lNEt1i3b 9 3 3a �� x X aP.COI NC4Y1MlMISYNONOL a.w aasoa sv o3nomav 31vu — w i0/915 �� LSf1M" aVWS13d mlra 31M a3noaae• 00 f O ❑ V . J ❑ V p a m O j O a✓ N II tlt J w 1± i : �ii Goa I9 (Z V V V w 2 o a - s -...�. LU pp.��E�7 $��a �� msx. �o q�c6 O �a I"il 3gg.�C�`a❑1 H m X LLI Ln J W W <O m LL E W J J LL Ln LX LU I— W J J LI..I Z z Q S co u _I 0 II Q � z n^m W JQ V J N E i 7 IM PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-007 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-065, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31379 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-778 APPLICANT: CENTEX DESTINATION PROPERTIES PROPERTY OWNER: LANDAQ, INCORPORATED REQUEST: TO ESTABLISH OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES (E.G., TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE, ETC.) FOR A PROPOSED 280-UNIT RESIDENTIAL RESORT DEVELOPMENT ON 44.61 ACRES AS REQUIRED BY CONDITION #14 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2003- 90 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-065 LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND COACHELLA DRIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS: TOURIST COMMERCIAL AND OPEN SPACE SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE SOUTH: VACANT TOURIST COMMERCIAL PROPERTY EAST: A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 169 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS UNDER TRACT 29436; TO THE SOUTHEAST (ACROSS EISENHOWER DR.), EXISTING DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES WEST: HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2003, THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-478) FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-065, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31379, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-778 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2003-89. THE ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PRIVATE RESORT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED DURING ON -SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. BACKGROUND: The 44.61-acre site is vacant and located to the northwest of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Coachella Drive. On September 16, 2003, the City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2003-478) and approved a 280-unit resort residential development consisting of Spanish Colonial housing units ranging in size from 1,300 square feet to 2,090 square feet. One element of the development plan includes "lock -out" capabilities which allow each housing unit to be divided into additional units for rental purposes (Attachment 1). Condition #14 of the Specific Plan requires the developer to comply with the following provisions: "The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of La Quinta for the payment of Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT") for this development. This Agreement must be signed and recorded prior to issuance of any development permits (i.e., infrastructure, grading, building, etc.) being authorized. Centex, on one hand, and a Resort or Hotel within the City of La Quinta (collectively, "Resort/Hotel") or Resort Country Club within the City of La Quinta, on the other hand, shall enter into one or more contracts which will allow the purchasers of residences within the boundaries of SP 2003- 065 the opportunity to purchase golf club and/or social memberships. In addition, Centex and a Resort/Hotel, or the rental management company for the Resort/Hotel, shall enter into one or more contracts pursuant to which the purchasers of residential units within the boundaries of SP 2003-065 shall have the right to make their residential units available to the Resort/Hotel for the purpose of allowing the Resort/Hotel to rent and manage the same on behalf of such purchasers. Renters under such Resort/Hotel managed rental program shall have access to the Resort/Hotel facilities and amenities. A copy of the foregoing executed contracts shall be delivered to the Community Development Department before issuance of a building permit for a residential dwelling unit within the boundaries of SP 2003-065. The foregoing contract or contracts for rental management services shall remain in effect for a remain in effect for ten (10) years commencing with the date that the first certificate of occupancy is issued for a residence within the boundaries of SP 2003-065. Centex or its successor in interest may enter into replacement agreements with alternative Resort/Hotels within this ten (10) year period. The CC&R's for the residential project to be developed within the boundaries of SP 2003-065 (the "Project") shall restrict the rental of residential dwelling units therein to periods of 30 consecutive days or less. The residential dwelling units within the Project have been designed to facilitate short-term rental. Any material modification of the design or floor plan of a residential unit by the owner of such unit shall be restricted in the CC&R's for the project. The City, through its Community Development Director, shall have the final authority to approve or not approve the modification." This condition obligation, pertaining to the Development Agreement and one or more rental management service contracts with a resort/hotel or rental management company, will be deemed satisfied with the adoption of the proposed Development Agreement. PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the City enter into a Development Agreement ("DA") relative Condition #14 of Specific Plan 2003-065 (Attachment 2). The proposed Agreement provides the following: 1 . $2,500.00 per unit one-time mitigation fee; 2. $1,000.00 annual mitigation fee per unit until the project reaches certain thresholds; 3. Rental tracking system; and 4. Retail Management Program. These provisions are outlined in Section 3.0 of the Agreement. Public Notice This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 3, 2003, and mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the site on September 19, 2003, pursuant to Section 9.200.1 10 of the Zoning Code. Notices were also mailed to local public agencies as set forth under Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 on September 25, 2003. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Development Agreement Regulations The following are the relevant regulations governing development agreements: California Government Code Section 65854 et seq. provides the authority for a local agency to enter into a development agreement with a developer. As stated in State law, the basic content of an agreement is to "... specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of the use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions which shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density, or intensity, of development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereof be completed within a specific time. The agreement may also include terms and conditions relating to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subsequent reimbursement over time." Section 9.250.030(A) of the Zoning Code states " . . . a Development Agreement is a discretionary action by the City Council to provide certainty in the review and approval of development projects in order to make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least cost to the public, strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, reduce the economic costs of development, and provide for public facilities and infrastructure." City Council Review Consideration At a public hearing on October 7, 2003, the City Council reviewed the proposed Development Agreement. The City Council, on a 5-0 vote, set aside Ordinance No. 389 for final review on October 21, 2003. The Council's review of the Agreement occurred before the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant to ensure the completion of the DA this month as required by their escrow instructions. ANALYSIS: The City's long term financial health is predicated upon certain land uses consistent with the approved zoning. The City anticipates future Transient Occupancy (TOT) and Sales Tax from Tourist Commercial zoned property. The project is structured in such a way as to allow private ownership of dwelling units that, while designed to encourage rental, may serve as a single family residence. Single family residences while important to the balance of a diversified City plan, do not generate TOT when occupied by the home's owner. Therefore, this Development Agreement ensures that the property -generated revenues are consistent with the financial expectations for land in this zone. The Community Development Department and City Attorney have reviewed the proposed Development Agreement and determined the document has been designed to comply with all applicable Code requirements and a portion of Condition #14. The Development Agreement, once executed, is a binding agreement between both parties for the purposes of establishing certainty that the resort development can progress in a timely manner under certain terms and conditions. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings, as noted in the attached Resolution, can be made that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, subject to recordation of the final Agreement with the County of Riverside. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Development Agreement 2003-007, subject to the attached findings. Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Draft Development Agreement Submitted by: Jerry Herman Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CENTEX DESTINATION PROPERTIES FOR A 280-UNIT RESORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE NORHTWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF COACHELLA DRIVE AND EISENHOWER DRIVE CASE NO.: DEVELOPEMNT AGREEMENT 2003-007 APPLICANT: CENTEX DESTINATION PROPERITES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Development Agreement 2003-007 which sets up terms and conditions for the operation of a 280-unit resort residential project on 44 + acres in Tourist Commercial and Open Space Zoning Districts in conjunction with Specific Plan 2003-065, Tentative Tract Map 31379 and Site Development Permit 2003-778 for property located to the northwest of Coachella Drive and Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 658-130-003 to —005 Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment 2001-361 Portion NE t/4 of Section 36, T5S, R6E, SBBM WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the Public Hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 3, 2003, for the October 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning Code. Public Hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the site and to local public agencies on September 19th and 25th; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 16, 2003, certified Environmental Assessment 2003-478 for Specific Plan 2003-065, Tentative Tract Map 31379 and Site Development Permit 2003-778 by adoption of Resolution 2003-89. The adopted Mitigation Measures for the private resort will be implemented during on -site construction activities, therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ Development Agreement 2003-007, Centex Adopted: October 14, 2003 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation to the City Council for approval of said Development Agreement 2003-007, pursuant to Section 9.250.030 of the Zoning Code: 1. The proposed Agreement is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Code in that the existing entitlements (Specific Plan 2003-065, Tentative Tract Map 31379 and Site Development Permit 2003-778) will implement construction of one- and two- story resort residential units in the Tourist Commercial land use area. 2. The proposed Development Agreement insures infrastructure improvements will be installed on Eisenhower Drive to benefit residents and/or guests of the City of La Quinta via the implementation of Specific Plan 2003-065, Site Development Permit 2003-778 and Tentative Tract Map 31379. 3. Approval of this Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community because development conditions are prescribed that are consistent with Specific Plan 2003-065, Site Development Permit 2003-778 and Tentative Tract Map 31379. 4. Approval of this Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the subject or surrounding property nor the preservation of area -wide property values, but rather will enhance them by encouraging planned growth. 5. Approval of the Development Agreement will provide a positive fiscal impact on the City by providing Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue to the General Fund for Citywide services. 6. Consideration of the Development Agreement has been accomplished pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and the City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.250.030, which governs Development Agreements. Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ Development Agreement 2003-007, Centex Adopted: October 14, 2003 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Development Agreement 2003-007 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of October, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAEL TO City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: City Clerk Space Above This Line for Kecoraer s use (Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov't Code § 6103) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ("CITY") CENTEX HOMES A NEVADA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ("DEVELOPER") 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of the day of 2003 ("Reference Date"), by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California (the "City"), and CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General Partnership (the "Developer"), with reference to the following: RECITALS A. Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 ("Development Agreement Act") authorize the City to enter into a binding development agreement for the development of real property within its jurisdiction with persons having legal or equitable interest in such real property. B. Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Government Code, the City has adopted its Development Agreement Ordinance (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.250.030) establishing procedures and requirements for such development agreements ("Development Agreement Ordinance"). C. Prior to the execution of this Agreement, the City approved the Villa La Quinta Specific Plan 2003-065 ("Specific Plan") that provides comprehensive planning and development criteria for Villa La Quinta (the "Project"), a resort residential master planned community with 280 resort residential units ("Villas") and associated recreational facilities located on approximately 44.61 acres. The City has also approved Tentative Tract Map No. 31379, Environmental Assessment No. 2003-478, (the "Mitigated Negative Declaration"), and Site Development Permit 2003-778 for the Project. The Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Site Development Permit are collectively referred to herein as "Development Plan". D. Developer owns the 44.61 acre parcel ("Site") which is legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and which is the subject of the Development Plan. E. Consistent with Section 9.250.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, City and Developer desire to enter into a binding agreement for purposes of (i) setting forth a per -unit up front payment schedule for the Developer's payment to the City of certain amounts that the parties agree are designed to compensate the City for (A) the potential loss of anticipated general fund revenues as a result of the use of the Site for a residential resort use rather than as traditional tourist commercial use, such as a "hotel" as that term is defined in Section 9.280.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("Hotel"); (B) the uncompensated costs of potential additional public services that the Development Plan will generate, which costs would have been recovered if the Site were to be developed for a traditional tourist commercial use, such as a Hotel; (C) and the potential added wear and tear on the municipal infrastructure which will result from the Development Plan, the costs of which would have been compensated if the Site were to be developed for a traditional tourist commercial use, such as a Hotel; (ii) establishing an on -going obligation of the Project to pay the City certain amounts designed to compensate the City unless 1. 119/015610-0002 _ 431766.07 a10/03/03 -2 DRAFT and until the Villas within the Project generate specified levels of transient occupancy tax; and (iii) granting Developer a vested right to develop the Site according to the Development Plan. F. Among other purposes, this Agreement is intended to be, and shall be construed as, a development agreement within the meaning of the Development Agreement Act. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and secure the orderly development of the Project, ensure a desirable and functional community environment, provide effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services appropriate for the development of the Project, and assure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the City, by achieving the goals and purposes of the Development Agreement Act. In exchange for these benefits to City, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Development Plan, all as more particularly set forth herein. G. The City Council has determined that the Project and this Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan, including the goals and objectives thereof. H. All actions taken by City have been duly taken in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"), and all other requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters. I. On the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1.0 GENERAL. 1.1 Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the Effective Date hereof and shall continue for fifty (50) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated, modified, or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto after the satisfaction of all applicable public hearing and related procedural requirements. 1.2 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective, and the obligations of the parties hereunder shall be effective, as of , which is the date that Ordinance No. takes effect ("Effective Date"). 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -3- DRAFT 1.3 Amendment or Cancellation. Except as expressly stated to the contrary herein, this Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65867-65868 and the City's Development Agreement Ordinance. 1.4 Termination. Unless terminated earlier, pursuant to the terms hereof, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term of this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement, for any reason, shall not, by itself, affect any right or duty arising from entitlements or approvals set forth under the Development Plan, as defined in Section 2.1, below. 2.0 DEVELOPER'S RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 2.1 Right to Develop. Subject to the terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement, Developer's right to develop the Project in accordance with the Development Plan (and subject to the conditions of approval thereof (the "Conditions of Approval") which, among other conditions of approval associated with future approvals and permits issued by the City, include but are not limited to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit `B" attached hereto) shall be deemed vested upon execution of this Agreement, which vesting shall expire upon the earlier of the following occurrences: (a) termination of this Agreement; (b) an uncured material default by Developer of this Agreement; or (c) as to a particular phase, parcel, or lot comprising a portion of the Site, the earlier of the final approved City inspection of the completed development on such phase, parcel, or lot, or the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for such phase, parcel, or lot. Except for the expiration set forth in clause (a) of the preceding sentence, the expiration of the vesting right set forth in the preceding sentence shall not terminate the obligations of Developer under this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the Project shall remain subject to the following, to the same extent it would without this Agreement: (i) all ordinances, regulations, rules, laws, plans, policies, and guidelines of the City and its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, and committees existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, the "Existing Development Regulations"); (ii) all amendments or modifications to Existing Development Regulations after the Effective Date of this Agreement and all ordinances, regulations, rules, laws, plans, policies, and guidelines of the City and its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, and committees enacted or adopted after the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, "New Laws"), except such New Laws which would prevent or materially impair Developer's ability to develop the Project in accordance with the Development Plan, unless such New Laws are (A) adopted by the City on a City wide -basis and applied to the Site in a non-discriminatory manner, (B) required by a non -City entity to be adopted by or applied by the City (or, if adoption is optional, the failure to adopt or apply such non -City law or regulation would cause the City to sustain a loss of funds or loss of access to funding or other 119/015610-0002 IM 431766.07 a10/03/03 -4- DRAFT resources), or (C) New Laws the City reserves the right to apply under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, Sections 2.2 and 3.3.5; (iii) all subsequent development approvals and the conditions of approval associated therewith, including but not limited to any further site development permits, tract maps, and building permits; (iv) the payment of all fees or exactions in the categories and in the amounts as required at the time such fees are due and payable, which may be at the time of issuance of building permits, or otherwise as specified by applicable law, as existing at the time such fees are due and payable; and (v) the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes or payment of fees in lieu thereof as required at the time such reservations or dedications or payments in lieu are required under applicable law to be made or paid. 2.2 Additional Applicable Codes and Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the City also reserves the right to apply the following to the development of the Project: 2.2.1 Building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar building codes based upon uniform codes adopted in, or incorporated by reference into, the La Quinta Municipal Code, as existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement or as may be enacted or amended thereafter, applied to the Project in a nondiscriminatory manner. 2.2.2 In the event of fire or other casualty requiring construction of more than fifty (50%) percent of any building previously constructed hereunder, nothing herein shall prevent the City from applying to such reconstruction, all requirements of the City's Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and similar building codes based upon uniform codes adopted in, or incorporated by reference into, the La Quinta Municipal Code, solely to the extent applicable to all development projects in the City. 2.2.3 This Agreement shall not prevent the City from establishing any new City fees on a City-wide basis and applied to Site in a non-discriminatory manner, including new development impact fees, or increasing any existing City fees, including existing development impact fees, and to apply such new or increased fees to the Project or applicable portion thereof where such new or increased fees may be charged. 2.3 Permitted Density, Height and Use Limitations. The permitted uses, density and intensity of use, location of uses, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, minimum setbacks, and other standards applicable to the Project shall be those set forth in the Development Plan and this Agreement, whichever is the strictest. 119/015510-0002 a 431766.07 al0/03/03 -5- DRAFT 3.0 DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS. 3.1 Conditions of Approval. The Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit `B" include and incorporate the mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration so that significant environmental effects will be mitigated or avoided. The Developer shall also comply with the mitigation monitoring program set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto (the "Mitigation Monitoring Program"). Developer acknowledges that additional conditions of approval beyond those set forth in Exhibit `B" may be applicable to the Project if and as associated with future Project approvals. 3.2 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. 3.2.1 Recordation of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Establish- ment of Villa La Ouinta Homeowners Association. Prior to, and as a condition of, the City's issuance of any building permit for the residential units, the Developer shall submit to the City, obtain approval thereof, and record, covenants, conditions and restrictions (the "CCRs") against the Site which, in addition to the obligations set forth in the Conditions of Approval, shall (i) establish a homeowner's association for the Project (the "Villa La Quinta HOA"); (ii) provide for the Villa La Quinta HOA's payment of the fees described in Section 3.3.3; and (iii) provide for the Villa La Quinta HOA's operation of a Rental Tracking System, as described in Section 3.3.5. If the City fails to approve, deny or comment with regard to the CCRs within fifteen (15) days of submission by Developer to the City, the CCRs shall be deemed approved. The City shall not unreasonably deny approval of the CCRs. As to the provisions of the CCRs implementing this Agreement, the City shall be provided adequate enforcement rights. No modification of those portions of the CCRs implementing the provisions of this Agreement shall be permitted unless the City provides its written consent. If the California Department of Real Estate ("DRE") refused to approve the CCRs in the form approved by the City, and the Developer has used all reasonable efforts to obtain the approval, the City and the Developer shall negotiate in good faith to develop equivalent protection of the City's interests in this Agreement. Such equivalent protections shall be subject to the approval of both the City and the Developer. Agreement upon the equivalent protection shall be necessary in order for the issuance of any building permit for the residential units. 3.3 Payments to City by HOA and Developer. 3.3.1 General. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer or the Villa La Quinta HOA, as applicable, shall make the payments to City described in this Section 3.3. The payments under this Section 3.3 are not the exclusive development impact fees for the Project, and nothing in this Section 3.3 shall be construed as a limitation on the right of the City to impose, levy, or assess the Site other development fees as permitted by applicable law and this Agreement. 119/015610-0002 M 431766.07 a10/03/03 -6- DRAFT 3.3.2 Developer's Payments of One -Time Mitigation Fees. Developer shall pay or cause to be paid to the City, for each of the 280 resort residential units in the Project, with such payment due on or before the date the building permit for each such unit, the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00). 3.3.3 Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee; Termination. During the term of this Agreement, on each July 1st following the Effective Date ("Annual Mitigation Payment Date"), the Villa La Quinta HOA shall pay to the City an annual mitigation fee ("Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee") covering the annual period of the prior July 1 through the June 30 occurring immediately preceding the Annual Mitigation Payment Date (the "Operative Year") (provided, however, the first Operative Year shall commence on the Effective Date of this Agreement and end on the next occurring June 30). The Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee shall be the collective sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each of the resort residential units ("Villa La Quinta Unit Fee") in the Project that has been sold to a third party purchaser, as evidenced by a recorded deed for such unit, prior to the applicable Annual Mitigation Payment Date, regardless of when or in which Operative Year the unit was sold. Notwithstanding the paragraph above, if the City has received transient occupancy tax ("TOT") for rentals from Villa La Quinta in excess of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) ("Level 1 TOT Goal") for three consecutive Operative Years during the term of this Agreement, the Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee for the next Operative Year shall be reduced from One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per unit in the Project to Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per unit in the Project. If the City has received TOT for rentals from Villa La Quinta in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) ("Level 2 TOT Goal") for any three consecutive Operative Years during the term of this Agreement, then the Villa La Quinta HOA's obligation to pay the Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee for any Operative Years thereafter shall terminate and shall be of no further force and effect. All rentals of Villas shall remain subject to the City's TOT requirements. The CCRs for the Project shall provide for the assessment and collection of the Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee and shall provide for and adequately ensure the collection and payment thereof. As to the collection and payment of the Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee, the CCRs shall provide the City with enforcement rights against both the Villa La Quinta HOA and the owners. The City shall be provided with the same rights of collection as the Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee that the Villa La Quinta HOA shall have for the collection of other fees and assessments. However, the Villa La Quinta HOA shall have the obligation for collection and payment of the Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee. In any action by the City to collect the Villa La Quinta Annual Mitigation Fee, the City shall, in addition to the fee, be entitled to collect all of its costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees in enforcing its rights. 3.3.4 Consumer Price Index Adjustments. The Villa La Quinta Unit Fee, the Level 1 TOT Goal, and the Level 2 TOT Goal shall be adjusted annually, on each May 15` during the term of this Agreement, by the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, Los Angeles -Riverside - Orange County average, All Items, 1982-84 = 100, published by the United States Department of so 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -7- DRAFT Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (the "CPI"), by comparing the CPI existing on the immediately prior March Vt to the CPI existing on the March 1't of the previous year. The first such adjustment shall occur on the first May 0 following on the earlier of the following two dates: (i) the closing of the first sale of a residential unit; or (ii) the two-year anniversary of the Reference Date. No adjustment shall be made in any year in which there has been a decrease in the CPI. If the CPI is no longer published at any point during the Term of this Agreement, a comparable index shall be selected by the parties. 3.3.5 Other Fees and Charges; Assessment Appeals. Nothing set forth in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to limit or restrict the City's authority to impose its existing, or any new or increased, fees, charges, levies, or assessments for the development of the Site, or to impose or increase, subject to the required procedure, any taxes applicable to the Site including but not limited to transient occupancy taxes; provided nothing set forth herein is intended or shall be construed to limit or restrict whatever right Developer might otherwise have to challenge any fee, charge, levy, assessment, or tax imposed. Developer shall timely pay all applicable fees, charges, levies, assessments, and special and general taxes validly imposed in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the State of California, including without limitation school impact fees in accordance with Government Code §§ 65995, et seq. 3.3.6 Rental Tracking_ System. The CCRs shall provide that the Villa La Quinta HOA will establish and operate throughout the term of this Agreement a Rental Tracking system (the "Rental Tracking System") to be administered by the Villa La Quinta HOA or its agents or contractors. The Villa La Quinta HOA shall be required to designate and notify the City of the Rental Tracking System administer. The CCRs shall require each owner (or such owner's agent) within the Project to report any rental of such owner's unit to the Rental Tracking System administrator if such unit is not rented through the Rental Tracking System. The CCRs shall require that the owners shall be responsible for reporting to the Rental Tracking System administrator the following information for all rentals of all units within the Project: (a) unit rented; (b) the term of the rental, including the first and last day; (c) the rental payment; (d) the rental agent, if any; and (e) the name of the renter. The Rental Tracking System administrator shall use all reasonable diligence to assure that all such information is collected. The Rental Tracking System administrator shall provide monthly written reports summarizing the information collected pursuant to (a) through (d), inclusive, as an aid to the City in assuring that the proper collection of applicable TOT is occurring. The City shall have the right to audit the records of the Rental Tracking System administrator upon two business days written notice to the same. The Developer or Villa La Quinta HOA shall notify the City of the name and contact information of the Rental Tracking System administrator on or before the date that the first certificate of occupancy is issued for any of the residential resorts units. It shall be the obligation of the Villa La Quinta HOA to notify the City of any redesignation of the Rental Tracking System administrator. On an annual basis, the Rental Tracking System administrator shall provide an information brochure to all owners of units describing: (1) the limitation on renting units for more than 30 consecutive days; (2) the obligation to collect TOT on all rentals; (3) the obligation in the CCRs that owners or their agents report all rentals to the Rental Tracking System administrator; and (4) contact information for the Rental Tracking System administrator and the entity or entities rental management 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -8- DRAFT opportunities that are known to be available to the owners pursuant to Section 3.3.7. The City Community Development Director shall approve the brochure prior to its distribution. The City's approval of the brochure will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.3.7 Rental Management Program Developer shall be responsible for ensuring that for the Term of this Agreement, one or more contract(s) shall be in effect at all times which provide opportunities to the owners of the resort residential units to have the ability to make their units available for rental periods of up to 30 consecutive days. The contract or contracts may, but are not required to be, with an on -site rental management agent. Developer may assign this obligation to the Villa La Quinta HOA in accordance with the procedures of Section 3.3.8. 3.3.8 Assumption of Obligation by Villa La Quinta HOA. Upon the recordation of the CCRs and the execution and recordation of an assumption and assignment agreement, the obligations set forth in Section 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 shall be the obligation of the Villa La Quinta HOA and the Developer shall no longer be responsible for their implementation. The assumption and assignment agreement shall be in the form set forth in Exhibit "D". 3.4 Dedications and Improvements. Developer shall offer such dedications to the City or other applicable public agency, or complete those public improvements in connection with the Project, as specified in the Conditions of Approval. 3.5 Indemnification. (a) Developer agrees to and shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend, the City and its officers, officials, members, agents, employees, and representatives (collectively, "the Indemnified Parties"), from liability or claims for death or personal injury and claims for property damage which may arise from the acts, errors, and/or omissions of the Developer or its contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or other persons acting on its behalf in relation to the Project and/or this Agreement, except to the extent that the liability or claims arise from the City's negligence or willful misconduct. The foregoing indemnity applies to all deaths, injuries, and damages, and claims therefor, suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the acts, errors, and/or omissions referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications, or both, and regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are applicable. (b) Developer agrees to and shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend, the Indemnified Parties from any challenge to the validity of this Agreement, the CCRs implementing this Agreement, or to the City's implementation of its rights under this Agreement; the Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide defense for the Indemnified Parities in said action or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City. (c) In the event the Indemnified Parties are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding in any way involving claims specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -9- DRAFT above, Developer shall provide a defense to the Indemnified Parties, or at the Indemnified Parties' option, reimburse the Indemnified Parties their costs of defense, including attorney's fees, incurred in defense of such claim. In addition, Developer shall be obligated to promptly pay any final judgment or portion thereof rendered against the Indemnified Parties. The City shall, at no cost to the City, cooperate with the Developer in any such defense as Developer may reasonably request. 4.0 CITY'S OBLIGATIONS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 4.1 Scope of Subsequent Review/Confirmation of Compliance Process. Nothing set forth herein shall impair or interfere with the right of the City to require the processing of building permits as required by law, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code and the provisions of City's Fire Codes and ordinances, Health and Safety Codes and ordinances, and Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and similar building codes. Prior to each request for a building permit, Developer shall provide City with a Compliance Certificate ("Certificate"), in substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit "E", which shall describe how all applicable Conditions of Approval have been fully complied with. The Certificate shall be distributed to the relevant City departments in order to check the representations made by Developer on the Certificate. 4.2 Project Approvals Independent. All approvals required for the Project which may be or have been granted, and all land use entitlements or approvals generally which have been issued or will be issued, by the City with respect to the Project, constitute independent actions and approvals by the City. If any provision of this Agreement or the application of any provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if this Agreement terminates for any reason, then such invalidity, unenforceability or termination of this Agreement or any part hereof shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any such Project approvals or other land use approvals and entitlements. In such cases, such approvals and entitlements will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms, provisions, and the Conditions of Approval. It is understood by the parties to this Agreement that, pursuant to existing law, if this Agreement terminates or is held invalid or unenforceable as described above, such approvals and entitlements shall not remain valid for the term of this Agreement, but shall remain valid for the term of such approvals and entitlements. 4.3 Review for Compliance. The City shall review Developer's compliance with the terms of this Agreement at least once during every twelve (12) month period following the Effective Date of this Agreement, in accordance with the City's procedures and standards for such review set forth in the City's Development Agreement Ordinance. During such periodic review by the City, the Developer, upon written request from City, shall be required to demonstrate, and hereby agrees to furnish, evidence of good faith compliance with the terms hereof. The failure of the City to conduct or complete the annual review as provided herein or in accordance with the Development Agreement Act shall not impact the validity of this Agreement. If, at the conclusion of the annual review provided for herein, Developer has been found in compliance with this 119/015610-0002 an 431766.07 a 10/03/03 -10- DRAFT Agreement, the City, through the City's Community Development Director, shall, at Developer's written request, issue a Certificate of Compliance to Developer stating that (1) this Agreement remains in full force and effect and (2) Developer is in compliance with this Agreement. The Certificate of Compliance shall be in recordable form, and shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance. Developer, at its option and sole cost, may record the Certificate of Compliance. 4.4 Satisfaction of Specific Plan Condition. The City hereby acknowledges and agrees that full compliance with this Agreement, among other things, will constitute Developer's satisfaction and compliance with those portions of condition 14 of the conditions of approval for the Specific Plan approved by the City which relate to Developer's obligation to enter into (i) a development agreement for the payment of TOT and (ii) one or more rental management service contracts with a Resort/Hotel or rental management company for such Resort/Hotel (as such terms are defined in said condition), to maintain such contracts in effect for a period of ten (10) years, and to provide copies of such contracts to the Community Development Department. 5.0 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 5.1 Notice of Default. In the event of failure by either party hereto substantially to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement, the non -defaulting party shall have those rights and remedies provided herein, provided that such non -defaulting party has first provided to the defaulting party a written notice of default in the manner required by Section 8.1 hereof identifying with specificity the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may satisfactorily be cured. 5.2 Cure of Default. Upon the receipt of the notice of default, the alleged defaulting party shall promptly commence to cure, correct, or remedy the identified default at the earliest reasonable time after receipt of the notice of default and shall complete the cure, correction or remedy of such default not later than five (5) days [or thirty (30) days for non -monetary defaults] after receipt of the notice of default, or, for such defaults that cannot reasonably be cured, corrected or remedied within five (5) days [or thirty (30) days for non -monetary defaults], such party shall commence to cure, correct, or remedy such default within such five (5) day period [or thirty (30) day period for non -monetary defaults], and shall continuously and diligently prosecute such cure, correction or remedy to completion. 5.3 City Remedies. In the event of an uncured default by Developer of the terms of this Agreement, the City, at its option, may institute legal action in law or in equity to cure, correct, or remedy such default, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, or enforce the terms of this Agreement. In no event shall the City be entitled to consequential, exemplary or punitive damages for any Developer default. For purposes of this Agreement the term "consequential damages" shall include, but not be limited to, potential loss of anticipated tax revenues from the Project or any 1191015610-M2 431766.07 a 10/03/03 -11- DRAFT portion thereof. Furthermore, the City, in addition to, or as an alternative to, exercising the remedies set forth in this Section 5.3, in the event of a material default by Developer, may give notice of its intent to terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to the City's Development Agreement Ordinance and/or the Development Agreement Act, in which event the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council in the manner set forth in the City's Development Agreement Ordinance or the Development Agreement Act. 5.4 Developer's Exclusive Remedies. The parties acknowledge that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under, or with respect to, this Agreement or any of the matters referred to herein including, but not limited to, the Development Plan, Conditions of Approvals, the Existing Development Regulations or any future amendments or enactments thereto, or the Project, except as provided in this Section. Accordingly, Developer covenants on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, not to sue the City for damages or monetary relief (except for attorneys' fees as provided for by Section 8.22) for any breach of this Agreement by City or arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy, or issue between Developer and City regarding this Agreement or any of the matters referred to herein including but not limited to the application, interpretation, or effect of this Agreement, the Development Plan, the Conditions of Approval, the Existing Development Regulations or any future amendments or enactments thereto, or any land use permits or approvals sought in connection with the development of the Project or any component thereof, or use of a parcel or any portion thereof, the parties agreeing that declaratory and injunctive relief, mandate, and specific performance shall be Developer's sole and exclusive judicial remedies. 6.0 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE. 6.1 Encumbrances on the Project Site. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit the Developer from encumbering the Site or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon with any mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any other form of conveyance in which the Site, or a portion thereof or interest therein, is pledged as security, and contracted for in good faith and fair value (a "Mortgage") securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use or operation of the Project. 6.2 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Site or any portion thereof by a holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or any successor or assignee to said holder (a "Mortgagee") [whether pursuant to foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination or otherwise] shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -12- DRAFT 6.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee will have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the obligations of the Developer or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, except that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by the Developer is a condition to the performance of a covenant by the City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the City's performance hereunder. 6.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. City shall, upon written request to the City, deliver to each Mortgagee a copy of any notice of default given to Developer under the terms of this Agreement, at the same time of sending such notice of default to Developer. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, within five (5) days [or thirty (30) days for non -monetary defaults] after the receipt of such notice from the City, to cure, correct, or remedy the default, or, for such defaults that cannot reasonably be cured, corrected, or remedied within five (5) days [thirty (30) days for non - monetary defaults], the Mortgagee shall commence to cure, correct, or remedy the default within such five (5) day period [or thirty (30) day period for non -monetary defaults], and shall continuously and diligently prosecute such cure to completion. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession of the Site, such Mortgagee shall have the right to seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall be permitted thereafter to remedy or cure the default within such time as is reasonably necessary to cure or remedy said default but in no event more than thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any such default cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such period shall be extended to permit the Mortgagee to effect a cure or remedy so long as Mortgagee commences said cure or remedy during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure. 7.0 TRANSFERS OF INTEREST IN SITE OR AGREEMENT. 7.1 Successors and Assi Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign Site, or any portion thereof (provided that no such transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code §66410, et seq.) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement. Any such sale or transfer shall include, with respect to the Site or the portion thereof sold or transferred, the assignment and assumption, in a fully executed written agreement, in whole or in part, of the rights, duties and obligations of the Developer under the terms of this Agreement. Upon such sale, transfer or assignment, Developer shall, with respect to the Site or the portion thereof sold or transferred, be released from any further obligations under the terms of this Agreement, provided: (a) Developer no longer has any legal or equitable interest in the Site or the portion thereof sold or transferred, as applicable; (b) Developer is not, at the time of the transfer, in default under the terms of this Agreement; and 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -13- DRAFT (c) Developer has submitted an executed assignment and assumption agreement in a form set forth in Exhibit F. 7.2 Sales in Normal Course of Business. The provisions of the above Section shall not apply to the sale or lease of a residential dwelling unit which has been finally subdivided and is� individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. Upon any such sale or lease, the residential dwelling unit shall be released from the rights, duties and obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, except for all obligations which extend to the individual units under the CCRs provisions which implement this Agreement. This release shall in no way limit the duties and obligations of the Developer or the Villa La Quinta HOA. 7.3 Assignment by City. The City may assign or transfer any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement with the approval of the Developer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS. 8.1 Notices. All notices permitted or required hereunder must be in writing and shall be effected by (i) personal delivery, (ii) first class mail, registered or certified, postage fully prepaid, or (iii) reputable same -day or overnight delivery service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, addressed to the following parties, or to such other address as any party may from time to time, designate in writing in the manner as provided herein: To City: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Attn: Community Development Director With a copy to: Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attn: M. Katherine Jenson To Developer: Mr. Steve Mudge Centex Real Estate Corporation 2275 Corporate Circle, Suite 230 Henderson, NV 89074 Telephone: (702) 990-0800 Facsimile: (702) 990-0400 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -14- DRAFT With a copies to: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Attn: Daniel E. Olivier, Esq. 74-760 Highway 111, Ste. 200 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Telephone: (760) 568-2611 Facsimile: (760) 340-6698 Edward G. Milgrim 385 Douglas Avenue, Suite 3100 Almonte Springs, FL 32714 Telephone: (407) 661-2103 Facsimile: (407) 661-9041 Any written notice, demand or communication shall be deemed received immediately if personally delivered or delivered by delivery service, and shall be deemed received on the third day from the date it is postmarked if delivered by registered or certified mail. 8.2 Force Majeure. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or failures to perform are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walk -outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, terrorism, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities, governmental restrictions or priority, unusually severe weather, inability to secure labor, materials, or tools necessary for the Project, delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier; acts of another party, acts or the failure to act of any public or governmental agency or entity (except that acts or the failure to act of the City shall not excuse performance by the City) or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall only be for the period of the enforced delay, which period shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the City and the Developer. Notwithstanding the paragraph above, Developer is not entitled pursuant to this Section 8.2 to an extension of time to perform because of past, present, or future difficulty in obtaining suitable construction or permanent financing for the development of the Site, or because of economic or market conditions. 8.3 Binding Effect. This Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, any subsequent owner of all or any portion of the Project or the Site, and their respective assigns, heirs or successors in interest, whether or not any reference to 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a 10/03/03 -15 - DRAFT this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project or the Site. 8.4 Independent Entity. The parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing this Agreement, each of the Developer and the City is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. 8.5 Agreement Not to Benefit Third Parties. This Agreement is made for the sole benefit of the parties, and no other person shall be deemed to have any privity of contract under this Agreement nor any right to rely on this Agreement to any extent for any purpose whatsoever, nor have any right of action of any kind on this Agreement, nor be deemed to be a third party beneficiary under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, the Agency shall be an intended third party beneficiary to this Agreement. 8.6 Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute mutual covenants which shall run with the land comprising the Site for the benefit thereof, and the burdens and benefits hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of each of the parties hereto and all successors in interest to the parties hereto for the term of this Agreement. 8.7 Nonliability of City Officers and Employees. No official, officer, employee, agent or representative of the City, acting in his/her official capacity, shall be personally liable to Developer, or any successor or assign, for any loss, costs, damage, claim, liability, or judgment, arising out of or connection to this Agreement, or for any act or omission on the part of the City. 8.8 Covenant Against Discrimination. Developer and City covenant and agree, for themselves and their respective successors and assigns, that there shall be no discrimination against, or segregation of, any person or group or persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, or any other impermissible classification, in the performance of this Agreement. Developer shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.). 8.9 Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the original parties or such party to which the Developer assigns all or any portion of its interest in this Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the City's Development Agreement Ordinance and Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -16- 8.10 No Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other party under any of the provisions of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof, except as expressly provided herein. No waiver by either party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other party shall be construed or deemed a waiver of any succeeding breach or nonperformance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 8.11 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, to the extent that the invalidity or unenforceability does not impair the application of this Agreement as intended by the parties. 8.12 Cooperation in Carrying Out Agreement. Each party shall take such actions and execute and deliver to the other all such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder. 8.13 Estoppel Certificate. Any party hereunder may, at any time, deliver written notice to any other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the best knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing the nature and amount of any such defaults, and (iv) any other reasonable information requested. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt of such written request. The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Community Development Director are each authorized to sign and deliver an estoppel certificate on behalf of the City. The City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees. 8.14 Construction. This terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction that might otherwise apply. As used in this Agreement, and as the context may require, the singular includes the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender includes the feminine and vice versa. 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a]0/03/03 -17- 8.15 Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder of Riverside County at Developer's cost, if any, within the period required by Government Code Section 65868.5. Amendments approved by the parties, and any cancellation or termination of this Agreement, shall be similarly recorded. 8.16 Captions and References. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are solely for convenience of reference, and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Reference herein to a paragraph or exhibit are the paragraphs, subparagraphs and exhibits of this Agreement. 8.17 Time. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof as to which time is an element. 8.18 Recitals & Exhibits Incorporated; Entire Agreement. The Recitals to this Agreement and all of the exhibits and attachments to this Agreement are, by this reference, incorporated into this Agreement and made a part hereof. This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements between the parties, and no parole evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 8.19 Exhibits. Exhibits "A" — "F" to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed appropriated herein in their entirety. Said exhibits are identified as follows: A Legal Description of Site B Conditions of Approval C Mitigation Monitoring Program D Assignment and Assumption Agreement for HOA E Compliance Certificate F General Assignment and Assumption Agreement 8.20 Counterpart Signature Pages. For convenience the parties may execute and acknowledge this agreement in counterparts and when the separate signature pages are attached hereto, shall constitute one and the same complete Agreement. 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a 10/03/03 -18 DRAFT 8.21 Authority to Execute. Developer warrants and represents that (i) it is duly organized and existing, (ii) it is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, Developer is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, (iv) Developer's entering into and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement do not violate any provision of any other agreement to which Developer is bound, and (v) there is no existing or threatened litigation or legal proceeding of which Developer is aware which could prevent Developer from entering into or performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 8.22 Governing Law; Litigation Matters. The internal laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any action at law or in equity brought by any party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing, or interpreting the validity of this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, or such other appropriate court in said county, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal, or change of venue to any other court. Service of process on City shall be made in accordance with California law. Service of process on Developer shall be made in any manner permitted by California law and shall be effective whether served inside or outside of California. In the event of any action between the parties hereto seeking enforcement of any of the terms of this Agreement or otherwise arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be awarded, in addition to such relief to which such party is entitled, its reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and litigation costs and expenses. 8.23 No Brokers. Each of the City and the Developer represents to the other party that it has not engaged the services of any finder or broker and that it is not liable for any real estate commissions, broker's fees, or finder's fees which may accrue by means of this Agreement, and agrees to hold harmless the other party from such commissions or fees as are alleged to be due from the party making such representations. 119/015610.0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -19- DRAFT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City have executed this Agreement as of the Reference Date. "DEVELOPER" CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General Partnership By: — Its: "CITY" CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation Thomas Genovese City Manager ATTEST: June Greek City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP M. Katherine Jenson City Attorney 1191015610-0002 _20_ 431766.07 a10/03/03 DRAFT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF On , before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF _) On , before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -2I DRAFT EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE 119/015610-M2 OMW 431766.07 a10/03/03 -22- DRAFT EXHIBIT `B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 119/015610-0002 ow 431766.07 a10/03/03 -23- EXHIBIT "C" MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT MONITORING CHECKLIST (CEQA Mitigation Measures) PROJECT NAME FILE NUMBER APPROVAL DATE ENVIRONMENTAL All of the mitigation measures required for this project are consolidated on this checklist for the purpose of monitoring them for completion as a part of the project approval process. Each responsible department/division will assign a deadline for completion of the conditions it has required. Numbers of conditions are entered in the appropriate column. A signature at each point in the approval process indicates completion of conditions required by a responsible department/division at that point in time. Final approval for C of O must be obtained from the Community Development Department. Responsible Department I II During / Division Demolition Demolition III Grading CDD — Building CDD- Planning PWD- General VI IV Certificate Building V During Of Permit Construction Occupancy VII Other 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -24- Ongoing G EXHIBIT "D" ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FOR HOA 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -25- 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -26- EXHIBIT "E" COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 _27- EXHIBIT "F" GENERAL ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT 119/015610-0002 431766.07 a10/03/03 -28- PH #E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-786 APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 1 1 1, LTD ARCHITECT: KKE ARCHITECTS LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1, WEST OF ADAMS STREET IN WASHINGTON PARK REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 17, 2002, FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 87-01 1, AMENDMENT #4, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT APPROVAL AND NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL P:\stan\sdp 2003-786 pc rpt.doc SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: CR / 111 LA QUINTA CENTER SOUTH: CR / CVWD WELL SITE AND COMMERCIAL USE UNDER CONSTRUCTION EAST: CR / DODGE CITY CAR DEALER WEST: CR / TARGET UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN CENTER BACKGROUND: The project site is in Washington Park, originally approved as Specific Plan 87-01 1 in 1989, and amended in 1991, 1997, 2001 and December, 2002. To date Lowe's Hardware and the La Quinta Court (Highway 111 and Washington Street) have been constructed and Target and some adjacent shops are under construction. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proposed are two commercial buildings on pads near the intersection of Highway 111 and Adams Street. The architectural plans for two additional pad buildings have been submitted for approval. The larger building (Pad 1) will have approximately 15,000 square feet of floor area and be near the southwest intersection of Highway 111 and Adams Street. The second building (Pad 3) will be west of the first building adjacent to Highway 111 and contain approximately 5,000 square feet. Both buildings will be setback 50-feet from Highway 1 1 1, as required by the General Plan with Pad 1 setback 30-feet from Adams Street, as stipulated by the Specific Plan. The buildings will front on the parking lots and back up to, or side on, Highway 111 and Adams Street. The larger 15,000 square foot building will be north of the Adams Street driveway. The smaller building, adjacent to Highway 1 1 1, is located east of the driveway. The site plan design complies with the approved Specific Plan. Each building will have a trash enclosure provided near the structure. The buildings are designed in a contemporary style, similar to previous buildings approved in the center. The buildings' feature flat parapet roofs, large square windows, square popouts, stone veneer accents, fabric awnings, and timber -framed trellis canopies. The same color and material palette as previously proposed, utilizing various beige -red -brown color plasters, with random reddish -brown stone veneer accents, is to be used. The building heights vary from 20 and 22-feet for the main parapet walls, to 26 and 28-feet for tower elements. P:\stan\sdp 2003-786 pc rpt.doc The landscaping plans are similar to previous plans and use the plant palette approved in the Specific Plan. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed this request at its meeting of October 1, 2003 (Attachment 3) and adopted Minute Motion 2003-043, recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Separate the parking spaces in front of Pad 1 by providing a minimum of two planter islands. 2. Light gage steel shall be used for the trellis structures. 3. Stacked stone shall be used on the buildings, similar to that used at Desert European Motor Cars. FINDINGS. The findings, as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, can be made as noted in the attached Resolution provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed. The current Zoning Code requires buildings within 150 feet of Highway 111 to have a roof height of not more than 22 feet. This Code provision was enacted in 1996 to insure low profile buildings adjoining Image Corridors and Major/Primary Arterial thoroughfares. However, the Code permits architectural projections to exceed this height based on the following statement:"...architectural features not containing usable floor space, such as chimneys, towers, gables and spires, are permitted to extend fifteen feet above the maximum structure height set forth in Table 9-6 if approved as part of the site development or other permit (Section 9.90.020)." Therefore, the building heights as proposed are acceptable. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2003- , approving Site Development Permit 2003-786, subject to the attached conditions: P:\stan\sdp 2003-786 pc rpt.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Development plan booklet 3. Minutes of the October 1, 2003, ALRC meeting Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE , WASHINGTON PARK CENTER CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-786 APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Washington 1 1 1, Ltd. to approve the development plans for two commercial buildings with 20,000 square feet in the Washington Square Center, located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Adams Street, more particularly described as: APN: PORTION OF 643-020-017 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee did on the 1 ST day of October, 2003, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2003-043, recommending approval of the architectural plans for the new buildings, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with this land use designation. 2. The proposed commercial buildings, with conditions, are designed to comply with the Zoning Code and Specific Plan requirements, including, but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and signs. 3. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2002-459, prepared for Specific Plan 87-01 1, Amendment #4 that was certified on December 17, 2002. No changed circumstances, or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review. Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington 111, Ltd Adopted: October 14, 2003 4. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City, with Conditions of Approval. The project uses architectural features, colors, and materials to match the surrounding existing buildings. 5. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The proposed building is located in an area that is designated for a commercial restaurant building. 6. Project landscaping, including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, compliment buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and compliment the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. 7. The building signs will have to comply and be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Center's approved sign program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-786 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of October, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: P:\STAN\sdp 2003-786 pc reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington 111, Ltd Adopted: October 14, 2003 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\STAN\sdp 2003-786 pc reso.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-786 WASHINGTON 1 1 1, LTD. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED ADOPTED: OCTOBER 14, 2003 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this site development plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public 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 Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the NPDES stormwater discharge permit for the Washington Park, Parcel Map No. 30903. 3. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). P:\STAN\sdp 2003-786 coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington Park 111, Ltd Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: October 14, 2003 PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for 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. 5. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 6. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial — State Highway, 140' Right of Way) — No additional street right of way is required to comply with the General Plan street widths. 2) Adams Street (Primary Arterial, Option A, 110' Right of Way) — No additional street right of way is required to comply with the General Plan street widths. 7. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the approved Site Development Plan are necessary prior the applicant dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 8. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows: A. Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial — State Highway) — 50-foot from the R/W — P/L. B. Adams Street (Primary Arterial, Option A, 1 10' Right of Way) — 20-foot from the R/W — P/L. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. STANUp 2003-786 coa.doc Printed October 10, 2003 Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington Park 111, Ltd Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: October 14, 2003 Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 9. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 10. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 11. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 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. 12. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers, architects and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media. "Site Development Plans" shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. 13. Site Development Plans" shall normally include all surface improvements, including but not limited to: parking lot improvements, finish grades, curbs & gutters, ADA requirements including ADA accessibility to surrounding buildings, parking facilities and public streets, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City Resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. \STANNsdp 2003-786 coa.doc Printed October 10, 2003 Page 3 of 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington Park 111, Ltd Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: October 14, 2003 15. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of the development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. GRADING 16. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 17. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. r)RAlNAr.;= 19. "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Parcel Map No. 30903. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. :\STAN\sdp 2003-786 coa.doc Printed October 10, 2003 Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington Park 111, Ltd Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: October 14, 2003 UTILITIES 20. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 21. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 22. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. A. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets are limited to the access locations approved in Specific Plan 87-01 1, Amendment No. 4. 23. 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. 24. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to those shown on the approved Specific Plan 87-01 1, Amendment No. 4. LANDSCAPING 25. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins and common lots, with all trees other than palm trees, having a minimum 1.5" caliper. \STAN\sdp 2003-786 coa.doc Printed October 10, 2003 Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington Park 111, Ltd Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: October 14, 2003 26. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians and retention basins shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 27. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. QUALITY ASSURANCE 28. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 30. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 31. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 32. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. :\STAN\.sdp 2003-786 coa.doc Printed October 10, 2003 Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington Park 111, Ltd Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: October 14, 2003 FEES AND DEPOSITS 33. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 34. 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 36. Approved super fire hydrants shall be spaced every 300 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. 37. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 38. Fire Department connections shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the street side of the buildings. 39. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 40. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 41. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 42. 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. 43. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1 st floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. 44. Any commercial operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.) STAN\sdp 2003-786 coa.doc Printed October 10, 2003 Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-786 Washington Park 111, Ltd Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: October 14, 2003 45. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed. 46. Install a KNOX key box on the building and/or commercial suite. (Contact the fire department for an application) 47. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 48. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 3000 gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. MISCELLANEOUS 49. The parking spaces in front of Pad 1 shall be separated with a minimum of two planter islands. 50. Light gage steel shall be used for the trellis structures. 51. Stacked stone shall be used for the buildings, similar to that used at Desert European Motor Cars. kSTAN\sdp 2003-786 coa.doc Printed October 10, 2003 Page 8 of 8 CASE No. CASE MAP SDP 2003-786 ATTACHMENT #1 PAD SITES ORTH SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT #3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee October 1, 2003 a. ',,Condition added: Limit the use of the pine trees to the golf course area. Unanimously approved. •��' C. Site Development Permit 2003-786; a request of Washington 1 1 1, LLC for a review of architectural plans for two commercial buildings located on the north side of Highway 111, west of Washington Street, in Washington Park. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Bill Sanchez and Michael Kareti, the applicant and architect for the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns stated he would like to see the parking removed or reduced for the area in front of the large building. The elevations are lost if cars are parked in front. Mr. Michael Kareti, architect for the project, stated they could break up the row of cars moving the handicap away from the entrance. Committee Member Thoms asked that there be a break between the handicap parking and the other parking spaces. He further stated that in regard to the colors, he would not want the vivid orange colors used. Mr. Kareti stated the base colors are in the sand range. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he likes the project and believes there is a lot of good in diversity. In this instance the building masses are well done. He would ask that they not use the wood, but rather light gauge steel for the trellis. On the rock stone veneer he would suggest they use the stacked stone. In regard to the color, he would suggest they put together a color board that represents what the buildings will look like for presentation to the Planning Commission. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2003-042 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2003-787, as recommended by staff and as amended: G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\10-1-03 WD.doc - - 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee October 1, 2003 a. Condition added: Break up the parking on the front of Pad 1 by providing a minimum of two planter islands. b. Condition added: Use light gauge steel for the trellis instead of wood. C. Condition added: Use the stacked stone for the stone veneer as used on the Desert European Auto Cars building. Unanimously approved. Vi. CORRESPOND&41G& AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thorns to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on November 5, 2003. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1:01 a.m. on October 1, 2003. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary GAWPDOMALRO10-1-03 WD.doc - - 5 PH #F STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-725 APPLICANT: SUPERIOR ELECTRICAL ADVERTISING, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: McDONALDS RESTAURANTS REQUEST: DEVIATION FROM THE 111 LA QUINTA CENTER SIGN PROGRAM, TO ALLOW NON -CHANNEL LETTERS LOCATION: McDONALD'S - 78962 HIGHWAY 111 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site History The sign program for the 111 La Quinta Center was approved originally in 1991. Since then, several sign amendments and modifications have been approved for the various pad and shell spaces in the center. The McDonald's signs were approved in September 1995, for the building mounted signs and one menu/preview board sign with ordering system. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has proposed a revised design for the McDonald's corporate script logo presently affixed to the building's north, west and east elevations (Attachment 1). The design is a block -style letter, which is designed as a one-piece frame with a cover designed as the lettering (i.e. unitized channel lettering). All three script signs will be replaced with the unitized lettering. The logo "M" existing above the script will remain in place. The existing script letters are each within an area of about 60 square feet; the proposed replacement signs each measure about 56 square feet. puptrev.lap The applicant also is revising the drive -through operation, which requires placement of two new freestanding signs, one for a menu list/ordering pedestal, and one as a "presale" sign. An existing presale sign will be relocated further west along the drive -through entry lane. The purpose of these signs is to allow doubling or the order rate, thereby speeding up service to customers in line. The current system is not adequate and is causing traffic to queue up along the entire drive -through aisle, and into the west side parking area. ANALYSIS: Staff has made the following determinations: 1. The existing sign program requires channel letter signs. Staff has reviewed the design of the unitized lettering and has determined that it is consistent with the design intent of a typical channel letter sign. 2. Because the new corporate letters include the "M" logo, staff recommends that the three existing logos be removed, This building has excessive window and other signing, and staff sees no purpose to retain these logos, particularly in light of the newly designed signs. 3. The menu and drive -through signs are considered ancillary to the operation as they do not orient their advertising to off -site traffic or businesses. They are tailored to increase service efficiency and as such, are considered to be informational signs necessary to the operation of the drive through facility. FINDINGS: • The Sign Program deviation is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in said Chapter. • The Sign Program deviation is harmonious with and visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs. The unitized letter design proposed is consistent with channel letter designs required throughout the center. • The Sign Program deviation is consistent with and visually related to the buildings within the 1 1 1 La Quinta shopping center, through incorporation of colors and materials common to said buildings and as set forth in the Sign Application and approved Sign Program. • The Sign Program deviation is consistent with and visually related to surrounding development. The menu and drive -through signs are considered ancillary to the operation, as they are tailored to increase service efficiency and as such, are considered to be informational signs necessary to the operation of the drive through facility. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No. 2003 - , approving Sign Application 2003-725, as submitted and subject to the following additional requirements 1 . The three logo signs on the top of the north, east and west elevations shall be removed. 2. A minimum of one existing presale board shall be eliminated. The applicant shall work with staff to determine which board(s) are non -essential to the operation. Prepared by: F Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1 . Existing script signs to be replaced. Mv 4" d� � 4-.Nmft EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION ATTACHMENT 1 777777777777 PH #G STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-727 APPLICANT/ SIGN CONTRACTOR: PARAGON SIGNS, INC PROPERTY OWNER: DR. MATTHEW WERNER REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR 47250 WASHINGTON STREET (LAKE LA QUINTA PLAZA) LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST NORTH OF OMRI & BONI RESTAURANT (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site History The project was approved by the City Council under Specific Plan 2002-056 and Site Development Permit 2002-731, on June 18, 2002. Condition #76 of the Site Development Permit, which approved the project, requires that a planned sign program must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, prior to establishment of any permanent signs for the project. The applicant has already installed one of the signs as proposed. Presently, the doctor's portion of the building is in operation under a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL: The applicant requests sign program approval for three building/tenant ID sign areas; two mounted on the south building elevation, and one on the west (Attachment 2). The main building ID copy will have letter heights of 16 inches and 7.5 inches. The area of each sign is will not exceed 50 square feet. The sign program is intended to apply only to the existing phase 1 building. The applicant intends to process an amendment to include the 2"d phase building. Note, the applicant has installed one of the south elevation signs for his practice, which was applied for under another sign application, but not approved (Attachment 3). Also proposed is one freestanding monument sign for the complex (location not determined) • The monument measures approximately 36 square feet and stands at just under 7 feet in height. Construction of all building -mounted sign copy consists of injection molded plastic letters, with no Illumination. All letters will be in a dark bronze finish, and will be affixed to the building with stud mounting. ANALYSIS: 1. The sign program as proposed is within the allowable lineal building lease frontage and other allowances of the sign code; 2. Future signs for the remaining tenants will be submitted later as they are identified. Specific sign locations and sizes will be reviewed against the provisions of the sign program; and, 3. The sign regulations require freestanding complex monument ID signs to have a minimum 10 inch letter size. As this commercial project borders a residential area and is a low intensity commercial office use, the issue of visibility of signs is less significant than in a more intense commercial district with more competitive sign visibility concerns. FINDINGS: The following findings can be made in support of SA 2003-725: A. The Sign Program is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in said Chapter. B. The Sign Program is harmonious with and visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs. C. The Sign Program is harmonious with and visually related to the subject building as the scale of the signs and letter color used accentuate the building design. D. The Sign Program is harmonious with and visually related to surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No. 2003 - approving Sign Application 2003-725 as submitted. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Sign Program — 3 pages 3. Werner sign application g1TH. AVE.. r- SITE LAKE LA QUINTA DR. W �E a wr 5 �a m VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT 1 Cl O N O' 00 L O O 4) C W } V z J V O LL. O e z -0 ~ aZ�Z¢O�WaOU�a�mga°��-"OgUW��uv�o°oLL�wO°c� u� Du)ZWo0= �wVZauj LLI7O,000i--ZOmewqw)O,0 OPWM MDzwzz N�w 0 w 00aa5dQo LL 4) bo cc ATTACHMENT 2 la Wa M(w IN w IXwa >-0ZrLOLz m f!J Z ppp W{zy0gui. °}° U• f4?FWD yZtwn LL -r tip< �> OOLLf9w UnOx02� pZ offiOOmF-y�V1zLLODUW��ZoZx~zOomwo-aaoycl"-wy w Z w ��ZOD�vi _�m�y LO ~>Z mOa in so v < LL wxO ,� aUaa— 2 W, 6noo�O� co w 0 . w i O N to ch ai c+M O O N co N N O O e' N C 31 c co N O hi c V- Q co O 00 O ai M 0 0 N 0 M O C 0 cc w z oc w �wLLz N �mao a z wzmLL uj rn� z= W O� Z �w0 0-loc'e J=°t7� OZWO OW0 O m l- Co pp O LL O 0 V LL z m° F- v� w0. �Boa°y?0Z�zZ!!: 0J)�vvz�wo'°i~W�Fj209wovoQ; Lo U) °�°°waW G °a ~J o OC yw wZO�g�OLDr�. X51°O~0 FOILCR'LLa(-)CLC.�mixHoo*CLaS�a(.) X o N n pC W Iuu� O�- eM W £_ all S ra N c N n pQ ii I 4 co O C J xzW�L>,wa ,oOz�pzz-Wzu I o F �zOmOVWOZ}LLO—zC��LLOf�c9W =Og% W,f.ymZO ozzz m� WOO W��V L)OX:Z � �7OO_z.''zOO~�OW¢z j�—va w V p a W a aOWZ�O_SO~�� WWX~� 20HOM wOO�aa5� F-Da.McfUtmx 9 cd W Z cd W ATTACHMENT 3 i R C PH #H STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-077 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE LOCATION: APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: CITY-WIDE CITY OF LA QUINTA THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES, AND SECTION 15268, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS, OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES This item was continued to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the proposed Ordinance. As required by AB 325, the City of La Quinta is required to adopt a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Chapter 8.13 of Title 8, Building and Construction, contains the provisions for water efficient landscapes. The purpose of this Amendment is to adopt the revised requirements recently adopted by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for newly installed and rehabilitated landscapes. Purpose: The purpose of the Ordinance is to create and maintain lush and water efficient landscapes. This will be accomplished through the regulations of appropriate landscape material, plant grouping and irrigation equipment. Applicability: New and rehabilitated landscaping (including City landscape projects) with landscape areas greater than 2,500 square feet, will be required to comply with these provisions with the exception of resident home owner -provided landscaping at single-family residences. All landscape areas that exceed one -acre PAOscar\Landscaping\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc in size will be subject to audits performed by qualified professional under the supervision of CVWD. Developer -installed landscaping in single-family tracts and multifamily projects will be subject to these provisions. Landscaping Package: A landscaping documentation "package" consisting of a landscape design plan, irrigation plan, grading design plan, soils analysis, water conservation concept statement (water calculations) will be required to approve landscapes. Essentially, an applicant is required to organize a landscape into hydrozones containing plants of similar water needs. Then, an applicant will have to calculate the volume of water that is needed on an annual basis for each of those hydrozones. The total water volume of all hydrozones will then be established. This is called the Estimated Applied Water Use and it must be checked to see that it does not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA). The MAWA is the upper limit of water per gallon, per square foot that can be used. In addition, irrigation schedules must be developed that address the seasonal needs of the hydrozones. Procedures: A landscape "package" shall be submitted to the City and CVWD for project review. CVWD will transmit comments regarding the landscape package. The City's Community Development and Public Works Department (when applicable) shall review and approve the plans, concurrently with CVWD. After the landscaping has been installed, a Certificate of Substantial Compliance shall be completed by a qualified professional certifying that the plants and irrigation systems were installed per the approved plans. The Certificate shall indicate any changes to the approved plans. Proposed changes to the Ordinance: The majority of the landscaping requirements remain the same. The notable modifications involve: 1. Greater water efficiency by increasing the "irrigation efficiency" (beneficial use of water) threshold from .62 to .75 and "plant factors" (water used by plans); 2. Inclusion of projects with landscape areas greater than 2,500 square feet in size; and 3. Landscaping audits for projects one acre and greater in size; Landscape Material: Staff has been directed by Council to review and bring to the Planning Commission revisions to the landscape requirements for commercial properties. The City Council indicated a desire to require a more lush landscape, with particular attention to trees sizes. Staff will bring this matter back to the Planning Commission at a future date under a separate application. P:\Oscar\Landscaping\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ recommending to the City Council adoption of an Amendment to Chapter 8.13, Title 8, Building and Construction, for Water Efficient Landscaping. Submitted by, Oscar Orci, Planning Manager PAOscar\Landscaping\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.13 OF TITLE 8, BUILDING AND CONSTUCTION, PERTAINING TO WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING CASE NO. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2003-077 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 325 requires each city to adopt a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, or adopt the State model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will promote water conservation and appropriate plant material to match the La Quinta theme and climate; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: Section 1. That Chapter 8.13, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the La Quinta Municipal Code, be amended as contained in the attached Exhibit "A". Section 2. Environmental Determination. This Ordinance has compiled with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" in that the Community Development Department has determined that the Amendments to the Municipal Code are exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes, and Section 15268, ministerial project, of the CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of October, 2003, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAOscar\Landscaping\Resolution.doc CHAPTER 8.13 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE Sections: 8.13.010 Purpose and intent. 8.13.020 Definitions. 8.13.030 Provisions for new or rehabilitated landscapes. 8.14.040 Provisions for existing landscapes. 8.15.050 Fees for initial review and program monitoring. 8.16.060 Appeals. 8.13.010 Purpose and intent. A. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish effective water efficient landscape requirements for newly installed and rehabilitated landscapes. It is also the intent of this ordinance to implement the requirements of the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Statutes of 1990, Chapter 1145 (AB 325). B. It is the intent of the city council to promote water conservation through climate appropriate plant material and efficient irrigation as well as to create a city landscape theme through enhancing and improving the physical and natural environment. 8.13.020 Definitions. The words used in this chapter have the meanings set forth below: A. "Anti -drain valve" or "check valve" means a valve located under a sprinkler head to hold water in the system so it minimizes drainage from the lower elevation sprinkler heads. B. "Application rate" means the depth of water applied to a given area, usually measured in inches per hour. Also known as precipitation rate (sprinklers) or emission rate(drippers/microsprayers) in gallons per hour. C. "Applied water" means the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape. D. "Automatic controller" means a mechanical or solid-state timer, capable of operating valve stations to set the days and length of time of a water application. E. "Backflow prevention device" means a safety device used to prevent pollution or contamination of the water supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system. F. "Conversion faction (0.62)" means a number that converts the maximum applied water allowance from acre -inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year. The conversion factor is calculated as follows: (325,851 gallons/43,560 square feet)/12 inches = (0.62) 325,851 gallons = one acre-foot 43,560 square feet = one acre 12 inches = one foot To convert gallons per year to 100 cubic feet per year, the common billing unit for water, divide gallons per year by 748. (748 gallons = 100 cubic feet) G. "Ecological restoration project" means a project where the site is intentionally altered to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem. H. "Effective precipitation" or "usable rainfall" means the portion of total natural precipitation that is used by the plants. Precipitation is not a reliable source of water in the desert. I. Emitter" means drip irrigation fittings that deliver water slowly from the system to the soil. J. "Established landscape" means the point at which plants in the landscape have developed roots into the soil adjacent to the root ball. K. "Establishment period" means the first year after in the plant in the landscape. ortion of he estimated annual total he p L. "Estimated annual applrived fr m a use" l applied water. tThe estimated tannual applied water use water use that is derived pp shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. M. "Estimated total water use" meads the annual total amount of water estimated to be needed to keep the plants in the landscaped area healthy. It is based upon such factors as the local evapotranspiration rate, the size of the landscaped area, the types of plants, and the efficiency of the irrigation system. N. "ET adjustment factor" means a factor of 0.6 that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to the landscape. A combined plant mix with a site -wide average 0.45 is the basis of the plant factor portion of this calculation. The irrigation efficiency for purposes of the ET adjustment factor is 0.75. Therefore, the ET adjustment factor (0.6) _ (0.45/0.75). O. "Evapotranspiration" means the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil surfaces and transpired by plants during a specific time. P. "Flow rate" means the rate at which water flows through pipes and valves (gallons per minute or cubic feet per second). Q. "Hydrozone" means a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs that are served by a valve or set of valves with the same schedule. A hydrozone may be irrigated or nonirrigated. For example, a naturalized area planted with native vegetation that will not need supplemental irrigation once established is a nonirrigated hydrozone. R. "Infiltration rate" means the rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per unit of time (inches per hour). S. "Irrigation efficiency" means the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system characteristics and management practices. The minimum irrigation efficiency for purposes of this chapter is 0.75. Greater irrigation efficiency can be expected from well -designed and maintained systems. T. "Landscape irrigation audit" means a process to perform site inspections, evaluate irrigation systems, and develop efficient irrigation schedules. U. "Landscaped area" means the entire parcel less the building footprint, driveways, nonirrigated portions of parking lots, hardscapes such as decks and patios, and other nonporous areas. Water features are included in the calculation of the landscaped area. V. "Lateral line" means the water delivery pipeline that supplies water to the emitters or sprinklers from the valve. W. "Main line" means the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water meter to the valve or outlet. X. "Service line" means the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the water meter. Y. "Maximum applied water allowance" means for design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscaped area. It is based upon the area's reference evapotranspiration, the ET adjustment factor, and the size of the landscaped area. The estimated applied water use shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. Z. "Mined -land reclamation projects" means any surface mining operation with a reclamation plan approved in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. AA. "Mulch" means any material such as gravel, small rocks, pebbles, decorative sand, decomposed granite, bark, straw or other material left loose and applied to the soil surface for the beneficial purpose of reducing evaporation. BB. "Operating pressure" means the manufacturer's recommended pressure at which a system of sprinklers, bubblers, drippers or microsprayers is designed to operate. CC "Overhead sprinkler irrigation systems" means those with high flow rates pop -ups, impulse sprinklers, rotors, etc.). DD. "Overspray" means the water which is delivered beyond the landscaped area, wetting pavements, walks, structures, or other nonlandscaped areas. EE. "Plant factor" means a factor that when multiplied by reference evapotranspiration, estimates the amount of water used by plants. For purposes of this ordinance, the average plant factor of very low water using plants ranges from 0.01 to 0.10, for low water using plants the range is 0.10 to 0.35, for moderate water using plants the range is 0.35 to 0.60 and for high water using plants, the range is 0.60 to 0.90. FF. "Rain sensing device" means a system which automatically shuts off the irrigation system when it rains. GG. "Record drawing" or "as-builts" means a set of reproducible drawings which show significant changes in the work made during construction which are usually based on drawings marked up in the field and other data furnished by the contractor. HH. "Recreational area" means areas of active play or recreation such as sports fields, school yards, picnic grounds, or other areas with intense foot traffic. II. "Recycled water," "reclaimed water" or "treated sewage effluent water" means treated or recycled waste water of a quality suitable for nonpotable uses such as landscape irrigation; not intended for human consumption. JJ. "Reference evapotranspiration" or "ETo" means a standard measurement of environmental parameters which affect the water use of plants. ETo is given in inches per day, month, or year, and is an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of cool -season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration is used as a basis of determining the maximum applied water allowances so that regional differences in climate can be accommodated. For purposes of this ordinance, the following ETo zone map will be used(See attached). KK. "Rehabilitated landscape" means any relandscaping project whose choice of new plant material and/or new irrigation system components is such that the calculation of the site's estimated water use will be significantly changed. The new estimated water use calculation must not exceed the maximum applied water allowance calculated for the site using a 0.6 ET adjustment factor. LL. "Runoff' means water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied and flows from the planted area. For example, runoff may result from water that is applied at too great a rate (application rate exceeds infiltration rate), when there is a severe slope or when water is misapplied to hardscapes. MM. "Soil moisture sensing device" means a device that measures the amount of water in the soil. NN. "Soil texture" means the classification of soil based on the percentage of sand, silt and clay in the soil. 00. "Sprinkler head" means a device which sprays water through a nozzle. PP. "Static water pressure" means the pipeline pressure when water is not flowing. QQ. "Station" means an area served by one valve or by a set of valves that operates simultaneously. RR. "Turf' means a surface layer of earth containing mowed grass with its roots. Perennial and Annual Ryegrass are cool season grasses. Hybrid and common Bermuda grass, are warm season grasses. SS. "Valve" means a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system. TT. "Water Conservation Concept Statement" means a one -page checklist and a narrative summary of the project. UU. "Water Feature" means any water applied to the landscape for non -irrigation decorative purposes. Fountains, streams, ponds and lakes are considered water features. Water features use more water than efficiently irrigated turfgrass and are assigned a plant factor value of 1.1 for a stationary body of water and 1.2 for a moving body of water. VV. "Recreational Turfgrass" means turfgrass that serves as a playing surface for sports and recreational activities. Athletic fields, golf courses, parks and school playgrounds are all examples of areas hosting recreational turfgrass. WW. "Recreational Turfgrass ET adjustment factor" means a factor of 0.82 that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for the additional stress of high traffic on recreational turfgrass and the higher irrigation efficiencies of long range rotary sprinklers. These are the two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to a recreational landscape. A mixed cool/warm season turfgrass with a seasonal average of 0.7 is the basis of the plant factor portion of this calculation. The irrigation efficiency of long range sprinklers for purposes of the ET adjustment factor is 0.85. Therefore, the ET adjustment factor is 0.82 = 0.7/0.85. Note: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 65597, Government Code. (Ord. _§ _ (Exh. J (part), ___) 8.13.030 Provisions for new or rehabilitated landscapes. A. Applicability. 1. Except as provided in subsection (A)(3) of this section, this section shall apply to: a. All new and rehabilitated landscaping for private, public, commercial and governmental development projects that require a permit; and b. Developer -installed landscaping in single-family tracts and multifamily projects. 2. Projects subject to this section shall conform to the provisions in this section. 3. This section shall not apply to: a. Resident homeowner -provided landscaping at single-family residences d. Mined is square feed, ' f • r B. Landscape Documentation Package. I. Each landscape documentation package shall include the following elements, which are described in subsection C of this section. a. Water conservation concept statement; b. Calculation of the maximum applied water allowance; c. Calculation of the estimated applied water use; d. Calculation of the estimated total water use; e. Landscape design plan; f. Irrigation design plan; g. Grading design plan: h. Soil analysis (optional); i. Certificate of substantial completion. (To be submitted by certified landscape designer, auditor or landscape architect after installation of the project.) 2. Three copies of the landscape documentation package conforming to this chapter shall be submitted to the city. No permit shall be issued until the city reviews and approves the landscape documentation package. Prior to preparation and submission of the landscape documentation package, the preliminary landscape design shall be approved by the planning commission. 3. A copy of the approved landscape documentation package shall be provided to the property owner or site manager along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. 4. Upon completion of construction, a copy of the water conservation concept statement and the certificate of substantial completion shall be sent by the project manager to the water management specialist of the water district and city/county having jurisdiction. C. Elements of Landscape Documentation Package. I. Water Conservation Concept Statement. Each landscape documentation package shall include a cover sheet, referred to as the water conservation statement similar to the following example. It serves as a checklist to verify that the elements of the landscape documentation package have been completed and has a narrative summary of the project. SAMPLE WATER CONSERVATION CONCEPT STATEMENT Project Site: Project Location: Landscape Architect/Irrigation Designer/Contractor: Included in this project submittal package are: (Check to indicate completion) Case Number: 1. Maximum Annual Applied Water Allowance: Conventional Landscape: 100 cubic feet/year + Recreational Turfgrass Landscape: 100 cubic feet/year(if applicable) Total Maximum Annual Applied Water Allowance: 100 cubic feet/year 2. Estimated Annual Applied Water Use by Hydrozone: Turfgrass: 100 cubic feet/year Recreational Turfgrass: 100 cubic feet/year Exotic Trees/Shrubs/Groundcovers: 100 cubic feet/year Desert Plants: 100 cubic feet/year Water features: 100 cubic feet/year Other 100 cubic feet/year 3. Estimated Annual Total Water Use: 100 cubic feet/year 4. Landscape Design Plan Irrigation Design Plan 6. Grading Design Plan 7. Soil Chemical Analysis (optional) Description of Project: (Briefly describe the planning and design actions that are intended to achieve conservation and efficiency in water use.) Date: Prepared by: 1. The Annual Maximum Applied Water Allowance. a. A project's annual maximum applied water allowance shall be calculated using the following formula: MAWA = (ETo) (0.6) (LA) (0.62) where: MAWA = Maximum applied water allowance (gallons per year) ETo = Reference evapotranspiration (ie 75.0 inches per year) 0.6 = ET adjustment factor LA = Landscaped area (square feet) 0.62 = Conversion factor (to gallons per square foot) b. An example calculation of the annual maximum applied water allowance is: Project site: Landscape area of fifty thousand square feet in Zone #3a of the Coachella Valley ETo Map. MAWA = (ETo) (.6) (LA) (.62) (75.0 inches) (.6) (50,000 square feet) (.62) Maximum applied water allowance = 1,395,000 gallons per year, 1,865 hundred - cubic -feet per year(billing units), 4.28 Acre Feet/Acm per year or 51.4" of water per year. 2. Estimated Annual Applied Water Use. a. The annual estimated applied water use shall not exceed the annual maximum applied water allowance. b. A calculation of the estimated annual applied water use shall be submitted with the landscape documentation package. c. The estimated annual total water use for each hydrozone is calculated from the following formula: EWU (hydrozones) = (ETo) (PF) (HA) (.62)//748 (in 100 cubic feet) (IE) EWU (hydrozone) = Estimated water use (gallons per year) ETo = Reference evapotranspiration (ie. ETo Zone 3a = 75.00 inches per year) PF = Plant factor (see definitions) HA = Hydrozone area (square feet) (.62) = Conversion factor (IE) = Irrigation efficiency (see definitions) 748 = Conversion to billing units (100 cubic feet) 3. Estimated Annual Total Water Use. A calculation of the estimated annual total hydrozone. Water use shall be submitted with the landscape documentation package. The estimated annual total water use for the entire landscaped area equals the sum of the estimated annual water use (EWU) of all hydrozones in that landscaped area. 4. Landscape Design Plan. A landscape design plan meeting the following requirements shall be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package. a. Plant Selection and Grouping. i. Any plants may be used in the landscape, providing the estimated annual applied water use recommended does not exceed the maximum annual applied water allowance and that the plants meet the specifications set forth in (ii), (iii) and (iv). ii. Plants having similar water use shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones. iii. Plants shall be selected appropriately based upon their adaptability to the climate, geologic, and topographical conditions of the site. Protection and preservation of native species and natural areas is encouraged. The planting of trees is encouraged whenever it is consistent with the other provisions of this chapter. iv. Fire prevention needs shall be addressed in areas that are fire prone. Information about fire prone areas and appropriate landscaping for fire safety is available from the fire marshal. b. Water Features. i. Recirculating water shall be used for decorative water features. c. Landscape Design Plan Specifications. The landscape design plan shall be drawn on project base sheets at a scale that accurately and clearly identifies: i. Designation of hydrozones; ii. Landscape materials, trees, shrubs, groundcover, turf and other vegetation. Planting symbols shall be clearly drawn and plants labeled by botanical name, common name, water use classification, container size, spacing and quantities of each group of plants indicated; iii. Property lines and street names; iv. Streets, driveways, walkways and other paved areas; v. Pools, ponds, water features, fences and retaining walls; vi. Existing and proposed buildings and structures including elevation, if applicable; vii. Location of all overhead and underground utilities. viii.Natural features including but not limited to rock outcroppings, existing trees and shrubs that will remain; ix. Tree staking, plant installation, soil preparation details, and any other applicable planting and installation details; x. A calculation of the total landscaped area; xi. Designation of recreational areas. 5. Irrigation Design Plan. An irrigation design plan meeting the following conditions shall be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package. a. Irrigation Design Criteria. i. Runoff and Overspray. Soil types and infiltration rate shall be considered when designing irrigation systems. All irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid runoff, low -head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, nonirrigated areas, walks, roadways or structures. Proper irrigation equipment and schedules, including features such as repeat cycles, shall be used to closely match application rates to infiltration rates therefore minimizing runoff. Special attention shall be given to avoid runoff on slopes and to avoid overspray in planting areas with a width less than ten feet. No overhead sprinkler irrigation systems shall be installed in median strips or islands ii. Irrigation Efficiency. For the purpose of determining the maximum applied water allowance, irrigation efficiency is assumed to be 0.75. Mixed irrigation system types shall be designed, maintained and managed to meet or exceed an average of 0.75 efficiency. iii. Equipment. (A) Water Meters. Separate landscape water meters shall be installed for all projects except for single-family homes or any project with a landscaped area of less than twenty five hundred square feet (B) Controllers. Automatic control systems (solar or electric) shall be required for all irrigation systems and must be able to accommodate all aspects of the design. Mechanical irrigation controllers are prohibited. (C) Valves. Plants which regiis different for a given area, only plants wof water shall ith simgar water ated by separate valves. If one valve use shall be used in that area. (D) Anti -drain (check) valves shall be installed in strategic points to prevent low -head drainage. pp appropriate to the p lant water (E) Sprinkler Heads. Heads shall have application rates approp use requirements within each control valve circuit. Sprinkler heads shall be selected for proper area coverage, application rate, matched precipitation rate nozzles, operating pressure, adjustment capability and ease of maintenance. (F) Scheduling Aids: Soil Moisture Sensing Devices. It is required that soil moisture sensing devices be installed on all turfgrass sites exceeding 1.0 acres(43,560 square feet) of planted area. (G) Scheduling Aids: ETo Controllers. It is recommended that ETo controllers be considered for installation on all sites. (H) Equipment in Publicly Maintained Areas. Irrigation equipment in areas which may or will be maintained by the city shall conform to specifications of the city. (I) Emitters. Emitters shall have application rates appropriate to the plant water use requirements within each control valve circuit. Emitters shall be selected for specific area coverage (individual plants), application rates, operating pressure, adjustment capability and ease of maintenance. b. Recycled Water. i. The installation of recycled water irrigation systems (dual distribution systems) shall be required to allow for the current and future use of recycled water, unless a written exemption has been granted as described in the following subsection ii. ii. Irrigation systems shall make use of recycled water unless a written exemption has been granted by the water district having jurisdiction, stating that recycled water meeting all health standards is not available and will not be available in the foreseeable future. iii. Recycled water irrigation systems shall be designed and operated in accordance with all local and state codes and be applicable to all of the provisions of this ordinance. c. Irrigation Design Plan Specifications. Irrigation systems shall be designed to be consistent with hydrozones. The irrigation design plan shall be drawn on project base sheets. It shall be separate from, but use the same format as, the landscape design plan. The scale shall be the same as that used for the landscape design plan. The irrigation design plan shall accurately and clearly identify: i. Location and size of separate water meters for the landscape; ii. Location, type, and size of all components of the irrigation system, including automatic controllers, main and lateral lines, valves, sprinkler heads, moisture sensing devices, rain switches, quick couplers, and backflow prevention devices; iii. Static water pressure at the point of connection to the water supply; iv. Flow rate (gallons per minute), application rate (inches per hour), and design operating pressure (psi) for each station; v. Recycled water irrigation systems. 6. Grading Design Plan. Grading design plans satisfying the city/county grading ordinance and the following conditions shall be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package. a. A grading design plan shall be drawn on project base sheets. It shall be separate from but use the same format as the landscape design plan. b. The grading design plan shall indicate finished configurations and elevations of the landscaped area, including the height of graded slopes, drainage patterns, pad elevations, and finish grade. 7. Soil Analysis. a. A soil analysis satisfying the following conditions should be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package: i. Determination of soil texture, indicating the available water holding capacity. ii. An approximate soil infiltration rate (either) measured or derived from soil texture/infiltration rate tables. A range of infiltration rates shall be noted where appropriate. iii. Measure of pH and total soluble salts. 12. Certification. a. A licensed landscape architect, designer of record or designated city staff shall conduct a final field observation and shall provide a certificate of substantial completion to the city. The certificate shall specifically indicate that plants were installed as specified, that the irrigation system was installed as designed, and that an irrigation audit has been performed, along with a list of any observed deficiencies. a. Certification shall be accomplished by completing a certificate of substantial completion and delivering it to the city, to the retail water supplier, and to the owner of record. A sample of such a form, which shall be provided by the city is: EXAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION Project Site: Project Number: Project Location: Preliminary Project Documentation Submitted: (Check indicating submittal) 1. Total Maximum Applied Water Allowance: (100 cubic feet per year) 2. Estimated Applied Water Use by Hydrozone: Turfgrass: 100 cubic feet/year Recreational Turfgrass: 100 cubic feet/year Exotic Trees/Shrubs/Groundcovers: 100 cubic feet/year Desert Plants: 100 cubic feet/year Water features: 100 cubic feet/year Other 100 cubic feet/year 3. Estimated Total Water Use: (100 cubic feet per year) 4. Landscape Design Plan 5. Irrigation Design Plan 6. Grading Design Plan 7. Soil Analysis (optional) Post -Installation Inspection: (Check indicating substantial completion) A. Plants installed as specified B. Irrigation system installed as designed dual distribution system for recycled water minimum run-off or overspray Project submittal package and a copy of this certification has been provided to owner/manager and local water agency. EXAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION(Page #2) Comments: Uwe certify that work has been installed in accordance with the contract documents: Contractor Signature Date State License Number Uwe certify that based upon periodic site observations, the work has been substantially completed in accordance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and that the landscape planting and irrigation installation conform with the approved plans and specifications. Landscape Architect Signature Date State License Number or Designer of Record or Designated City Staff Uwe certify that Uwe have received all of the contract documents and that it is our responsibility to see that the project is maintained in accordance with the contract documents. Owner Signature Date Note: Authority cited: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 65597, Government Code. D. Public Education. 1. Publications. a. The city, county or water district will, upon request, provide information to the public regarding the design, installation, and maintenance of water efficient landscapes. b. Information about the efficient use of landscape water shall be provided to water users throughout the community. c. The landscape architect will provide a site -specific landscape irrigation package for the homeowner or irrigation system operator. The package will include a set of drawings, a recommended monthly irrigation schedule and a recommended irrigation system maintenance schedule. d. Irrigation Schedules. Irrigation schedules satisfying the following conditions shall be submitted as part of the landscape irrigation package: i. An annual irrigation program with monthly irrigation schedules shall be required for the plant establishment period, for the established landscape, and for any temporarily irrigated areas. The irrigation schedule shall: (A) Include run time (in minutes per cycle), suggested number of cycles per day, and frequency of irrigation for the station; and (B) Provide the amount of applied water (in hundred cubic feet) recommended on a monthly and annual basis. (C) Whenever possible, irrigation scheduling shall incorporate the use of evapotranspiration data such as those from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) weather stations to apply the appropriate levels of water for different climates. (D) Whenever possible, landscape irrigation shall be scheduled between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. to avoid irrigating during times of high wind or high temperature. e. Maintenance Schedules. A regular maintenance schedule satisfying the following conditions shall be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package: i. Landscapes shall be maintained to ensure water efficiency. A regular maintenance schedule shall include but not be limited to checking, adjusting, cleaning and repairing equipment; resetting the automatic controller, aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; and weeding in all landscaped areas. ii. Repair of irrigation equipment shall be done with the originally specified materials or their approved equivalents. 2. Information shall be provided about designing, installing, and maintaining water efficient landscapes. Note: Authority cited: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 64497. (Ord. _ § _ (Exh. _) (part), __J 8.13.040 Provisions for existing landscapes. A. Water Management. All existing landscaped areas which exceed 1.0 acre (43,560 square feet) [versus 60,000 square feet], including golf courses, green belts, common areas, multifamily housing, schools, businesses, [no public works] public works, parks, and cemeteries may be subject to a landscape irrigation audit at the discretion of the water purveyor if the water purveyor has determined that the annual maximum applied water allowance has been exceeded for a minimum of 2 consecutive years. At a minimum, the audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor and shall be in accordance with the California Landscape Irrigation Auditor Handbook, the entire document which is hereby incorporated by reference. (See Landscape Irrigation Audit Handbook, Department of Water Resources, Water Conservation Office (June, 1990, Version 5.5.) B. Water Waste Prevention. Water waste resulting from inefficient landscape irrigation including run-off, low -head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, nonirrigated areas, walks, roadways, or structures shall be prohibited. All broken heads and pipes must be repaired within 72 hours of notification. Penalties for violation of these prohibitions shall be established. Note: Authority cited: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 65597, Government Code. (Ord. _ § _ (Exh. J (part), __) 8.13.050 Fees for initial review and program monitoring (Optional). The following fees are deemed necessary to review landscape documentation packages and monitor landscape irrigation audits and shall be imposed on the subject applicant, property owner or designee. A. A landscape documentation package review fee will be due at the time initial project application submission to the planning and development department. B. If a landscape documentation package is not submitted prior to the start of landscape construction work, for those persons required to submit a package, a late submittal fee of twice the review fee shall be required. C. The project owner/developer must cause a landscape irrigation audit to be completed by a certified landscape irrigation auditor. No City fees will be due for the review of the audit by the planning and development department D. The city council, by resolution, shall establish the amount of the above fees in accordance with applicable law. (Ord. _ § _ (Exh. _) (part), _) 8.13.060 Appeals. Decisions made by the planning and development director or public works director may be appealed by an applicant, property owner(s), or designee(s) of any applicable project to the planning commission and thereafter the city council by an application in writing to the planning and development director and city clerk of the city council respectively within fifteen days from the date of notification of decision. (Ord. _ § _ (Exh. _) (part), _) PH #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003 CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-076 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE LA QUINTA ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AS WELL AS HOME SIZES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES LOCATION: APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: CITY-WIDE CITY OF LA QUINTA THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES, AND SECTION 15268, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS, OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES The Planning Commission has discussed modifications to several of the Zoning Code development standards, including changes to the front and side yard setback requirements as well as lot sizes, and directed staff to draft the appropriate Code modifications. This item was continued to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the issues prior to rendering a decision and to allow staff the opportunity to meet with the Building Industry Association (BIA) to discuss the proposed zone changes. The BIA requests (Attachment 1) that the City take no action on this matter. The BIA does suggest that a meeting(s) be set up outside of the Council/Commission meeting to discuss alternative "imaginative" thinking. The BIA suggests that the City consider a performance zoning approach. Performance zoning specifies standards of land use intensity that are acceptable in each zoning district. Performance zoning focuses on the performance of the parcel and how it impacts PAOscar\zoning Issues\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc adjacent lands and public facilities, not on the use of the land. This gives municipalities and developers more flexibility in designing projects, because the use of a property is not restricted as long as the impacts to the surrounding land are not negative (as defined in the specific regulation) Also, at the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, the City Council indicated that the City is almost built -out and that the need to change the residential development standards is not necessary. Council indicated that the Commission should consider the development of architectural standards for commercial development. Code Requirements - Front Yard Setbacks Table 1, below, provides front yard setback requirements for garages based upon the type of garage door. Table 2 provides front yard setback requirements for carports. Garages or carports that have access from the rear of the lot may have a five foot rear yard setback. Tft1%1g% 1 • %9rana Qa*had-ka Zoning District Pivot Door Roll -Up Door Side Entry RVL 30' 30' 20' All other residential districts 25' 20' 15' ZONING DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS RVL 30' ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 20' Proposed Regulations - Front Yard Setbacks Based upon the Commission's discussion, the following Code Amendments are proposed: 1. A minimum 25 foot front yard setback shall be provided for all front -entry garages, or carports, for properties located in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning districts. The front yard setback shall be measured from the back of curb regardless of property line location, or type of garage door. PAOscarVoning Issues\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc 2. A minimum 15 foot front yard setback shall be provided for all side -entry garages, or carports, for properties located in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning districts. The front yard setback shall be measured from the back of curb regardless of property line location, or type of garage door. 3. Casitas units (guest homes) shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the front yard setback for properties located in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning districts. The front yard setback shall be measured from the back of curb. Code Requirements - Side Yard Setbacks Typical Zoning Code interior side yard setback provisions are noted below: Min. Setback Code Section 0.0 feet for fences and walls Section 9.60.030 0.0 feet for open RV storage Section 9.60.130 3.0 feet for swimming pools and spas Section 9.60.070 3.5 feet for roof overhangs, chimneys, awnings* * Section 9.50.060 3.5 feet for cantilevered bay windows * * Section 9.50.060 3.5 feet for storage sheds less than 100 s.f. * * Section 9.60.050 5.0 feet for balconies, stairways, uncovered decks Section 9.50.060 5.0 feet for the houses and garages Section 9.30.030 5.0 feet for patio covers, excluding overhangs Section 9.60.040 5.0 feet for storage sheds greater than 101 s.f. Section 9.60.050 5.0 feet for BBQ's, waterfalls, etc. Section 9.60.045 5.0 feet for mechanical equipment* Section 9.60.070 5.0 feet for second residential units Section 9.60.090 5.0 feet for guest houses Section 9.60.100 5.0 feet for freestanding permanent fireplaces Section 9.60.045 10.0 feet for tennis and other game courts Section 9.60.150 * Note: Five feet if an easement is established in perpetuity between adjacent properties. * * Setbacks are subject to certain performance standards. Proposed regulations - Side Yard Setbacks Based upon the Commission's discussion, the following Code Amendments are proposed: 1. A minimum 15 foot total aggregate side yard setback shall be provided in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning districts. A minimum distance of five feet shall be provided on at least one side yard. A minimum five foot clearance is required on at least one side yard with direct access from the front to the rear yard. 2. Mechanical equipment, including pool equipment, may be located adjacent to a property line with a block wall in the side and/or rear yard property line, in accordance with all applicable building regulations. Code Requirements - Lot Sizes The Commission indicated a willingness to expand the minimum lot size requirements to minimize the appearance of an overbuilt environment. After discussion, staff was directed to bring back options for amendments to the RL zoning district. The majority of the City's residential land use is designated Low Density (RL) Residential capable of accommodating up to four dwelling units per acre. As indicated below, the minimum lot size in the RL zoning district is 7,200 square feet. The following table provides the minimum lot sizes in the various residential zones: Zoning District Min. Lot Size (square feet) RVL 20,000 RL 7,200 RC 7,200 RM 5,000 RMH 3,600 RH 2,000 * RSP N/A RR N/A * Minimum lot size for single-family attached units. In attempting to develop options for the expansion of minimum lot sizes in the RL zoning district, staff considered the following: • Exclusionary Zoning Implications - A larger lot requirement may result in less variety of housing opportunities. PAOscar\Zoning Issues\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc • Market driven development versus Code mandated requirements - A larger lot requirement may produce undesirable development and/or inflated housing costs. • Aesthetic Consideration - A larger lot size may not mitigate the concerns expressed by the Commission regarding an overbuilt appearance. • Role of other development standards such as setbacks - Modifications of other Code provisions, including development standards may mitigate the appearance of overbuilt development without the need for an increase in lot sizes. • The Department of Housing Development (HCD) requires cities to develop and maintain regulations that can accommodate affordable housing - Larger lot size regulations may reduce the availability of affordable housing opportunities. • Development Doctrine - An increase in lot size will be consistent with the General Plan. Staff developed the following options: Option 1. 8,000 square foot lots This option would result in larger lot developments and in turn may reduce the appearance of an overbuilt environment. A variety of housing lot size development opportunities remain because the other zones will not be changed. This option is consistent with the General Plan policies and programs. Note, without additional development standards (e.g. side yard setback regulations) developments may still appear dense. Also, larger lot sizes may limit housing choices and be a constraint to producing affordable housing. Option 2. Modify Development Standards This option would modify certain development standards in an effort to create the appearance of more openness. One example could be to change the minimum width of the lots coupled with setbacks regulations to achieve the desired open space or require more cluster development, as prescribed by the General Plan. This option would achieve a more aesthetically pleasing (less dense) appearance. However, this option will result in smaller building pads and the potential development of more second story homes. Option 3. No change This option would keep things the same. The decision makers and staff would review each development on a case -by -case and make a determination regarding PAOscar\Zoning Issues\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc home location, architectural style, site layout, and other development characteristics to determine if a project looks "too dense". Staff recommends Option 3. This option allows the City the opportunity to review and make adjustments on a case -by -case basis consistent with the General Plan provisions while establishing requirements that could result in higher construction costs. Other issues Nonconforming projects: The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of providing a legal nonconforming status ("grandfathering") to projects currently under construction, or under the entitlement process from Code modifications. The Planning Commission also suggested that the nonconforming status be limited in time. The City Attorney has indicated the difficulty associated with providing legal non- conforming status to certain projects. The Planning Commission did not reach a consensus. Casitas: Discussion took place with regard to the front yard setback requirements for casitas (Guesthouses Section 9.60.100). The Commission agreed that casitas should be designed so the driveway is not part of the casita unit. The discussion was expanded to include development standards for guesthouses, but no direction was provided to staff. Projection: The Commission discussed architectural projections, which included eaves. It was suggested that eaves be permitted to encroach into the side yard setback, while other projections such as chimneys, windows, balconies, etc. be required to comply with the side yard setback requirements. The Planning Commission did not reach a consensus. Structures in the side yard: The Code requires that yard structures (patio covers, gazebos, play equipment, etc), storage and other accessory buildings maintain the 3.5 foot to 5.0 foot side yard setback. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of reducing and or eliminating the setback requirement. The Planning Commission did not reach a consensus. PAOscar\Zoning Issues\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc Side yard setback definition: According to the Code, a side yard means "...a yard extending from the front setback line to the rear setback line. The depth of the side yard is equal to the setback established in the development standards for the applicable zoning district and is measured along a line drawn at a ninety -degree angle to whichever of the following results in the greatest setback: the side lot line, or its tangent, or the ultimate street right-of-way, or its tangent". Discussion took place regarding the rear yard area versus rear setback and the impact of the side yard setback (as defined by the Code) when developing in the rear yard area adjacent to the side property line. More specifically, the Planning Commission was concerned that the side yard setback, as defined, would limit the ability to construct accessory structures in the rear yard, behind the home. After a review of all the relevant Code provisions, staff determined that the definition should remain because it does not limit development in the rear yard. RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff with direction. Submitted by: Oscar Orci, Planning Manager PAOscar\Zoning Issues\STAFF REPORT 10-14-03.doc ATTACHMENT #1 August 19, 2003 13esert. � itapur Building industn .�ssuci: Of Southern California 77-570 Springfield Lane Mr. Oscar Orci suite 1 Plannin Manager g g Palmt:a D•n. Cali(omiu ()2 760.360.2476 Community Development Department fa`:7W.772.3371 City of La Quinta www.Destriclrapicr.cniji Post Office Box 1504 E N1a6l_13L4@Dvsvr1c:hap La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Dear Oscar; As promised at our last meeting with you, a committee representative of the building community met and discussed the zoning changes which had been raised by the Planning Commission. After extensive discussion, we decided to suggest the city remain with the status quo, with the understanding that we would meet in study session with the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss city desires. To give you an idea of what made up our nearly three hour meeting: On the minimum 8,000 square foot lots. Discussion raised the concern that the future is probably going to call for smaller lots in our communities rather than larger and perhaps the city might be thinking of reducing the lot size rather than expanding. It was noted that increasing lot size to 8,000 minimum, could mean up to an 12% loss in number of lots in a subdivision. On the front yard setback question, we wrestled with this one for quite some time, looking at whether popouts could infringe on a setback and perhaps setting a 20 foot driveway. Discussion raised a number of questions such as how this might affect a home on a cul-de-sac, maybe extending the parkable area of the driveway to include a three foot popout. Looking to the concern for street scape, a number of possibilities were discussed, including alternating cross -street setbacks. Looking at the aggregate 15 foot side yard setback, this would lead to up to 80io less lots in a development, without gaining anything. We did decide to suggest that in keeping the five and five side yard setback, that equipment be allowed on the dead side of the house, i.e. the ungated side. We heard agreement from staff at the PC meeting that if a builder wanted to do a 10 and 5, it would be alright to put equipment in the 5 foot area as long as it was on the dead side of the house. Elie California iiuildin� industry A.Sstieia(ion It was decided that it was really the small developer who would get hit hardest by the suggested changes and they are the ones who can least afford loss of buildable land. The larger developer would operate through a specific plan. In addition, by forcing a smaller house due to larger setbacks, you would probably be pushing the product out of its target market. We discussed performance zoning at length and believe it has possibilities in La Quinta. This is the basis for our suggestion that we leave the status quo. We then suggest we have the above mentioned study session and ask the Council to outline their desires for the city, i.e. what would they like to see in the residential area. The outcome of this meeting would be a set of goals within which the staff could then evaluate imaginative thinking, out of the envelop planning that would be encouraged by the city. This is what we think. Let us know if you think it might work and what the next step would be. We want to thank you for the opportunity to be a part of the process. Respectf ibbey Executive Director -2-