2003 11 25 PCc&t�p 4 4 Q"
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
NOVEMBER 25, 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 2003-088
Beginning Minute Motion 2003-020
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled
for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of October 28, 2003.
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-484,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-081 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-788
Applicant .......... ASL La Quinta Family Apartments, L.P.
Location ........... East side of Dune Palms Road and approximately
650 feet south of Highway 1 1 1
Request ............ Consideration of: 1) certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and
2) review of development plans and bonus density
allowances for a multiple story 192-unit affordable
apartment complex on 10.11 acres with units
ranging in size from 708 square feet to 1,057
square feet and a 2,608 square foot one story
recreation building.
Action .............. Move to Table the applications
B. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-790 AND SIGN
PROGRAM 2003-737
Applicant .......... Stamko Development Co.
Location ........... Southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and La Quinta
Drive
Request ............ Consideration of 1) development plans for two
multi -use retail stores consisting of 10,980 and
11,040 square feet; and 2) review of a sign
program for Parcels 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 plus
remainder building on Parcel 5.
Action .............. Resolution 2003- , Resolution 2003- ,
C. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 2003-789 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-082
Applicant .......... Stamko Development Co./Hamner Ave., L.L.C.
Location ........... Southeast corner of Highway 111 and La Quinta
Drive
Request ............ Consideration of development plans for a 5,909
square foot automotive repair and retail facility.
Action .............. Resolution 2003- , Resolution 2003- ,
PC/AGENDA
D. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-487
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-792
Applicant .......... Whiteco Residential, LLC
Location ........... Northeast corner of Washington Street and Palm
Royale Drive
Request ............ Consideration of 1) a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact; and 2)
Development plans for a 224 unit apartment
complex on a 14.54 acre site.
Action .............. Resolution 2003-_, Resolution 2003-_,
E. Item .................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-483,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-093, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-116, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-787,
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787
Applicant ..........
Coral Option I, LLC
Location ...........
Northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street
Request ............
Consideration of: 1) certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
change land use and zoning designations from:
(a) Medium Density Residential to Low Density
Residential and Golf Course designations, and
(b) from Mixed Regional Commercial to
Neighborhood Commercial designations (relocated),
and (c) eliminate the Major Community Facility
designation; 3) review of development principles
and design guidelines for two 18-hole golf courses,
associated facilities, and 1,400 residential units
ranging in size between 3,150 to 3,650 square
foot; and 4) review of development plans for two
18-hole golf courses, associated facilities, and
1,400 residential units ranging in size between
3,150 to 3,650 square foot.
Action ..............
Resolution 2003-Resolution 2003-_,
Resolution 2003-Resolution 2003-_,
Resolution 2003-
F. Item ................. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006
Applicant .......... Center Point Development, LLC and the
Redevelopment Agency
Location ........... Southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles
Avenue
Request ............ Consideration of a proposal to change the
developer entity to CP Development La Quinta,
LLC.
Action .............. Resolution 2003-
PC/AGENDA
G. Item .................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-485,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-095, AND
ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 2003-078
Applicant ..........
City of La Quinta
Location ...........
City-wide
Request ............
Consideration of 1) Certification of a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact; 2) an
Amendment to Chapter 2 of the General Plan to
allow High Density Residential uses in the
Commercial Park District; and 3) an Amendment to
Section 9.80.040 Table 9-5 of the Zoning Code to
permit High Density Residential uses in a
Commercial Park District, subject to review and
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Action ..............
Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003- ,
Resolution 2003-
H. Item ................. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-079
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... City-wide
Request ............ Consideration of an Amendment to the Municipal
Code Sections:
1. 9.160.020, Table 9-17.7 Exempt Signs - relating
to Christmas Lights
2. 9.40.040 Table 9-1 Other Uses — adding churches
as conditionally permitted in residentially zoned
areas
3. 9.60.100.D.1 Guesthouses — to include detached
guesthouses in the Minor Use Permit process
4. 13.12.160.13 Tentative Subdivision Maps —
tentative tract map time extensions granted by the
Community Development Department
Action .............. Resolution 2003-
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Item ............... CONTINUED - APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
CASE 9693
Appellant ........ Robert and Barbara Valdivia
Location ......... 54-360 Avenida Juarez
Request .......... Appeal of a public nuisance determination
Action ............ Minute Motion 2003-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
PC/AGENDA
VI11. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on December 9, 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
October 28, 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 Abels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer,
Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Associate Planner Martin Magana, and
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that Business Item B would be
continued to November 25, 2003, as the appellant and their attorney had
not been given sufficient notice of this meeting. It was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to confirm the Agenda as
revised.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
October 14, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 5 Item #17, be
corrected to read, "...if pedestrian access ways..."; Page 7 Item 23.a
corrected to read, "providing pedestrian access..."; Page 7 Item 23.b.
corrected to read, "The truck access and loading dock(s) shall be
moved..."; Page 9 Item #8 corrected to read, "Commissioner Tyler
reviewing signs on the other Marshals and PetsMart buildings in other
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
cities in the Coachella Valley.."; Page 13 Item H.3.corrected to read
"joint exercise"; and Page 14, Item 1.1 corrected to read, "Commissioner
Tyler stated that due to the stated position of the City Council..." There
being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Quill to approve the minutes as amended.
Unanimously approved.
2. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued — Environmental Assessment 2003-479, General Plan
Amendment 2003-094, Zone Change 2003-115, and Tentative Tract
Map 31348; a request of Madison Development, LLC, for Certification of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use and zoning
designations from Medium Density Residential and Community
Commercial to Low Density Residential and the subdivision of 47.72
acres into 73 lots for the property located at 46-201 Washington Street.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department. Staff noted the
changes to Conditions #55.A.1.a, #55.13.1., #76, and deletion of
#80 and some changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Report for the
Environmental Assessment in regard to the open space (Section
IV.a-f).
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Quill asked about the wall with a slight concrete
"V" ditch as he is concerned about the drainage to the residents.
Staff suggested the applicant answer the question. Commissioner
Quill confirmed the entrance, on Washington Street, was a right-
in/right-out only. Staff stated yes.
3. Commissioner Daniels stated his concern about the erosion of
commercial and higher density zoning designations. He
understands the previous applications may not have been
appropriate to allow commercial development for this land, but are
there other areas that can be rezoned to allow for the loss of
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-28-03WD.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
commercial lands. Staff stated there were several areas to the
south that were rezoned commercial. Commissioner Daniels
stated that the City needs to try and replace these zoning
designations in different areas as they are deleted. Second, he has
a concern about the access into the site. There is a constant flow
of traffic turning south onto Washington, plus the traffic turning
into the shopping center, and anything other than a right in -right
out would be a disaster. He does not like the plan, but he knows
of nothing that would work better. There should be stacking for
more than two cars. Staff stated there was a memo handed out
to the Commission to amend the condition concerning this issue.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer clarified the stacking for three
cars is limited to three cars for visitors only. The residents will
have a separate access gate.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if other access points were considered.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it is restricted to a
right- in/right-out and they need to have two access points. They
could not move any further south due to the Singing Palms
development.
5. Commissioner Quill asked if staff ever considered combining it
with the entrance to the Vons shopping center. Staff stated they
did not believe it was the best solution.
6. Commissioner Daniels asked if the cul-de-sac was a pedestrian
access to the shopping center. Staff stated no, it was access to
the house on the hill. Commissioner Daniels asked how far back
the shopping center went in relation to this development. Staff
indicated it went the length of the homes. Commissioner Daniels
asked about a pedestrian access to the Center. Staff stated it was
not discussed. Staff stated it is not a safe access as it is a loading
area.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated that on the tract map, the product line
1 and 2 are not discussed anywhere else in the report, and the
total number of buildable lots do not add up. Staff stated the
elevations will be brought back to the Commission at a later date.
The lot count difference is due to the redesign of the entrance.
Commissioner Tyler asked that the name of the shopping center
should be Plaza La Quinta and not Vons. In the Resolution for the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
Environmental Assessment there are a lot of numbers that are not
correct. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were to be any two
story homes. Staff stated the applicant has indicated they will all
be one story. Commissioner Tyler asked why then on Page 35,
footnote 6 does it calls out what lots will be single story. Staff
stated because the applicant has not submitted the homes for
review and the lots are next to Washington Street, an Image
Corridor. Commissioner Tyler asked that No. 7 be corrected to
define what staff is wanting in regard to turning movements onto
Crestview Drive. He then asked why this is the only place where
a restriction on Crestview Terrace is mentioned and asked if this is
needed. Staff stated it is restricted to a left turn only.
Commissioner Tyler stated it should be stated in the staff report
and conditions. He questioned Condition 11 in regard to bus turn
out and stated it needed to be changed. He would like some
prohibition as to the construction traffic on Highland Palms.
Commissioner Tyler asked about a buffer for the wall.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Rick Wilkerson, Madison Development,
addressed the questions expressed by the Commission. In regard
to the pedestrian access, he has never found it to be successful to
have access through a commercial center to the residential homes.
In regard to access, they looked at several different alternatives
including purchasing the first two houses in Singing Palms but
came to no resolve. They are trying to maintain the heritage,
serenity, views, and yet have the property owners enter through a
gate that is aesthetically suitable for a residential development.
This access has been here for a number of years and they believe
this is the best alternative to what has been a long standing issue.
In regard to the drainage off the mountain, it is provided off Lot
63. They have no interest in having two story homes. There will
be no construction traffic entering off Highland Palms. They have
agreed with the Singing Palms residents to use Lot 9 as the
construction entrance. A wall will buffer the area between Vons
and their site. The elevation of the center is three feet below theirs
and they want to protect their customers. The focus of the homes
that back up to the commercial center is to have a back yard, but
the focal point will be on the front yard. In regard to stacking,
they are providing for four cars. Finally, they would like to have
some consideration to the street names they are proposing.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-28-03WD.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
9. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Quill asked if the palm trees would be salvaged.
Mr. Wilkerson stated they had started several preventative
programs three months ago. One being a rodent control program.
In regard to the trees, they have earmarked 100 trees that may
have some value. They have negotiated to have up to 100 trees
removed and they will replace them with the same number of
trees, at the same height, but healthier. Commissioner Quill asked
how they would handle the drainage off the mountain into the
back yards. Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, explained the
process they would be using.
10. Commissioner Tyler asked about the possibility of boulders that
could come down. Mr. Bergh stated a soils engineer is analyzing
the hillside and preparing a report in regard to this issue and they
would act accordingly.
11. Chairman Kirk asked if they would be taking any other historical
steps to retain the historical flavor of the site. Mr. Wilkerson
stated they will be reproducing the gates to maintain the look into
the development. A plaque would be placed on the gate stating
the history of the site as well as something at the open space that
talks about the history.
12. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr.
Robert Cox, 78-315 Crestview Terrace, stated he is generally in
favor of the project, but they have two issues; the entrance off
Washington Street and entrance off Highland Palms. They have
no issue if Highland Palms is an emergency access only. They
definitely have an objection to any construction traffic on Highland
Palms.
13. Mr. Don Recktor 46-450 Cameo Palms drive, stated his concerns
have already been discussed by the Commission. He thanked the
developer for meeting with them regarding the project and does
generally support the project. His concern is for the traffic turning
out onto Washington Street. He suggested the left turn into the
shopping center should be eliminated.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-28-03WD.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
14. There being no other public comment, the public hearing was
closed and open for Commission discussion.
15. Commissioner Tyler stated the southbound right-hand lane, north
of Highway 111, on Washington Street use to be a right turn only,
now traffic can either go straight, or make a right turn. After it
crosses Highway 1 1 1 it merges back into two lanes; can this be
changed back? Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained this
lane would be going away with the completion of the Washington
Park project and the build out of Washington Street.
16. Commissioner Daniels stated there are a number of concerns, but
he believes they have addressed them as best they can.
17. Commissioner Quill stated he too is very concerned with the traffic
at the corner, but also does not know how it can be resolved. He
thinks there may still be some opportunity to combine the access
with the development and the Center.
18. Chairman Kirk stated he would like to see staff continue to work
on this issue and present alternatives to the City Council.
19. Commissioner Quill stated he does not see anywhere in the
Environmental Assessment where a traffic consultant was
consulted. They may be able to shed some light on alternatives.
20. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any discussion during the
Environmental Assessment regarding traffic and circulation.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated a traffic study was not
required due to the low volume of traffic.
21. Commissioner Quill stated he did not believe it was a traffic issue
as much as a design issue.
22. Commissioner Daniels agreed with alternatives being pursued, but
stated he does not see how it can be resolved. He believes the
developer has done all he can do.
23. Chairman Kirk stated this will be a great development, but he still
has concerns with the loss of medium density residential and
commercial land. He does understand the adjoining neighborhood
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
wanting this site downsized, but the constant downsizing is a
concern. He also would not want to give up on the opportunity to
resolve some long-standing problems with the traffic/circulation at
Highway 111 and Washington Street.
24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-082, recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2003-479, as amended:
a. Section 8: change the acreage from 43.1 to 37.72.
b. Section IV.a)-f) replace with "The project proposes to have the
rear yards open to the hillside along the western boundary of
the project. There may be conflicts which could occur as a
result of the project including access for Bighorn sheep to
poisonous plants in the project landscaping and conflicts with
domestic animals. These impacts can be mitigated by requiring
the applicant to implement the mitigation measures below that
will reduce potential impacts to biological resources to a less
than significant level.
1) Should demolition, grubbing, earth moving or
construction be planned for initiation between February
15 and September 30, a field survey shall be conducted
to determine whether birds under the jurisdiction of the
Migratory Bird Act are nesting on the property. Should
such nests be identified, buffer areas in conformance
with the Act, but no less than 50 feet in all directions,
shall be established where no construction activity is
allowed, until such time as the biologist determines that
the nesting birds have discontinued use of the nest. The
required field survey shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for
demolition, grubbing, grading or building on the site.
2) A three person committee shall be formed, consisting of
a representative of the Homeowners' Association (HOA),
a representative of the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), and the Community Development
Director. The purpose of the committee shall be to
assess the need for a fence/wall to keep Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep from entering the project site. The
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\70-28-03WD.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
committee shall monitor sheep activity through various
means, including interviews with residents and visitors,
and any available scientific data available and/or funded
by the HOA. If bighorn sheep are seen on the project
site, the committee shall require that the HOA, at its
expense, construct an 8-foot fence along the property
line between the project and the hillside. Gaps in the
fence should be 11 centimeters or less. At the request
of CDFG, temporary fencing may be required between
the time that sheep are seen on the site and the time
that permanent fencing is required. The committee shall
exist for a period of 10 years, unless bighorn sheep are
documented to no longer inhabit the Santa Rosa
Mountains. At the end of ten (10) years, if any one
member of the committee deems it necessary for the
committee to continue, it shall do so until such time that
it is dissolved by a unanimous vote of all its members.
3) The project applicant shall either provide an easement to
the City, or evidence of dedication to a non-profit
organization, to be approved by the City prior to
recordation of the final map, ensuring that the
preservation of lot 73 as open space in perpetuity." The
lot shall also be a lettered lot on the Final Tract Map.
4) Blasting and pile -driving, or other excessively loud
construction activity, shall be prohibited from January 1
through June 30 of each year.
5) All lighting on the project site shall be directed away
from the hillsides. The project CC&Rs shall include this
prohibition for individual homeowners.
6) Plants toxic to bighorn sheep shall be prohibited on the
site. The project proponent shall secure a clearance
letter from a qualified biologist, certifying the suitability
of the plant palette for the project site. The project
CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual
homeowners.
7) The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs from
running loose in the project site.
8) The CC&Rs for the project shall include a provision
prohibiting access by either persons or animals to the
adjacent hillsides.
9) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant
shall submit a plan demonstrating that all pesticides,
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-28-03WD.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the site,
during both construction and operations, are not harmful
to wildlife. The plan shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review and
approval.
c. Section XV (a-g): Traffic restrictions on westbound traffic for
Singing Palms residents on Crestview Terrace shall be limited
to a left turn only onto Highland Palms Drive.
d. Correct Lot numbers to reflect project proposal.
e. Section V(1): Add wording, "the first occupancy permit", and
delete "any grubbing or grading permit."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-083, recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-094, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-084, recommending
approval of Zone Change 2003-115, as recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-085, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 31348, as amended:
a. No two story houses shall be allowed
b. No construction access shall be taken off of Highland Palms.
c. The visitor/vendor access shall have stacking for four cars.
d. Traffic restriction on westbound traffic for Singing Palms
residents on Crestview Terrace shall be limited to a left turn
only onto Highland Palms Drive.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
e. Condition #55.A.1.a.: change 150 feet to 115 feet for the
deceleration lane.
f. Condition #55.B.1.: change 39 foot to 37 foot for the right of
way.
g. Condition #76: Replace with "Prior to issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy for the site, the project proponent
shall submit an Oral History to the Community development
Department and the La Quinta Historical Society. The oral
history shall be prepared in accordance with the City's and the
Society's standards for such documents."
h. Condition #82: Add flexibility in the street names to allow
other names than proper names shall be allowed as long as it is
consistent with the General Plan and keeps the cultural heritage
of the site.
L Condition #84: Revise to read: "Should demolition, grubbing,
earth moving or construction be planned for initiation between
February 15 and September 30, a field survey shall be
conducted to determine whether birds under the jurisdiction of
the Migratory Bird Act are nesting on the property. Should
such nests be identified, buffer areas in conformance with the
Act, but no less than 50 feet in all directions, shall be
established where no construction activity is allowed, until
such time as the biologist determines that the nesting birds
have discontinued use of the nest. The required field survey
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit
for demolition, grubbing, grading or building on the site.
j. Condition #85: A three person committee shall be formed,
consisting of a representative of the Homeowners' Association
(HOA), a representative of the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG), and the Community Development Director.
The purpose of the committee shall be to assess the need for a
fence/wall to keep Peninsular Bighorn Sheep from entering the
project site. The committee shall monitor sheep activity
through various means, including interviews with residents and
visitors, and any available scientific data available and/or
funded by the HOA. If bighorn sheep are seen on the project
site, the committee shall require that the HOA, at its expense,
construct an 8-foot fence along the property line between the
project and the hillside. Gaps in the fence should be 11
centimeters or less. At the request of CDFG, temporary fencing
may be required between the time that sheep are seen on the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
site and the time that permanent fencing is required. The
committee shall exist for a period of 10 years, unless Bighorn
sheep are documented to no longer inhabit the Santa Rosa
Mountains. At the end of ten (10) years, if any one member of
the committee deems it necessary for the committee to
continue, it shall do so until such time that it is dissolved by a
unanimous vote of all its members.
k. Condition #86: The project applicant shall either provide an
easement to the City, or evidence of dedication to a non-profit
organization, to be approved by the City prior to recordation of
the final map, ensuring that the preservation of lot 73 as open
space in perpetuity." The lot shall also be a lettered lot on the
Final Tract Map.
I. Condition #87: Blasting and pile -driving, or other excessively
loud construction activity, shall be prohibited from January 1
through June 30 of each year.
m. Condition #88: All lighting on the project site shall be directed
away from the hillsides. The project CC&Rs shall include this
prohibition for individual homeowners.
n. Condition #89: Plants toxic to bighorn sheep shall be
prohibited on the site. The project proponent shall secure a
clearance letter from a qualified biologist, certifying the
suitability of the plant palette for the project site. The project
CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners.
o. Condition #90: The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs
from running loose in the project site.
p. Condition #91: The CC&Rs for the project shall include a
provision prohibiting access by either persons or animals to the
adjacent hillsides.
q. Condition #92: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating that all pesticides,
fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the site, during
both construction and operations, are not harmful to wildlife.
The plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
B. Specific Plan 2003-063, Tentative Tract Maps 31310 and 31311 and
Site Development Permits 2003-766 and 767; a request of Santa Rosa
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-28-03WD.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
Development and the City for consideration of two residential projects; a
149 unit senior residential project and a 36 unit single family market rate
project on 31.51 acres.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Abels asked the location of the well sites. Staff
stated one is off of Avenue 48 and the other is at the northwest
corner of the property.
3. Commissioner Daniels asked about the garage setback for the
senior project. Staff stated ten feet and explained it is to allow
some turning movements in the street. Commissioner Daniels
clarified this is a driveway. Staff clarified it is a shared driveway.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated that on the market -rate houses it
appears they have 12 feet but only for the side -loaded garages.
There is a main driveway longer than that for the two car garages.
Staff stated it is the same for the market rate and went over the
housing layouts to explain. Commissioner Tyler stated it should be
clarified in the Specific Plan. He noted the height restrictions of
22 feet were noted for Avenue 48, but Adams Street had the
same restriction and should be included in the conditions. Staff
stated it would be the same for both streets. Commissioner Tyler
asked for clarification on the deed restrictions for the casitas units.
Staff explained it was to record a covenant against the casitas to
impose a use restriction on the unit. The applicant has requested
a blanket use permit with this Specific Plan. Commissioner Tyler
asked how far the senior units were from the WalMart Center, and
what buffering would be provided. Staff stated there is an
alleyway and then a building and went on to explain the
landscaping buffering. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Fire
Department was comfortable with the cul-de-sac requirements.
Staff stated they were. Commissioner Tyler asked that the
wording be clarified as to when the final inspection would take
place.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
5. Commissioner Quill asked if the CC & R would restrict on -street
and driveway parking. Staff stated on -street parking is allowed on
the streets. Commissioner Quill asked if parking was allowed on
the private common driveways. Staff stated it was discussed to
ensure there was enough space for turning movements and it
could be added to the conditions to have it placed in the CC&R's.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if this was the only time this project would be
before the Commission. Staff stated that is correct. Chairman
Kirk asked if an Affordable Housing Agreement had been approved
by the City. Staff stated it had been approved by the City.
Chairman Kirk asked if this would help the City to meet its RHNA
numbers. Staff stated the City had met its RHNA numbers for this
segment and this project help toward reaching the next segment
of housing numbers. Chairman Kirk asked if this was helping us
reach our Redevelopment Housing numbers. Staff stated the City
was progressing toward its target. Chairman Kirk asked if Housing
Element requirements addressed seniors. Staff stated the City had
two goals: providing housing for seniors and providing housing for
large family households. Chairman Kirk asked why the City is
targeting seniors only for this project. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated this site was difficult because of the
development to the south. The resolution reached between the
City and that development was for a senior project. Chairman Kirk
asked about the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
comments. Staff stated the ALRC approved the project and asked
that certain plants be removed from the plan. Chairman Kirk asked
whether this project was downsizing the zoning for this area.
Staff stated it was consistent with the density requirements for
the area. The market -rate homes are lower, but the senior project
does comply with the 8-units to the acre. Chairman Kirk asked
how many high density sites there are in the City. Staff noted the
areas that were zoned high density. Chairman Kirk asked if this
project complies with the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance.
Staff stated yes, but it will need to be fine tuned to ensure that it
complies with the newly adopted changes. Chairman Kirk asked if
an access was considered from the senior project to the
commercial project to the north. Staff stated yes, but no safe
connection was found.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the senior units were affordable.
Staff stated yes, to the moderate income individuals.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
8. Commissioner Quill asked if the three foot setbacks meant there
would be a wall between the units on the senior project. Staff
stated there is a walled off patio area, that will serve to separate
the units.
9. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Hal Lench, RGC, applicants, stated that the
CC&R do indicate where the parking is restricted. In regard to the
Homeowners' Association (HOA), they will maintain the six feet
between the units and there are no fences. He then gave a history
on the property as to why they came to the density they have
planned the site for. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated the City's Redevelopment Agency still owns the
property but has entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement
with the applicant to ensure that 149 senior units are constructed.
If any changes were proposed, the Agency would have to agree to
those changes.
10. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Abels asked what the price range would be for the
market -rate homes. Mr. Lench stated $400-500,000. The seniors
will be substantially less. Commissioner Abels asked if they
expected any objections from the market -rate owners to having
the senior project within theirs. Mr. Lench stated no. They have
found it to be a very favorable mix.
11. 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.
12. Commissioner Tyler stated he has one concern in regard to the
seniors handling the ten foot driveways. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated staff was as well and the applicant laid it out
on a parking lot and it was found to work very well.
13. Chairman Kirk stated he is concerned with the mix of affordable
units with the market -rate homes. We have packed as many
single family detached product as possible into a relatively small
site. There are very narrow spaces between the homes and the
fact that they are seniors, this allows it to happen. He does not
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
like the urban design of this project and he would prefer it
resemble the Miraflores development. He cannot support this
project because of this and not to any fault of the developer.
25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-086, recommending approval of Specific Plan
2003-063, as amended:
a. Condition #2: "...within 150 feet of Avenue 48 and Adams
Street"
b. Page 14 of the Specific Plan clarified to indicate which
building will be required to have final inspection before the
infrastructure is finished.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler.
NOES: Chairman Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-087, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 31310, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler.
NOES: Chairman Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-088, recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2003-767, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler.
NOES: Chairman Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-089, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 31311, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 15
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-090, recommending
approval of Site Development Permit, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Use Interpretation for Zoning Code Section 9.65; a request of the City for
consideration of whether or not a car wash is an allowed use in the
Village Commercial District.
1. Chairman Kirk 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.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Abels stated he did not believe this was an
acceptable area for car washes.
3. Commissioners Quill, Abels, Tyler, and Daniels agreed
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Ted Newell, applicant, explained he was looking
for a conceptual approval for what he believes will be a beautiful
carwash. He believes there is a need for this use in this location.
5. Commissioner Abels asked if he had any recourse to the City
Council. Staff stated no.
6. Chairman Kirk stated he did not believe it was the design of the
carwash the Commission was reacting to but rather the use in this
location.
7. There being no further discussion and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion of the meeting and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 16
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
8. It was the consensus of the Commission that the use interpretation
does not allow for a car wash in the Village zoning district. Mr.
Newell asked if the Commission would find a drive -through
restaurant more acceptable on this site. Staff stated it is a
permitted use, but would require a Village Use Permit which again
would require Planning Commission approval.
B. Appeal of Public Nuisance Case 9693; a request of Robert and Barbara
Valdivia for an appeal of a public nuisance at 54-360 Avenida Juarez.
1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that this item was being
continued to the meeting of November 25, 2003.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
continued November 25, 2003. Unanimously approved.
C. Semi -Permanent Downtown Village Sign Program; a request of the City
for consideration of a modification to the sign program in the Village
Commercial District
1. Chairman Kirk 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.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
3. There being no further questions of staff and no other public
comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of
the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
4. There being no further comment, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Daniels/Abets to adopt Minute Motion 2003-019
accepting staff recommendations. Unanimously approved.
IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
X. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
1. There was no report on the City Council meeting of September 16, 2003.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 17
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
Xl. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 25, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-28-03WD.doc 18
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-484,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-081 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-788
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNERS:
ASL LA QUINTA FAMILY APARTMENTS, L.P.
ANNE J. MAZZELLA AND SKYLINE PACIFIC
PROPERTIES, LLC
REQUESTS: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS
AND BONUS DENSITY ALLOWANCES FOR A MULTIPLE
STORY 192-UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMPLEX
ON 10.11-ACRES WITH UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM
708 SQ. FT. TO 1,057 SQ. FT. AND A 2,608 SQ. FT.
ONE STORY RECREAT►ON BUILDING
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND
APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1
GENERAL PLAN
AND
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: COMMERCIAL PARK/COMMERCIAL PARK
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2003-484; BASED UPON THIS
ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
LEGAL: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 649-030-040 AND
PORTIONS OF 649-030-016 & -017
RECOMMENDATION:
This project was advertised in advance of the meeting; however, the applicant
continues to modify the design. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission move to table discussion on Environmental Assessment 2003-484,
Conditional Use Permit 2003-081 and Site Development Permit 2003-788 until the
Community Development Department receives a completed development
application. This item will be readvertised in accordance with City requirements
before it is brought back to the Planning Commission.
Attachment: Site Location Map
Prepared by:
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS
CITY LA QU I N A
°L0_"u
020-134
0
Attachment
1
662.17-086
_ 68
I
H I G H WAY 1 1 1
108ACMc -� - 1_
41L13
p „
8
643.02
I
vnt 180/el
PAR 1 a
a
270,13
1.4 AC
a
31 "z
B3
}W
+l
"
m
8 5
V
81 n
Lp s
b
1
82
e POR PAR
7
a
�m
PAR 2
38
m
6.98 AC
td
1.3 A
M1
57
m'
I ~
1.88 AC
17
16
19
13
10
tia
p
EX
:„s
6.78 AC
gym
. 22
36.27 AC
I
I
PAR 3
9.81 AC.ML
9,80 AC.ML 9,80 AC.ML
9.63 AC ML
2 ero b 3.87 AC
North
I
39
SITI+
gb
4.00 ACE
72
w
i
01
`s
I
40
,a7.01 AC
330MI
PAR 4 m
278A8
BP8 e98.81
1 IF
230.8
TRA 020-720
o �4
7.53 AC
938T1
4^
TRA OOxT17
007.24
TRA 020.134
EX
INDIO CITY
1
LA QUINTA CITY LIMITS
34
10.87 AC
TRA 020-011
45
EX y�e Y
ti
;qz
6 °' bo
b
390.12 10.51 AC
N
O
tb�t 25.75 AC
o
25.71 AC
a o
sti
48
1
EX
69
26
'�� OA1
oti
�
�
�$°
32.96 AC
147.32
n
0yA
72 Is A
_
0
EX
70
I
dSG I
681.7 7 I
275.35
301.55
a- — .�- —
FR
— —
— — —
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — — i
`j
— •PM-193/5"1—PM-290K
—
38
I
-PM 193/85-87 PM 28525-1-
- PM 190/61-62 PM 28422
1
'i
PM 194/72-75 PARCEL MAP
NO. 28525-2
4/59I
11
/ /
- - - AWY 013 21
'692
ITEM:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
2003-484,
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
2003-081 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-788
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-790
SIGN PROGRAM 2003-737
REQUEST: REVIEW A SIGN PROGRAM FOR A PORTION OF THE
CENTRE AT LA QUINTA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO MULTI-
USE RETAIL STORES OF 10,980 AND 11,040 SQUARE
FEET IN SIZE
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1 AND LA QUINTA
DRIVE IN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTATIVE: PERKOWITZ AND RUTH, ARCHITECTS
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA COMMERCIAL
CENTER, SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 1.
NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND
NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21 166
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SOUTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
EAST:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
WEST:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
AATwo multi -tenet buildings\PC staff prt SDP 2003-790 and SA 2003-737.wpd
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Property Description
The currently vacant project site, located at the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and
La Quinta Drive, consists of 3.15 acres (Attachment 1). The project site is within the
Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 87-029, Amendment No. 1 adopted by City Council
on November 17,1998.
Applications Under Consideration
The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct two multi -use
retail stores of 10,980 and 11,040 square feet (Parcels 7 and 8 of Parcel Map 30420)
within the commercial center.
Also requested for approval is a Sign Program for Parcels 2, 7,8,9, 10 and remainder
building on Parcel 5 (this sign program completes the sign design elements for the
commercial buildings in the Centre at La Quinta).
Site Plan
The buildings have frontage on Highway 1 1 1 with vehicle access on the north from
Highway 1 1 1 as a right -in only and on the west side of the property from La Quinta
Drive to an internal driveway leading to the parking lots. The buildings are sited
generally parallel to Highway 1 1 1 with the storefront entrances located on all sides of
the buildings. Parking lots, with a total of 189 spaces, are located to the north and
east of the buildings (Attachment 2).
Architectural Design
The rectangular shaped structures are proposed to have flat roofs with parapet walls.
All elevations are proposed to have plaster finish walls with anodized aluminum store
fronts and metal awnings and trellises. Building heights range from 22 to 25 feet with
painted metal frames rising 32 feet.
Landscape Plan
The proposed Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of
shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building
planters, and along Highway 1 1 1. The proposed Landscaping Plan is consistent with
the landscape concept in the Specific Plan. Water efficient landscaping materials,
including native plants are provided.
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC staff prt SDP 2003-790 and SA 2003-737.wpd
Sign Program Summary:
The proposed sign program is for Parcels 2,7,8, 9, 10, and the remainder building on
Parcel 5 (Attachment 3).
Single tenant buildings. Parcel 9. and 10
• Maximum sign area: Subject to approval of the Community Development
Director
• Maximum letter height for all sides of building: 36", if two lines of text
are necessary height zone may be 42"
• Logo size: 36" X 36"
Multi -tenant buildings: Parcel 7 and 8
• Maximum sign area: One and one half square feet per store lineal
frontage, with a maximum of 100 square feet. Sign length shall not
exceed 70% of store lineal frontage
• Maximum letter height for other sides: 30", if two lines of text are
necessary height zone may be 36"
• Logo size: 36" X 36"
Multi -tenant buildings: Parcel 2 (if multi -tenant)
• Maximum sign area: Two square feet per store lineal frontage, with a
maximum of 100 square feet. Sign length shall not exceed 70% of
store lineal frontage
• Maximum letter height for front of building: 36", if two lines of text are
necessary height zone may be 42"
• Logo size: 36" X 36"
Single Tenant buildings: Parcel 2 (if single tenant) and Remainder of Parcel 5
• Maximum sign area: Subject to approval of the Community Development
Director
• Maximum letter height for front of building: 54"
• Maximum letter height for other three sides: 48"
• Logo size: 36" X 36"
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW:
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 25, 2003 (Attachment
4). The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2003-045 recommending approval of the
project subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this
review:
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC staff prt SDP 2003-790 and SA 2003-737.wpd
1. Revise the Landscape Plan with following changes: 1) provide 15 gallon shrubs
along La Quinta Drive; 2) provide five gallon shrubs within the parking lot; 3)
provide 24" box with 1 %Z inch calipers trees.
2. All date palms provided shall be eight foot minimum in height.
3. Replace mesquite trees.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on
October 30, 2003, requesting comments be returned by November 14, 2003. All
applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on November 14,
2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit and Sign Program can
be made provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed per Section
9.210.010 and Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached
Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Planned Sign
Program 2003-737 for for Parcels 2, 7,8,9, 10 and remainder building on
Parcel 5 within the Centre at La Quinta commercial development.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Site Development
Permit 2003-790 for two multi -use retail stores of 10,980 and 11,040 square
feet in size, subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Exhibit
2. Site Plan and Elevations
3. Sign Program
4. Draft Minutes of the ALRC meeting of November 5, 2003
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC staff prt SDP 2003-790 and SA 2003-737.wpd
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AhCP
Principal Planner
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC staff prt SDP 2003-790 and SA 2003-737.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FOR TWO MULTI -USE RETAIL
STORES OF 10,980 AND 11,040 SQUARE
FEET
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-790
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the, 25th day of November, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review
building elevations, site and landscape plans for two multi -use retail stores of 10,980
and 11,040 square feet on 3.15 acres; generally located at the southeast of Highway
111, east of La Quinta Drive, more particularly described as:
PARCEL 7 and 8 OF PARCEL MAP 30420
WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC)
of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 5th day of November, 2003 hold a
public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for two multi-
use retail stores 10,980 and 11,040 square feet in size on 3.15 acres.
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 9701 1055 the Centre at La
Quinta Commercial Center, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1). No changed
circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval
of said Site Development Permit 2003-770.
1 . The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in
that the property is designated Regional Commercial (RC). The project is
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Centre
at La Quinta Specific Plan, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1 in that
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC RESO SDP 2003-790.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-790, Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards
and design guidelines.
3. The proposed building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that
development standards and criteria contained in the Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1. supplements, replaces, or are
consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code.
4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial
development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area
intersections.
5 The landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned by the ALRC,
complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it
enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality
of materials.
6. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding
commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar
in scale; the building materials provided are a durable, aesthetically pleasing,
low maintenance, with a blend of surfaces and textures.
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
Commission in this case;
2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2003-790 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 25th day of November, 2003, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC RESO SDP 2003-790.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-790, Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
Tom Kirk, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
AATwo multi -tenet buildings\PC RESO SDP 2003-790.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-790
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
FIRE MARSHALL
1. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan
check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed
to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
2. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the
Sheriff's Department regarding vehicle code requirements, defensible space,
and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions
regarding the Sheriff Department should be directed to the Senior Deputy at
(760) 863-8950.
MISCELLANEOUS
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for approval by
the Community Development Director a revised Landscape Plan with following
changes:
A. Provide 15 gallon shrubs along La Quinta Drive.
B. Provide 5 gallon shrubs within the parking lot.
C. Provide 24" box with 1 %2 inch calipers trees.
D. All Date Palms provided shall be 8 foot minimum in height, 5) remove
mesquite trees.
4. 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 permit. The
City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
GENERAL
5. 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. ,4
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
6. 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.
7. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the NPDES stormwater
discharge permit covered under Specific Plan 97-026, Amendment No. 1, Site
Development Permit 02-728 and Parcel Map 30420.
8. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
9. 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.
0
P:\FRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
10. 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.
11. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1. State Route 111 (SR 1 1 1) — Major Arterial — No additional right of
way is required to comply with the General Plan street widths or
Caltrans requirements for Parcel Map 30420.
2. La Quinta Drive (Local Street, 60' Right of Way) — No additional
street right of way is required to comply with the General Plan
street widths.
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as
follows:
A. SR 111 — Fifty (50) feet from the R/W — P/L.
B. La Quinta Drive (Collector Street, 60' Right of Way) — As specified in the
Specific Plan 97-029.
The setback requirement applies to all frontage 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 dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
14. Direct vehicular access to SR 111 from lots with frontage along SR 111 is
restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site
Development Permit 02-728, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of
approval.
}
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
15. Direct vehicular access to La Quinta Drive from lots with frontage along La
Quinta Drive is restricted, except for those access points identified on the
approved Site Development Permit 02-728, or as otherwise conditioned in these
conditions of approval. No direct access from Parcel 8 is permitted to La Quinta
Drive.
16. 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.
17. 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, shared access with abutting parcels or
other encroachments are to occur.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
18. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
19. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified
below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified,
unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Site Development Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of
the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001
California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door.
P:\FRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc 4 ;"
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building &
Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to
the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan
when it is submitted for plan checking.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs &
gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements including ADA accessibility to surrounding buildings, parking
facilities and public streets.
The applicant shall revise or cause to revise the existing precise grading plans to
eliminate driveway access to La auinta Drive per Condition 10.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the
City Engineer.
20. 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.
21. 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
22. 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.
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
GRADING
23. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes and if the
Fugitive Dust Control Plan for Parcel Map 30420 is no longer in effect, 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
DRAINAGE
"Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for
Parcel Map 30420. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a
manner acceptable to the City Engineer.
UTILITIES
26. 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.
27. 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.
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc
A
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
28. 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 Site Development
Permit 02-728 and Parcel Map 30420.
29. 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.
LANDSCAPING
30. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
31. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a Licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. 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.
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc 7
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
32. 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
33. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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
37. 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.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
38. 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.
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc 8 ., i)
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-790 — Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
39. 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).
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-790.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING A PLANNED SIGN
PROGRAM FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 111 AND LA QUINTA DRIVE
CASE NO.: SIGN PROGRAM 2003-737
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 251h day of November, 2003 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing,
to consider a Planned Sign Program for a portion of the Centre at La Quinta
commercial development, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1. The project area
is generally located at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and La Quinta Drive,
more particularly described as:
PARCELS 2, 7,8,9, 10 AND REMAINDER BUILDING ON PARCEL 5 OF
PARCEL MAP 30420
WHEREAS, said Planned Sign Program has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 9701 1055 the Centre at La
Quinta Commercial Center, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1. No changed
circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166.
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
approving of said Sign Program:
1. That the proposed Sign Program is consistent with the goals and
policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated
Regional Commercial which allows the uses and associated signs
proposed for the properties.
2. That the proposed Sign Program is consistent with the La Quinta
Zoning Code (Section 9.160.090 ) in that sign adjustments for
additional area, additional number, alternative placements, and
alternative sign types can be granted.
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC RESO SA 2003-737.wpd
Resolution 2003-
Sign Program 2003-737
Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: November 25, 2003
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Sign Program
request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of November, 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
A:\Two multi -tenet buildings\PC RESO SA 2003-737.wpd
ATTACHMEN'
-----
z--
PROJECT LOCATION
i
iI -AU
Tp �•--
cFNTREpRr F
13
12
/18
� i FUTURE j :1
/DEEVELOPtY: Nr
14
17 ....
LOT B
i
\ FUT:JR5 j
U� 1'c'L DPP/'c.NTi 15
I' . -
16 LOT
11
10
iz&v,nopmnv-,.:
FUTURE 7 %
®N
north F
ATTACHMENT #4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
November 5, 2003
B. Site Development Permit 2003-790; a request of Stamko
Development/Perkowitz and Ruth Architects for a review of
architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for two multi -use retail
stores consisting of 10,980 and 11,040 square feet for the property
located at the southeast corner f Highway 111 and La Quinta Drive
within the Centre at La Quitna Commercial Development.
1. Planning Manger Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Russ
Beckner who inroduced Jim Ruth, architect, and Eric Linus of
TKC, who gave a presentation on the project. Chris Clarke,
owner of the property also gave a presentation on the entire
site.
2. Committee Member Cunningham stated that the material to be
used on the canvas will last a long time and there should be no
objection to the use of this material as it is a composite and a
good use of material. He had no issue with the architecture.
The west elevation is especially nice.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the architecture of the
Center was going to follow a central theme. Ms. Clarke stated
each is a little different in color, but there is a central theme
throughout the Center. She explained the architectural items
that were carried throughout the Center. Committee Member
Bobbitt stated he likes the diversity of the site. Ms. Clarke
emphasized the use of color to distinguish each of the building
complexes. Mr. Beckner stated the architect was asked to
create buildings that mirrored each other, but were different.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that the tree species and
sizes be defined on the plans. Staff stated the landscape plan
would be brought back to the Committee. Committee Member
Bobbitt stated the plan is similar to the rest of the Center and
ok, but the size should be spelled out. They should all be at
least five gallon. The date palms should never be near any
pedestrian traffic and ensure that any palm trees used are in
good condition.
5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to
adopt Minute Motion 2003-045 recommending approval of Site
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\11-5-03 WD.doc - - 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
November 5, 2003
a. Condition added: All plant material 15 gallon on La
Quinta Drive and five gallon on the interior.
b. Condition added: All date palms shall be nursery grown
and inspected by the landscape architect as to their good
condition with a minimum 8 foot trunk height. Would not
recommend using the Mesquite tree.
C. Condition Added: All trees shall be 15 gallon, 24 inch
box trees, 1.5 calipher.
Unanimously approved.
C. $ite Development Permit 2003-792; a request of Whiteco Residential,
LL1' for a review of architectural and landscaping plans for a 224 unit
ap*ment complex located at the northeast corner of Washington
Streetand Palm Royale (extended).
1. Asspciate Planner Martin Magana presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Comm9ity Development Department. Staff introduced Tim
Connelly; Avi, landscape architect, Kurt Saxon civil engineer,
who gave &,presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked what the exterior
material would be. Mr. Connelly stated Spanish lace.
Committee Member Cunningham stated his main concern is
public view. He do* not like the lace stucco. It should be
machine dash finish and not the sand finish as it will show
everything. The roof pitches need to come down to not show
so much roof. Reduce them to a 4 pitch. The exterior elevation
needs to be as uniform as possible.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asd if the window surrounds
were inset. Mr. Connelly stated they were foam and the railings
were small and iron.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the p#,ant palette is a good
use of material. Again, he would recomr?Rend not using the
Chilean Mesquite due to the high maintenance they require.
Discussion followed regarding the different tree species.
5. Committee member Cunningham asked that the co`tumns be
precast concrete.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\11-5-03 WD.doc - - 4
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-082
REQUEST: ALLOW AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE WITHIN THE
COMMERCIAL CENTER, AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FOR A 5,909 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
AND RETAIL FACILITY
LOCATION: SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1, EAST OF LA QUINTA DRIVE
IN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO./HAMNER AVE. L.L.C.
REPRESENTATIVE: ACALA ARCHITECTS
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA COMMERCIAL
CENTER, SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 1.
NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND
NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21 166
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
A:\Goodyear\PC staff rpt. SDP 2003-789 Goodyear.wpd
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Applications Under Consideration
The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit
to construct a 5,909 square foot automotive repair and retail facility on a .63 acre site
within the Centre at La Quinta Commercial Center. (Attachment 1).
Site Plan
The site has frontage on La Quinta Drive with vehicle access on the north and east
side of the property from internal 25 foot wide driveways within the commercial
center. The 5,909 square foot auto retail and repair facility is sited generally parallel
to the north driveway access with the front sales entrances located on the east and
west ends of the building (Attachment 2). The building is setback approximately 60
feet from the west property line along La Quinta Drive. There are five vehicle lanes
with 10 service bays under the automotive repair area of the building. Twenty-five
parking spaces are provided on -site. Used tire storage and trash are located on the
south end of the building screened by nine foot high masonry walls.
Architectural Design
The rectangular shaped structure is proposed to have a standing seam barrel metal
roof over the sales area and a built up roof with parapet walls over the service bay
area. Walls are proposed to be stucco with two stucco accent columns on the north
elevation. Three store front windows enclose the sales area and five metal roll up
doors on the east and west elevations provide vehicle access for the service area.
Landscape Plan
Canopy trees (24" box acacia and palo brea) provide shade for the parking areas along
the east and west portion of the site with palm trees providing an accent for the main
vehicular entry. Shrubs along the perimeter of the site include bougainvillea, bird of
paradise, and lantana. Additional mounding and landscaping on the east edge of the
property along the 30 foot landscape setback on La Quinta Drive provides visual
screening of the service bay doors.
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW:
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 25, 2003 (Attachment
3). The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2003-044 recommending approval of the
project subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated:
1. Revise the Landscape Plan with following changes: 1) provide 15 gallon shrubs
along La Quinta Drive; 2) provide five gallon shrubs within the parking lot; 3)
provide 24" box with 1 %2 inch calipers trees.
AAGoodyear\PC staff rpt. SDP 2003-789 Goodyearmpd
2. Remove the pedestrian walkway on the northeast corner of the building
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on
October 28, 2003, requesting comments be returned by November 25, 2003. All
applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on November 14,
2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit and the Conditional
Use Permit can be made provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are
imposed, per Chapter 9.200 of the Zoning Code, as noted in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Conditional Use
Permit 2003-082 for the automotive repair facility use, subject to conditions.
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Site Development
Permit 2003-789 for development plans for an automotive repair facility,
subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Exhibit
2. Site Plan and Elevations
3. Draft Minutes of the ALRC meeting of November 5, 2003
Prepared by:
Fred Baker
Principal Planner
AAGoodyear\PC staff rpt. SDP 2003-789 Goodyear.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FOR A 5,909 SQUARE FOOT
AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COJHAMNER AVE. L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the, 25th day of November, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review
building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 5,909 square feet automotive repair
facility, on .63 acres generally located south of Highway 111, east of La Quinta
Drive, more particularly described as:
PARCEL 9 OF PARCEL MAP 30420; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC)
of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 5th day of November, 2003 hold a
public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 5,909
square foot automotive repair facility, on .63 acres.
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 97011055 the Centre at La
Quinta Commercial Center, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1). No changed
circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval
of said Site Development Permit 2003-789.
1 . The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in
that the property is designated Regional Commercial (RC). The project is
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Centre
at La Quinta Specific Plan, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1 in that
the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards
and design guidelines.
AAGoodyear\PC RESO. SDP 2003-789.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-789, Goodyear Automotive
Adopted: November 25, 2003
3. The proposed building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that
development standards and criteria contained in the Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1. supplements, replaces, or are
consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code.
4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial
development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area
intersections.
5 The landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned by the ALRC,
complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it
enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality
of materials.
6. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding
commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar
in scale; the building materials provided are durable, aesthetically pleasing, low
maintenance, with a blend of surfaces and textures.
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
Commission in this case;
2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2003-789 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 25" day of November, 2003, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WA
AAGoodyear\PC RESO. SDP 2003-789.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-789, Goodyear Automotive
Adopted: November 25, 2003
Tom Kirk, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
A:\Goodyear\PC RESO. SDP 2003-789.wpd
i r�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
FIRE MARSHALL
1. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check
fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All
questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions 60) 863d be directed to the Fire
Department Planning & Engineering staff
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
2. Final conditions will be addressed shallbuilding reviewbuildingwith
when vtPrior
o
issuance of a building permit, applicant
Sheriff's Department regarding vehicle code o cernse All questions'rele space, gard regarding the
other law enforcement and public safety
Sheriff Department should be directed to the Senior Deputy at (760) 863-8950.
GENERAL
3. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees
m any this site action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval
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.
4. 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
0 Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
o Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Coachella Valley Unified School District
6 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
SunLine Transit Agency
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
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.
5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the NPDES stormwater
discharge permit covered under Specific Plan 97-026, Amendment No. 1, Site
Development Permit 02-728 and Parcel Map 30420.
6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1). La Quinta Drive (Local Street, 60' Right of Way) — No additional street
right of way is required to comply with the General Plan street widths.
10. 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.
11. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows:
A. La Quinta Drive (Collector Street, 60' Right of Way) — As specified in the
Specific Plan 97-029.
P:\FRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-789.doc 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
The setback requirement applies to all frontage 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 dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
12. Direct vehicular access to La Quinta Drive from lots with frontage along La Quinta
Drive is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site
Development Permit 02-728, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of
approval. No direct access from Parcel 9 is permitted to La Quinta Drive.
13. 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.
14. 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, shared access with abutting parcels or other
encroachments are to occur.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
15. 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.
16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall
be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise
authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if
additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to
prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required
by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Site Development Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-789.doc 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the
building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California
Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment
must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A
copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department
in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building
floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements including ADA
accessibility to surrounding buildings, parking facilities and public streets.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
17. 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.
18. 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
19. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes and if the Fugitive
Dust Control Plan for Parcel Map 30420 is no longer in effect, the applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-789.doc 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
r1RA1NAC;F
22. "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan
for Parcel Map 30420. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a
manner acceptable to the City Engineer.
UTILITIES
23. 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.
24. 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
25. 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.
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-789.doc 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
A. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public
streets are limited to the access locations approved in Site Development
Permit 02-728 and Parcel Map 30420.
26. The applicant shall provide for shared access with Parcel 10 along the south
boundary as well as connection to the north/south driveway access to the east.
27. 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.
LANDSCAPING
28. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
29. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. 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.
30. 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
31. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
32. 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.
_r :2
PAFRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-789.doc 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-789
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
33. 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.
34. 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
35. 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.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
36. 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.
37. 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:\FRED\Stamko\PC COA SDP-789.doc 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE USE FOR A
5,909 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOTIVE
REPAIR FACILITY
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-082
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO./HAMNER AVE. L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the, 25th day of November, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review
the proposed use for an automotive repair facility, on .63 acres generally located
south of Highway 1 1 1, east of La Quinta Drive more particularly described as:
PARCEL 9 OF PARCEL MAP 30420; and
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 9701 1055 the Centre at La
Quinta Commercial Center, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1. No changed
circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval
of said Conditional Use Permit 2003-082.
1. The proposed use for a commercial building is consistent with the City's
General Plan in that the property is designated Regional Commercial (RC). The
use is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General
Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Centre at
La Quinta Specific Plan, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 1 in that the
project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and
design guidelines.
3. The proposed use is consistent with the City's Zoning Code contained in that
proposed uses for the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment
No. 1. supplements, replaces, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning
Code.
A:\Goodyear\PC RESO CUP 2003-082.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditional Use Permit 2003-082, Goodyear Automotive
Adopted: November 25, 2003
4. That approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or general welfare in that the public agencies
have reviewed the proposed use for these issues with no significant
concerns identified.
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
Commission in this case;
2. That it does approve Conditional Use Permit 2003-082 for the reasons set forth
in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 25th day of November, 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
A:\Goodyear\PC RESO CUP 2003-082.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-082
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COJHAMNER AVE. L.L.C.
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
FIRE MARSHALL
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee
must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All
questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department
Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's Department
regarding vehicle code requirements, defensible space, and other law enforcement and
public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff Department should be
directed to the Senior Deputy at (760) 863-8950.
MISCELLANEOUS
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 permit. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
A:\Goodyear\PC COA CUP 2003-082.wpd
ATTACHMENT #1
HIGH
I W
I �w
o PROJECT LOCH
T i
SON
� 1
A-U
I TO CFNTR�
I i _
18
I 17
III
i
FUrOR
DEY6LDPA/'E1v
16
15
LOT B
LOT A
m
11
8
ruru,�E
DEYELDP,ME''l
9
10
®N
north li
ATTACHMENT #3
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 5, 2003 10:00 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Planning Manager Oscar Orci
who led the flag salute.
B. Committee Members present: Dennis Cunningham, and Bill Bobbitt. It
was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Cunningham/Bobbitt to excuse Committee Member Thorns.
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planners Stan
Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Martin
Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Staff,, asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 1,
200' . There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by
C)6mmittee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to approve the Minutes as
submitted.
i
V. BU91NESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permits 2003-789; a request of Stamko
-- Development and Tom Olsen/Acala Architects for a review of
` architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for a 5,909 square foot
Goodyear Retail Store for the property located at the southeast corner
of Auto Center Drive and La Quinta Drive within the La Quinta
Commercial Development.
1. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Russ
W
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
November 5, 2003
Beckner, representing Stamko, Doug Matista representing
Goodyear, Gil Alcala architect, who all gave a presentation on
the project.
2. Committee Member Cunningham stated he liked the movement
toward the modern buildings and breaking from the Spanish
look. He likes the use of the barrel tile and standing seam
metal. He has no objections.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he liked the design as well.
In regard to the landscaping, he was concerned about the area
where there appeared to be pedestrian traffic. Chris Clarke,
owner of the property, stated no parking is allowed on La
Quinta Drive and therefore, there would be no pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Alcala stated there is a walkway that extends up toward
Highway 111. Ms. Clarke stated there would be no access
allowed between Parcels 8 and 9 would not be encouraged.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he liked the plant palette, but
asked where they were going to obtain a ten gallon plant. Mr.
Alcala stated it was a mistake. Committee Member Bobbitt
asked that all plants be 15 gallon on La Quinta Drive and five
gallon on the interior.
5. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute
Motion 2003-044 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2003-789, as recommended by staff and amended as
follows:
a. Condition added. 24-inch box, 15 gallon with a minimum
of 1.5 caliper plant material on La Quinta Drive
b. Five gallon on the interior.
C. Recommendation: the northeasterly pedestrian access/
walkways along the north property line be potentially
eliminated.
Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2003-790; a request of Stamko
Development/Perkowitz and Ruth Architects for a review of
architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for two multi -use retail
stores consisting of 10,980 and 11,040 square feet for the property
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\17-5-03 WD.doc - - 2
PH #D
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-487
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-792
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: WHITECO RESIDENTIAL, LLC
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 224 MARKET
RATE APARTMENT UNITS
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND PALM
ROYALE DRIVE (APN: 609-051-010).
ARCHITECT: HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS
ENGINEER: SAXON ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-487;
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.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR)/ HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RH)
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-792
BACKGROUND:
The vacant site is approximately 14.54 acres in size, and located at the northeast
corner of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive (Attachment 1). This site is part
of Parcel Map 27131, which was approved in January 1992. Surrounding
properties include vacant land to the south in the City of La Quinta (proposed
school site), vacant land to the north in Riverside County, a plant nursery to the
east, also in Riverside County, Bella Vista Residential Neighborhood to the
southeast, and High Density Residential uses to the west in the City of Palm
Desert.
Palm Royale Drive is currently shown on the General Plan Land Use Map as
meandering through the properties of Parcel Map 27131. Currently, only a small
portion of the Palm Royale Drive is constructed just outside the western boundary
of the Bella Vista neighborhood. One of the conditions of the Parcel Map was that
the first developer to develop on any portion of the area, would be required to
install the entire street, and get reimbursed from the other parties when they
develop their parcels.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit (Attachment 2)
to construct 224 market rate apartment units with ancillary facilities. The ancillary
facilities include a clubhouse with a clubroom, office space, an exercise room,
kitchen, and restrooms. The applicant proposes a swimming pool, spa and fountain
with seating, and shade structures near the clubhouse for the residents. Another
swimming pool, spa, restrooms and shade structures are located toward the
eastern portion of the site for residents as well.
The applicant proposes eighteen (18) buildings with ten to 14 units in each
building. The units range in size between 755 and 1,344 square feet. The units
encompass a combination of 94 - 1 bdrm/1 bath, 36 - 1 bdrm/1 den/ 1 bath, 94 - 2
bdrm/2 bath, and a clubhouse.
The property would have wrought iron fencing with pilasters around the property.
The pilasters would be made of split face block with a plastered cap. The wrought
iron fence would be made of 50-foot long sections, measuring six feet in height and
installed between the pilasters. The sections would be made of % inch vertical
tubing with % inch by 1-1/2 inch horizontal tubing for the top and bottom railing.
The top of the wrought iron fence would have a decorative cast iron finial.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-792
Architecture
The design theme of the apartment complex will be Modern Spanish style
architecture including hip and gable roofs with tile, varied off -set facades to break
up the building massing. Accent features include tile vents, colored stucco
finishes, arched entries, and wrought iron. Desert tones colors will be used to paint
the buildings, stucco trim, columns, railings, and entry and garage doors.
Building Heights
Under Section 9.50.030 of the Zoning Code, the maximum structure height
allowed under the High Density Residential Zone is 40 feet with a maximum of
three stories. Also, 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 Washington Street. The applicant is proposing building
heights of two stories, ranging in height from 21'-7" for the clubhouse which, lies
within the 150 foot setback, and 30 '-2" for the apartment buildings which, lie
beyond the 150 foot setback.
Landscape and Building Setbacks
Section 9.50.030 of the Zoning Code requires landscape and building setbacks of
ten feet minimum and 20 feet, respectively. Landscape setbacks include 60 feet
from Washington Street and 20 feet from Palm Royale Drive.
The applicant has set the clubhouse back a minimum of 60 feet from Washington
Street and has provided a minimum of 20 feet for the apartment buildings from
Palm Royale Drive and Darby Road.
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 two entrances. One is off of Palm
Royale and the other is off of Darby Road. Both driveways will have full turning
movements (right-in/right-out/left-in/left-out). Both entrances will have stacking for
a minimum of four vehicles. Both entrances will be gated with key access. The
Zoning Code requires two-way accessways be a minimum of 28 feet wide. Both
accessways are proposed at 50 feet wide, including a 10-foot wide landscaped
center median.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-792
Parking
Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Code requires parking based on the number of
bedrooms per unit. Based on this, the required parking is 456 spaces as follows:
Parking Type
# Spaces
Open parking
138
Covered parking
234
Garages
84*
Total
456
* - 42, 1-car garages and 21, 2-car garages
The applicant is not required to provide enclosed garages but has provided 42, 1-
car, and 21, 2-car, garages which helps reduce the amount of exposed spaces that
is common among apartment complexes. The covered parking will be made of
prefabricated metal, painted to match the building colors.
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 and streets in accordance with the code
provisions.
Grading and Drainage
The site has already been mass graded as part of the original Parcel Map. The site
has been used in the past for overflow parking related to the Bob Hope Classic Golf
Tournament. Elevations across the site vary between 33 feet above sea level along
the western portion, to 19 feet along the eastern portion of the property. Grade
elevations for the project are proposed to range between 33 feet along the western
portion, to 24 feet along the eastern portion of the property. All proposed grading
would be balanced on -site.
Stormwater run-off for the site would be directed to a number of retention basins
and open spaces throughout the site. No additional stormwater facilities are
proposed.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-792
Signs
The applicant proposes monument signs at different locations. The monument sign
at the main entry closest to Washington Street is proposed to be 5.5' high by 15.5'
long (85 sq. ft.). The other monument sign is proposed to be 4' high by 12' - 4-
1 /2" long (49 sq. ft.). Both monument signs are proposed to be four feet wide.
The monument signs would be finished with stucco, sandstone and bronze letters,
and have concealed lighting in the wells.
Incidental directional signs would be provided for pedestrians and visitors consisting
of "Resident Parking" and "Mail" signs. The sign areas are proposed to be
approximately 10.5 square feet.
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC)
This project was presented to the ALRC at their November 5, 2003 meeting. The
ALRC meeting minutes are attached for your review (Attachment 3). The
Committee discussed the project and identified certain issues for consideration by
the Planning Commission. These include:
1. No use of lace stucco or sand finish.
2. Lower the roof pitch from a 12:5 to a 12:4.
3. Require metal roll -up doors on the garages.
4. Use pre -cast concrete columns on the clubhouse.
5. Use another tree other than "Chilean Mesquite".
Public Notice
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 4, 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.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-792
L
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to adopt Resolutions approving EA 2003-487 and SDP 2003-792 can be
made and are contained in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, certifying a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment
2003-487, pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , approving Site Development
Permit 2003-792, subject to findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Site Development Permit Plan Set
3. November 5, 2003, ALRC meeting minutes
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-792
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-487 PREPARED FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-792.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-487
APPLICANT: WHITECO RESIDENTIAL, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 251h day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by Whiteco Residential, LLC, for approval of development plans to allow a
224 unit apartment complex and ancillary facilities on a 14.54 acre site, generally
located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive, more
particularly described as follows:
APN: 609-051-010
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-487) 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 Site Development Permit 2003-792, 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 certifying said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
PC Reso EA 03-487
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-487
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory, in that the project has been conditioned to mitigate
impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant levels.
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
the proposed project supports the long-term goals of the General Plan by
providing a variety of housing for City residents. The project is consistent with
the General Plan and will round out the housing available in the City.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project in that the site will be developed
under the appropriate density under the General Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential
or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures have
been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-487
and said Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
PC Reso EA 03-487
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-487
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-487 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 2003-487 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 251h day of November 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
PC Reso EA 03-487
J
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-487
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC Reso EA 03-487
I
2
9
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: Site Development Permit 2003-792, Monte Vista Apartments
Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
Project location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive
5. Project sponsor's name and address: WhiteCo. Residential, LLC
350 N. La Salle St,. Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60610
6. General Plan Designation: High Density 7. Zoning: High Density Residential
Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Site Development Permit will allow the construction of 224 apartments on a 14.54 acre
site. Apartments will be distributed through 18 two-story buildings. Units will be upper and
lower, with some units located above garages. Apartments will range in size between 755
and 1,344 square feet, and will include one and two bedroom units.
Parking is to be provided by garages, carports and open spaces. Parking spaces total 456
spaces, of which 84 are garages, 234 are carports, and 138 are open parking spaces.
A 4,173 square foot clubhouse, to include leasing offices, an exercise room, a club room,
restrooms, a pool and spa, will be located near the entry point off of Washington Street.
Another pool and spa will be located in the eastern portion of the project site with restroom
facilities.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant desert land (County of Riverside)
South: Vacant desert land, future school site (City of La Quinta)
West: Washington Street, Single and Multi -family Residential beyond (City of Palm Desert)
East: Single Family residential and Landscaping Nurseries (City of La Quinta)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
17
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
r
November 3, 2003
Signature Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -
site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVH, 'Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
-3- 1
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-c) The proposed Site Development Permit includes two story buildings which could
potentially block views to the west of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The potential
impacts would be to single family homes to the east of the site. The project design,
however, mitigates the potential impacts associated with the building height, insofar
as there is a distance of at least 65 feet from the project boundary, and the buildings
are generally angled away from the houses. The potential impacts are therefore
reduced since the bulk of the building will not face the existing homes. The site
design and distance to existing single family homes, therefore, mitigate the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
d) The project will generate a minimal amount of light, insofar as the City's dark sky
ordinance will be implemented for all lighting plans. These requirements do not allow
lighting to spill over to other properties. The potential impacts associated with light
and glare are not expected to be significant.
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.11I-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The proposed project is not in agriculture, nor is there agricultural uses in the vicinity.
The project site is surrounded by urban development, and is not in a rural portion of
the City.
-6- )
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Ill. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will
result in the construction of 224 apartments. The traffic study for the previous project
on the site estimated trip generation for the apartments at 5.86 average daily trips
(ADT) per unit, resulting in total ADT of 1,313 for the currently proposed project'.
Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10 miles, the following
emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site.
"Traffic Impact Study — Dutch Parent Entitlement," prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 2002.
-7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
1,313 x 10 = 13,130
PM10 PMio PMio
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 1,181 70 30,724.20 6,302.40 - 131.30 131.30
Pounds at 50 mph 2.61 67.82 13.91 - 0.29 0.29
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs /day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 12,895 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75 F, light duty autos, catalytic
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of the SCAQMD's
threshold criteria for pollutants generated by vehicle trips. Impacts are therefore
expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10
(Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much
stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and
during project operations. These 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
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 384 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition,
the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
-8- J
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. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall
be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix
hydroseeded on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential
for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street, Palm Royale
Drive and Darby Road shall be installed immediately following mass grading
of the site. The retention areas and interior recreational areas shall also be
landscaped or chemically stabilized immediately following mass grading.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
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 PM10 Management Plan.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with PM10
are expected to be less than significant.
III. d) & e) The development of 224 apartments will not subject people to significant pollutant
concentrations, nor will it create objectionable odors.
-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?
(General Plan MEA, 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?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p.
73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
-10-
E
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-D The proposed project site is located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, and shall be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at
the time development occurs. This mitigation measure shall reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
z
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5 (Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment, Archaeological
Advisory Group, March, 2002. Phase II
Historical Study, Archaeological Advisory
Group, June, 2002.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
(Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment,
Archaeological Advisory Group, March, 2002.
Phase II Historical Study, Archaeological
Advisory Group, June, 2002.)
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? (Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment, Archaeological Advisory Group,
March, 2002. Phase II Historical Study,
Archaeological Advisory Group, June, 2002.)
V. a), b) & d) Phase I and H cultural resource surveys were completed for the entire site 2. The Phase
I investigation recommended the completion of a Phase H study, based on the
potential historic resources identified on the site. The Phase II study made
recommendations for mitigation measures which were confirmed by the Historic
Preservation Commission, as follows:
An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth moving
activities. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth
moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the
Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written
report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on
the site.
2. Commemorative plaques honoring Iona Mackenzie and Raymond Darby shall
be placed within the proposed project.
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Archaeological Advisory Group, March, 2002, Phase II Historical
Study, Archaeological Advisory Group, June, 2002.
-12- ,
3. The main drive through the project shall be renamed from Palm Royale Drive
to Mackenzie Drive.
V. c) The site is outside the historic lakebed for ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not
expected to contain resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
X
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (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)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. i), iii), iv),
b)-d) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it
subject to landslides or liquefaction. The soil in the area is not expansive, and would
support septic tanks. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic
hazards.
-14- l
VI. a) ii) The project site lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest
of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's
standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for
seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than
significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
.private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
-16- F
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of residential uses on the proposed project site will not result in
significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the
standards of the Household Hazardous Waste programs in place through its waste
provider. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or
within the project itself, are less than significant.
-17- 1
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. 111-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (Preliminary
Grading Plan)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(Preliminary Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (Preliminary
Grading Plan)
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)
VIII. a) & b) The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property.
The proposed apartment project will generate 224 apartments. All units will be
required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures
and landscaping, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater.
These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c) & d) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows, and
has been designed to include retention areas within the project. The City Engineer
requires that these retention areas retain the 100 year storm on site, and this will be
accomplished in the landscaped areas of the project. These City requirements are
expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The construction of the proposed project will not have an impact on the City's storm
drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year storm
area.
-19- :.,
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site, and
is located in an area where other apartments occur, particularly to the north on
Washington Street. The implementation of the Site Development Permit is not
expected to have any impact on land use and planning.
-20- ` J
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered
to have potential for mineral resources.
-21- m
r
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
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
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
Tap)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
0 For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a), b), d)-f)Portions of the project site adjacent to Washington Street are subject to high noise
levels due to traffic, and will need to be studied prior to construction of the apartment
buildings. In order to mitigate the potential impacts, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
Project specific noise analysis shall be completed for any residential structures
within 300 feet of Washington Street.
-22-
XI. c) The construction of the apartment project will generate noise from construction
equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the east of the site. Homes are
considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a
negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied
residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall
be located in the northwestern portion of the site.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
-23-
.i
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project will provide 224 housing units in the area, and is therefore a
beneficial impact to the housing market, adding to the variety of housing stock in the
City.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under
City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of
issuance of building permits.
The project will also be required to pay the City's traffic impact fee, which helps to
offset costs for regional circulation improvements.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed project includes pools, spas, a clubhouse and open space recreation
which will provide recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential
impacts to City facilities.
�a
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
("Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Hartzog &
Crabill, Inc., June 2002.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? ("Traffic Impact Study,"
prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 2002.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
0 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)-g) A traffic analysis was prepared for the previously proposed project on this site'. This
analysis included lands to the south to Fred Waring Drive which are not part of the
"Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 2002.
-27- t ��
current proposal. However, the potential impacts of buildout of the area remain, since
the General Plan designations on the adjacent properties could generate both office
and retail development. The previous analysis found that the potential impacts
associated with traffic would be slightly lower than those analysed in the General
Plan. The study found that mitigation measures will be required, however, to assure
that project and surrounding roadways operate within an acceptable level of service:
1. When the area reaches buildout, or when traffic warrants are met, whichever
occurs first, a traffic signal shall be installed at Fred Waring Drive and Palm
Royale Drive.
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.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-29-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land uses considered in the General Plan
were identical to those proposed, and these were found to result in adequate levels of
service. It is therefore expected that development of the proposed project will lower
potential impacts to utility providers for the project site.
-30-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been identified as having significant cultural resources. However,
mitigation measures included above will assure that these potential resources are
protected, and that potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing for City residents. The project is consistent with the City's General
Plan and will round out the housing available in the City
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and is consistent with
those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City
as a whole.
-31-
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air
quality and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for
PM10, and the site will generate a high level of criteria pollutants, which can cause
negative health effects, Section III., above, includes a number of mitigation measures
to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. The impacts are not expected to be any
more than those identified in the General Plan EIR, which included analysis of more
intense development at the project site. Noise impacts are those associated with
construction, and have been mitigated above to less than significant levels.
—32— e
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessment 2002-454, and studies prepared for this document, were used extensively
in this document.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-33- }
tt
H
d
A
dA
A
a�
U
UU
b
A a,
�
U
0,.
�
a
�
a
R.
U
up
v�
awn
N
b
o
U
N
U
4
N
U
l)
y
bA
OVA
H0
U
~
y 0
a U
..
O
¢
0
cad
U
O to v
O
y O to
UD
bA
bA
bA
GA
0
cd
a�
84
on
on
to
to
.d
cad
U
U
U
God
U A
m
GG
GQ
CA
U Q
"Cy
�
c
a�
O N
o
F
�
o 0
tuo
ch
.O
co
cd
►� .�.'
�.
cn
Cy
3
Lo
O
cn
t.
O
O
O
N
.:
�"+
4 a
cd
O �r d
i�i
bA
(Av
>O
too
`�'
O
feT•i
7
o
d
-d rn
v �" cd cd
a
�pq
�.
t0
Cn
'd
U
ed
cd
r M
CISO 0
>,.
FV
W N O
"b
aC
a3Aw
w
as
Cd
H
d
A
dA
A
av
UV
d
o
o o
i o 0 0
Eli
w
cn
40,
cn En
4-4
5 0
U U
to l+ I"+ �"+
"U
to
a a
�. }0}.. � 00}.. a
Y
CC °
°to
Cd U U 0 V
.�
N to
b4 i+ O O
Oto to to
3
°-a o°
Q A A
a
Ca .�
o 0 0
O
0�'�'�
ato
to bo
UA
UA UA a
UCa °
PQ GU GG
U
c;3
to
rn
o
0c�
U
W
�; 0
CA
a
v
y cd
d�
p
v
�5
o N� d
o
+J
o�
Cd >,
0
r
Cd d � � o
; a
U
o °
Cyr
o
� a �
• •� �+
p
-r a/
° a�
c;s F..-..
C� ° �+ 7y
u A
+.+ ?4 �+ it �+ °NO
(n N
U
F
U
a� o ii { .�
42
Ow
$oa�(4)
bo —.n
z
on�
p.�3
� ° °p °O
ow
�'
a�
>¢�
.) y�Ca
U a U U
U `�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW A 224 UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES ON
A 14.54 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST SIDE
OF WASHINGTON STREET AND PALM ROYALE DRIVE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-792
APPLICANT: WHITECO RESIDENTIAL, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 25th day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by Whiteco Residential, LLC, for approval of development plans to allow a
224 unit apartment complex and ancillary facilities on a 14.54 acre site, generally
located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive, more
particularly described as follows:
APNs: 609-051-010
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-487) 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 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 approval of said Site Development Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The project as proposed is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the high density uses are
allowed under the High Density Residential (HDR) Land Use designation.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the
High Density Residential (RH) Zoning District, in that the project meets the
development standards including, but not limited to, setbacks, architecture,
building heights, building mass, exterior lighting, parking, circulation, open space
and landscaping.
PC Reso SDP 2003-792
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-792
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The
proposed project complies with the requirements of CEQA in that Environmental
Assessment 2003-487 was prepared for this project with imposed mitigation
measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact was certified.
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 and quality of design prevalent in the
City. The buildings mass has been reduced due to the articulation, exterior
stucco finish, desert tone colors and different pitched tile roofs. In addition, the
proposed buildings are adequately set back with multiple wall planes so as to
minimize the appearance of a large structural mass.
5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited
to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design
elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are
compatible with the quality of design prevalent in the City in that the proposed
project meets the development standards of the Site Development Permit.
6. Landscape Design: The landscaping for the proposed project, including but not
limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant
materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the buildings,
and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the
project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in
that the variety of drought tolerant plants, trees and shrubs, provide an
aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
i . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-792 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached
hereto;
PC Reso SDP 2003-792 ''
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-792
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25' day of November 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 2003-792 j
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-792 — MONTE VISTA APARTMENTS
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 25, 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 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. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-
DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs 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 Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 1
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BM Ps shall remain in effect for the entire duration of
project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the
City.
4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
P:\Martin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance
with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as
required by the City Engineer.
7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — No additional right of
way is required except for an additional right of way dedication at the
Palm Royale Drive intersection for a total of 66 feet from the centerline
and 200 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 230 feet to
accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
2) Palm Royale Drive (Pursuant to Parcel Map No. 27131, 72' ROW) — No
additional right of way is required except for an additional right of way
dedication at the Washington Street intersection for a total of 46 feet
from the centerline and 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an
additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
3► Darby Road (Local Street, 60' ROW) — No additional right of way is
required.
8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
B. Palm Royale Drive (Collector) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
P:\Martin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final
Map.
10. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the improvement plans.
11. As proposed, there is no direct vehicular access to Washington Street from lots with
frontage along Washington Street.
Direct vehicular access to Palm Royale Drive from lots with frontage along Palm
Royale Drive is restricted as conditioned herewith. The Primary Entry shall be located
at least 500 feet east of Washington Street.
12. Direct vehicular access to Darby Road from lots with frontage along Darby Road is
restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site
Development Permit Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of
approval.
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.
14. 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 Site Development Permit,
unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
15. 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.
16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below
shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a
larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 4
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to
improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street Plan:
Vertical
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk,
mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape
setback area.
B.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
C.
Site Development Plan
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
D.
Traffic Signal Plan
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top
Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the
building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California
Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment
must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A
copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department
in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan and a
"Site Utility" plan are required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official
and the City Engineer.
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 2b, 2003
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building
floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
17. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant
may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the
City.
18. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through
a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a
file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
19. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
21. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
22. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 6
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
23. 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.
24. 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 0.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
25. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from
the building pads in adjacent developments.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 7
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
nRAINAr.F
27. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basins to comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More
specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained
within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The
tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The
design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the
greatest total run off.
28. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
29. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water
shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system
approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to
contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5
gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
30. 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.
31. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
32. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted
with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual lots, retention
depth shall not exceed two feet.
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 8
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
33. 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.
34. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
35. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity
to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic
drainage relief route.
36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of
utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
P:\Martin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
42. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Washington Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W):
Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site
Development Permit boundary to its ultimate width on the east side as
specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The
east curb face shall be located fifty one feet (51') east of the centerline,
except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) Bus turnout and bus shelter (per City design standards) (if
required by Sunline Transit)
b) A dual left turn lane at the Palm Royale Drive intersection. The
east curb face shall be located fifty seven feet (57') and 200 '
long plus a variable widening of an additional 230' east of the
centerline.
Other required improvements in the Washington Street right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall
have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and
convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches
the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at
intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii
should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of
reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating
the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the
P:\Martin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 10
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the
perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
c) A County of Riverside benchmark in the Washington Street right
of way established by a licensed surveyor.
d) The applicant shall install the traffic signal at the Washington
Street and Palm Royale Drive intersection when warrants are
met. Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and
install the traffic signal. The applicant shall enter upon an
agreement with the Desert Sands Unified School District for the
remaining obligation. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post
security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic
signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit and the
security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is
actually installed by the applicant or the Desert Sands Unified
School District.
2) Palm Royale Drive - Pursuant to Parcel Map No. 27131, 72' ROW
Construct the north half of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site
Development Permit boundary to its ultimate width on the north side as
specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The
north curb face shall be located twenty four feet (24') north of the centerline,
except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) Bus turnout and shelter (pursuant to City design standards) (if
required by Sunline Transit).
b) A right turn only deceleration at Washington Street intersection.
The north curb face shall be located thirty four feet (34') north of
the centerline.
c) An additional street widening of fourteen feet (14') south of the
centerline to accommodate east bound traffic from Washington
Street to east of Darby Road.
Other required improvements in the Palm Royale Drive right of way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
d) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
P:\Martin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 11
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
e) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall
have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and
convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the
back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk
curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at
each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to
assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5
feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
3) Darby Road — Local Street, 60' ROW
Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site
Development Permit boundary to its ultimate on the north side as specified in
the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The north curb face
shall be located eighteen feet (18') north of the centerline, except at locations
where additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) An additional street widening of fourteen feet (14') south of the
centerline to accommodate east bound traffic from Palm Royale
Drive to the existing Darby Road.
43. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted
vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10, demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around out onto the main
street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane
shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved
construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the
City Engineer.
P:\Martin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 12
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
44. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows:
Residential/Parking Facilities
3.0"
a.c./4.5"
c.a.b.
Collector/Local
4.0"
a.c /5.0"
c.a.b.
Secondary Arterial
4.0"
a.c./6.0"
c.a.b.
Major Arterial
5.5"
a.c./6.5"
c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
45. 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.
46. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Primary Entry (Palm Royale Drive): Full turn movements are permitted.
B. Secondary Entry (Darby Road): Full turn movements are permitted.
47. 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.
48. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
CONSTRUCTION
49. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings
and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially
P:\Martin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 13
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
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
50. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
51. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
52. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
53. 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.
54. 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
55. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
56. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
57. 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.
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-792 — Monte Vista Apartments
Adopted: November 25, 2003
58. 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.
59. 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
60. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
61. 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
62. 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.
63. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:
64. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures included in the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan associated with the project.
PAMartin\SDP 03 792-Whiteco\SDP 03 792 COA.doc 15
ATTACHMENT
}'�IDVBC"l'
y
P QARB RD
r
V
3
FRED, WAKING DRIVE DR
MILM AW N
VICINTIY MAP
ATTACHMENT A
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
November 5, 2003
a. Condition added: All plant material 15 gallon on La
Quinta Drive and five gallop. d the interior.
b. Condition added: All d palms shall be nursery grown
and inspected by the ) ndscape architect as to their good
condition with a minimum 8 foot trunk height. Would not
recommend usinq'the Mesquite tree.
C. Condition Added: All trees shall be 15 gallon, 24 inch
box trees, 1.5, calipher.
Unanimously app`oved.
C. Site Development Permit 2003-792; a request of Whiteco Residential,
LLC for a review of architectural and landscaping plans for a 224 unit
apartment complex located at the northeast corner of Washington
Street and Palm Royale (extended).
1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Tim
Connelly, Avi, landscape architect, Kurt Saxon civil engineer,
who gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked what the exterior
material would be. Mr. Connelly stated Spanish lace.
Committee Member Cunningham stated his main concern is
public view. He does not like the lace stucco. It should be
machine dash finish and not the sand finish as it will show
everything. The roof pitches need to come down to not show
so much roof. Reduce them to a 4 pitch. The exterior elevation
needs to be as uniform as possible.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the window surrounds
were inset. Mr. Connelly stated they were foam and the railings
were small and iron.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the plant palette is a good
use of material. Again, he would recommend not using the
Chilean Mesquite due to the high maintenance they require.
Discussion followed regarding the different tree species.
5. Committee member Cunningham asked that the columns be
precast concrete.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\11-5-03 WD.doc - - 4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
November 5, 2003
6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to
adopt Minute Motion 2003-046 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2003-792, as amended:
Conditions added:
a. Exterior material machine dash finish.
b. Maximum pitch 4 or 12.
C. Garage doors shall be metal roll up
d. Chilean Mesquite tree be replaced with a different variety.
e. Columns shall be precast
Unanimously approved.
D. Site Development Permit 2003-791; a request of Prest Vuksic
`Architects, Inc. for a review of architectural and landscaping plans for
a V24 unit apartment complex located at the northeast corner of
Wa§bington Street and Palm Royale (extended).
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information
cont fined in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Dave
Prest th°bapplicant and architect for the project, who gave a
presentation on the project.
7. Committee Mber Cunningham asked if it was mudded tile.
Mr. Stated it wa a two-piece mudded tile. Committee Member
Cunningham applauded the design.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he liked the people features.
He would again recommend not using the Mesquite trees.
9. There being no further questtions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee`Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to
adopt Minute Motion 2003-047�ecommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2003-791, as recommended by staff and
as amended:
Condition added:
a. No Mesquite trees.°..
Unanimously approved.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\11-5-03 WD.doc - - 5
PH #E
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NOS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-483
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-093
ZONE CHANGE 2003-116
SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-067
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-792
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ARCHITECT:
ENGINEER:
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO
CHANGE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND MIXED/REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND
RELOCATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DESIGNATIONS, ADD GOLF COURSE DESIGNATION,
AND ELIMINATE THE MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY
DESIGNATION;
3) DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR TWO 18-HOLE GOLF COURSES, ASSOCIATED
FACILITIES AND 1,400 RESIDENTIAL UNITS RANGING
IN SIZE BETWEEN ± 3,150 AND ± 3,650 SQUARE FEET;
AND,
4) DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO 18-HOLE GOLF
COURSES, ASSOCIATED FACILITIES AND 1,400
RESIDENTIAL UNITS RANGING IN SIZE BETWEEN
± 3,150 AND ± 3,650 SQUARE FEET.
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 60 AND MONROE STREET
(APNs: 764-200-001 thru 007; 764-210-001 thru 006).
HART HOWERTON ARCHITECTS
WATSON & WATSON ENGINEERING, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-483;
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.
EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)/LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/ GOLF COURSE (G)/MIXED/REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (M/RC)/MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY
EXISTING ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM)/LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RL)/ GOLF COURSE (GC)/ MIXED/REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (M/RC)/MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY
BACKGROUND:
The site is vacant, approximately 942 acres in size and located at the northwest
corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street (Attachment 1). A majority of the project
site was part of the original Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP No. 218 Amendment
1) which, included 1,280 acres, and was approved by the County of Riverside on
August 15, 2000. Of this acreage, ± 474 acres are under construction by Shea
Homes for a project known as Trilogy. The remaining 806 acres are either vacant
or in agricultural use. The applicant owns ± 587 acres of the remaining 806 acres
and has recently acquired ± 355 acres and has incorporated this additional land into
a new proposal. The additional ± 355 acres are not part of any prior Specific Plan.
Attachment 2 shows the original (SP 218 Amendment 1) project boundary in
relation to the new (Specific Plan 03-067) project boundary.
The purpose of the new Specific Plan is to disassociate the new project from the
original Coral Mountain Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment 1, project in order to
have a stand-alone document that establishes development principles and design
guidelines for the new project. Development in the areas remaining under the
original Coral Mountain Specific Plan boundary will be guided by the original Coral
Mountain Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment 1.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787 '
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of the following:
1. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to:
a. change land uses and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential
to Low Density Residential, Mixed/Regional Commercial to Neighborhood
Commercial and relocate the Neighborhood Commercial land uses from their
current location north of Avenue 60, between Madison Street and Monroe
Street, further north to the southwest and southeast corner of Madison
Street and Avenue 58;
b. add a Golf Course designation to the additional land recently acquired; and,
c. eliminate the Major Community Facility designation, which was originally
part of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan area.
The following table represents the losses and gains in terms of land uses as a result
of the proposed project. This table reflects only the land that pertains to the
applicant from the original Coral Mountain Specific Plan and the newly acquired
area. The difference in the proposed acres and existing acres is the 355 acres,
which represents the newly acquired land.
Existing
General Plan/Zoning
Designation
Existing
Acres
Proposed
General
Plan/Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Acres
Difference
MDR/RM
122.00
MDR/RM
0
-122.00
LDR/RL
78.00
LDR/RL
497.00
+419.00
MRC/MRC
03.00
NC/CN
10.00
+07.00*
G/GC
383.00
G/GC
435.00
+ 52.00
MC/MC
01.00
MC/MC
0
-01.00
Totals
587.00
942.00
+ 355.00
MDR/RM = Medium Density Residential
LDR/RL = Low Density Residential (up to 4 dwelling units per acre)
G/GC = Golf Course/Golf Course
MRC/MRC = Mixed Regional Commercial
MC/MC = Major Community Facility
Approximately 122 acres of Medium Density Residential will be lost as a result of
the proposed project. Under the original Coral Mountain Specific Plan, the portion
of the site that was designated Medium Density Residential was approved for 701
homes. Based on the proposed residential acreage of 497 acres, the maximum
number of units allowed under the Low Density Residential designation would be
1,988. With 1,400 units proposed, the project falls within the density allowed
under the Low -Density Residential Land Use designation of up to four dwelling units
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787
per acre. These dwelling units would include single-family attached and detached
units ranging in size from ± 3,150 square feet to ± 3,650 square feet. The
applicant has not yet submitted Tentative Tract Maps for the project. The applicant
will be required to obtain approval of a Tract Map(s), prior to obtaining building
permits.
The Mixed/Regional Commercial designation is proposed to be changed to
Neighborhood Commercial. While the change in acres from Mixed Regional
Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial is larger, the Neighborhood Commercial
designation less intense. Commercial uses have not been determined but generally
include those uses listed under the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, such
as food, drugs, sundries and personal services to meet the daily needs of the
neighborhood area.
The Golf Course designation is required to designate the golf courses as such, on
the General Plan Land Use and Zoning maps. The applicant is proposing to
eliminate the Major Community Facility designation shown on the General Plan Land
Use Map on the north side of Avenue 60, between Madison Street and Monroe
Street. The applicant will have to demonstrate, in a form of a letter, from Riverside
County Fire Department, that a Fire Station is not required and that the closest
station can serve the project. Otherwise, the applicant will have to provide a one
acre site for a future Fire Station on the property.
2. Approval of a Specific Plan, which will establish development and design
guidelines (Attachment 3), and a Site Development Permit (Attachment 4) for
development of the following:
a. two 18-hole golf courses;
b. 16,400 square foot golf clubhouse;
c. 4,000 square foot swim & tennis facility;
d. 400 square foot gatehouse;
e. 14,000 square foot maintenance building; and,
f. 1,400 attached and detached residential units ranging in size from
± 3,150 square feet to ± 3,650 square feet.
A portion of the newly acquired property lies within land subject to Williamson Act
contracts (Agricultural Preserve). The applicant proposes to cancel this contract
and has filed a Notice of Cancellation with the County of Riverside. California Code
Section 51284 requires that the City Council approve the cancellation as part of the
process. This action is scheduled to go before the City Council on December 16,
2003, along with these applications. No action is required by the Planning
Commission.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787
Architecture
The overall design theme of the project is Spanish style architecture, with hip and
gable roofs with clay barrel tile, columns, porticos; smooth stucco finishes, and
arched entries. Accent features include wood, tile and decorative wrought iron.
The applicant also proposes varied off -sets within the facades to break up the mass
of the buildings. Depending on the land use constructed, it is envisioned that other
amenities including porches, balconies, patios, courtyards, arcades, plazas and
paseos will be incorporated within each Planning Area of the project.
Development Standards
The applicant is requesting the following development standards to be a part of the
project. The table below shows the development standards by Planning Area as
specified in the Specific Plan.
Planning Area/
Max.
No. of
Min.
Parking
Land Use
Bldg. Ht.
Stories
Setbacks (2)
Spaces
(1)
I - Golf Clubhouse,
35'
1-2
Front: 5'-8'
1 /250 sq. ft.
Gatehouse, Swim and Tennis
Side: 5'-10'
(3)
Area
II - Low Density Residential
28'
2
Front: 5'-10'
2/unit
Side: 5'-10'
III - Low Density Residential
28'
1-2
Front: 5'-10'
2/unit
Side: 5'-10'
IV - Golf Course Maintenance
28'
1
Front: 5'-8'
1 /250 sq. ft.
Facility
Side: 5'-10'
V - Neighborhood
35'
2
Front: 10'
1 /250 sq. ft.
Commercial
Rear: 10'
Side: 5'-10'
VI - Golf Course
28'
2
Front: 5'-8'
5/hole
Side: 5'-10'
(1) - Buildings within 150 feet of a Primary Image Corridor, or a Major or Primary Arterial, will be restricted to a maximum of
22 feet in height, not including architectural projections, such as chimneys, bell towers, spires, etc.
(2) - AC units, trellis elements, pools and spas are allowed to encroach into side and rear yard setbacks. Also, since no rear
yard setbacks are requested, the project will have to comply with the Zoning Code rear building setback of 20 feet.
(3) - For golf course uses, additional parking shall be required for additional uses on site such as swimming area and tennis
courts.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping for the project consists of a wide variety of trees,
shrubs, ground covers, vines and accents. The proposed landscaping will provide
visual relief, compliment the structures and provide an overall design that includes a
wide selection of drought tolerant landscaping that is prevalent throughout the City.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787 c. J
Access
Vehicular access is provided via Madison Street and Monroe Street. Madison
Street bisects the project area in a north to south direction and provides two
primary points of direct access into the project. Monroe Street borders the eastern
boundary where a secondary point of access is located at approximately mid point
between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. Private roadways are proposed within the
development, which will provide access to other land uses including the clubhouse,
golf courses, and swim and tennis facility.
Access to the two commercial sites at the southwest and southeast corner of
Avenue 58 and Madison Street, are provided at two locations for each site. Each
site has access from Avenue 58 and Madison Street.
Signage
No signage is proposed at this time. It is anticipated that the project will have a
private wall built around the property with key entry areas where signage would be
installed to identify the project. Once the applicant has chosen a name for the
project, the appropriate permits will be required.
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC)
This project was presented to the ALRC at their October 1, 2003 meeting. The
ALRC meeting minutes are attached for your review (Attachment 5). The
Committee discussed the project and identified one issue for consideration by the
Planning Commission which, included the following:
1. Restrict the use of "Pine" trees within the golf course area only.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC):
This project was presented to the HPC at their November 20, 2003 meeting. The
Commission discussed the project and recommended the following conditions be
added to the permit:
1. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough
grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors
shall be given to the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing
permit.
2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for the project.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787
rJ
3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for
the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field
notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
Public Notice
This project was originally advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 4,
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 2003-483, GPA 2003-093, ZC 2003-
116, SP 2003-067, and SDP 2003-787 can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution 2003-_ recommending to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003- 483;
2. Adopt Resolution 2003- recommending to the City Council approval of
General Plan Amendment 2003-093;
3. Adopt Resolution 2003-_ recommending to the City Council approval of
Zone Change 2003-116;
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Specific Plan
2003-067, subject to findings and conditions; and,
5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , approving Site Development
Permit 2003-787, subject to findings and conditions.
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787
. 5
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Original and New Project Site Boundaries
3. Specific Plan 2003-067
4. Site Development Permit 2003-787 Plan Set
5. October 1, 2003, ALRC meeting minutes
Prepared by:
Martin Magaria
Associate Planner
PC Stfrpt SDP 03-787
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-093, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-116, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-067 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-483
APPLICANT: CORAL OPTION I, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 251h day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-483 for a General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change to change land uses and zoning designations from
Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and Golf Course,
Mixed/Regional Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and relocate the
Neighborhood Commercial land uses to the southwest and southeast corner of
Madison Street and Avenue 58, and eliminate the Major Community Facility
designation; a Specific Plan to establish development standards and design
guidelines and a Site Development Permit for development of two 18-hole golf
courses, 16,400 square foot golf clubhouse, 4,000 square foot swim & tennis
facility, 400 square foot gatehouse, 14,000 square foot maintenance building, and
1,400 attached and detached residential model units ranging in size between
± 3,150 square feet and ± 3,650 square feet, generally located at the northwest
corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 764-200-001 thru 007; 764-210-001 thru 006
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental
Assessment 2003-483 and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact is recommended for certification; and,
PC RESO EA 03 483
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-483
Coral Option I, LLC
November 25, 2003
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
make the following findings to justify recommending to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the project site has been conditioned to
mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant
levels.
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
significant wildlife resources on the site.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than
significant levels as identified in the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project in that the site will be developed
with less intensity than the current land use designations 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.
PC RESO EA 03 483
J
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-483
Coral Option I, LLC
November 25, 2003
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 2003-
483 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-483 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file
in the Community Development Department and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-483 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of November, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PC RESO EA 03 483
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-483
Coral Option 1, LLC
November 25, 2003
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO EA 03 483 )
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2003-093, Zone Change 2003-116, Specific Plan 03-
067, Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 218, Site Development Permit 2003-787, Coral
Option I
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, and between Jefferson Street and
Monroe Street.
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Coral Option I, LLC
79-285 Rancho La Quinta Dr.
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Low
Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential, Golf Course,
Mixed/Regional Commercial, Major
Community Facility
Proposed: Low Density Residential, Golf
Course, Neighborhood Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential, Golf Course,
Mixed/Regional Commercial, Major
Community Facility
Proposed: Low Density Residential, Golf
Course, Neighborhood 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 proposed project consists of a 587 acre portion of the previously approved Coral
Mountain Specific Plan, which was reviewed under CEQA through an Environmental Impact
Report and associated addenda, by both the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta. In
addition to these previously reviewed lands, a 355 acre addition is proposed, for a total
project area of 942 acres. The 355 acre addition has not been previously proposed for
development, and therefore has not previously been reviewed under CEQA.
The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required to reduce the proposed density
on the site from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, on the west side of
Madison, to add Golf Course designation to Low Density Residential on the east side of
Madison, and to change Mixed/Regional Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and
relocate the land uses to a different portion of the site than that approved in Specific Plan 218.
In the previous plan, the commercial designation was located on Avenue 60, east of Madison
Street. The proposed Specific Plan will locate 10 acres of Neighborhood Commercial,
divided evenly on the southwest and southeast corners of Avenue 58 and Madison Street.
-1-
Also, the applicant requests the elimination of the Major Community Facility designation on
the General Plan Land Use Map.
Specific Plan 2003-067 includes lands previously included in Specific Plan 218 (see below),
as well as lands which currently have no entitlements. The Specific Plan includes design
standards and guidelines, and facilitates the construction of up to 1,400 attached and detached
single family homes on 497 acres, golf course on 435 acres, and 10 acres of neighborhood
commercial land uses at the southwest and southeast corners of Avenue 58 and Madison
Avenue. The golf course designation would also include maintenance and clubhouse
facilities.
The Site Development Permit establishes plans for the construction of the facilities within the
Specific Plan boundary, including attached and detached residential, golf course and tennis
facilities, and ancillary maintenance facilities.
The purpose of the Specific Plan (Coral Option) is to delete lands previously included in the
Coral Mountain Specific Plan, and now included in Specific Plan 2003-067 in one document,
described above. No other change is proposed.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Single family residential, golf course (Norman Estates)
South: Bureau of Reclamation Levee, Coral Mountain Specific Plan (Trilogy)
West: Bureau of Reclamation Levee, Parks and Recreation
East: Single family residential, Ag lands, vacant desert lands
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X i environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
j project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
-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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
proj ect.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-c) The proposed Specific Plan and associated Site Development Permit propose the
construction of one and two story residential, golf course associated facilities and
commercial structures. Most of the construction will occur away from the project
boundary, in the interior of the site. Madison Street and Avenue 58 are designated as
Agrarian Image Corridors in the General Plan and the project will comply with the
requirements. There are no significant landforms located in the immediate vicinity of the
project. The Coral Reef Mountains, located to the west and south of the project site, are
sufficiently distant from the site so as to still be visible from the project and surrounding
development. The proposed project is consistent with other development in the area,
which consists of single and two story residential projects, often on golf courses. Impacts
to aesthetics are expected to be less than significant.
I. d) The proposed project will generate light from the commercial parcels located at Avenue
58 and Madison, as well as from residential outdoor lighting, and the lighting of facilities
at the golf and tennis club. All lighting on the site will be required to conform to the
City's Dark Sky Ordinance, which prohibit "spillover" from the site. Further, the more
intensely lit land uses will be located in less sensitive areas (either at a street intersection,
or within the center of the golf course), and will have little potential to affect surrounding
sensitive uses. Impacts associated with light and glare are expected to be less than
significant.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map, letter of 9/23/03 from
Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill & Blasdel)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
Il. a)-c) Three parcels within the proposed project consisting of t195 acres, and generally located
in the southeastern quadrant of the site, have previously been under Williamson Act
contract. Additionally, portions of the site have been in agriculture in the past. The
balance of the site is vacant desert lands. A formal request to cancel the Williamson Act
contracts is being processed by the City for parcels affected by such a designation.
Based on aerial photos of the site, it appears that a majority of the ±355 acres included in
the Specific Plan area have been in agricultural use. The development of the project
would therefore result in the conversion of about f195 acres from agriculture to urban
uses. The remainder of the site encompasses vacant desert lands. The property is not
designated as prime agricultural land in the General Plan, and is developing at lower
densities than originally envisioned in the General Plan. The project is adjacent to
developing or developed land uses, in an area of the City which has been urbanizing for a
number of years. The site is within the corporate limits of the City, and as such is
expected to develop in urban land uses. Although portions of the site which have
previously been used for agriculture will no longer be available for such use, the acreage
involved represents a very small percentage of the total acreage in agriculture in the
eastern Coachella Valley. Impacts to agricultural resources are therefore expected to be
less than significant.
-7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project includes
the development of up to 1,400 residential units, golf course facilities (36 holes) and
neighborhood commercial land uses which could generate up to 109,000 square feet of
commercial space. These land uses could generate up to 19,362 daily trips at the site.
This calculation does not account for complementary use between the three land uses, and
is therefore considered conservative. Actual trips generated could be 25% less. Based on
this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10 miles, the following emissions can
be expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, Oh Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, categories 430 — golf course, 210 — single
family housing, and 820 — shopping center.
-8- v
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
19,362 x 10 = 193,620
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 17,425.80 453,070.80 92,937.60 - 1,936.20 1,936.20
Pounds at 50 mph 38.47 1,000.16 205.16 - 4.27 4.27
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 12,895 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75 F, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD's recommended
daily thresholds for both carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The potential impacts of the
proposed project were analysed in the General Plan EIR, as the land use proposed is less
than the previously approved medium density residential designation on the property. The
City found at that time that although the potential impacts associated with air quality in
the City could be considerable, the potential benefits of buildout of the General Plan
outweighed these potential impacts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
prepared and adopted in conjunction with the certification of the General Plan EIR. The
General Plan EIR included a number of mitigation measures to assist the City and project
developers in reducing potential impacts associated with air quality. In order to lower the
potential impacts associated with air quality emissions, mitigation measures have been
provided below.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
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
-9-
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 24,658 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
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. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix
hydroseeded on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on all perimeter streets (Avenue 58 & 60,
Madison and Monroe) shall be installed immediately following mass grading of
the site. The golf courses shall be landscaped immediately upon completion of
finished grading of the site. Whenever possible, portions of the golf course which
have been graded shall be seeded while other portions still under construction are
being completed.
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 PM10 Management Plan.
12. An air quality monitor shall be on site during all grading operations. The monitor
shall be empowered to implement the most stringent control measures, as
prescribed in the 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan when necessary
to keep fugitive dust to a minimum.
13. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the General Plan EIR shall be
applied to the proposed project during both construction and operation.
III. d) & e) The development of the site will not subject people to significant pollutant
concentrations, nor will it create objectionable odors.
-11-
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? (Letter
report by LSA, October 10, 2003)
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?
(Letter report by LSA, October 10, 2003)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Letter report
by LSA, October 10, 2003)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Letter report
by LSA, October 10, 2003)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Letter report by LSA,
October 10, 2003)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
-12-
habitat conservation plan? (Letter report by
LSA, October 10, 2003)
IV. a)-f) There are 587 acres of the proposed Specific Plan area which have previously been
surveyed for biological resources, and 355 acres which were surveyed for this project
application.
The biological resource analysis completed for the additional acreage being incorporated
into the plan focused on the presence or absence of burrowing owl. The survey found no
evidence of burrowing owl on the property. The survey found the presence of fossorial
burrows adequate for occupation by burrowing owls. As such, the site, although not
currently occupied, includes appropriate habitat for the species. Since construction of the
proposed project will occur after the 30 day limitation placed on the current survey, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
Within 30 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site, the
project proponent shall cause the site to be surveyed for presence of burrowing
owl in the fossorial burrows located throughout the property. The surveys shall be
conducted according to the protocol in effect at the time. The survey results shall
be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any grading permit on the site.
Should burrowing owl be identified on the site, a program of passive relocation
shall be implemented and documented prior to the issuance of any grading or
grubbing permit.
The site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard
habitat conservation plan. No other conservation plans occur in the City.
2 "EIR for Coral Mountain Specific Plan" and associated addenda, certified by both the County of Riverside and the City of
La Quinta; and letter report prepared by LSA Associates, dated October 10, 2003.
-13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5 ("Draft
Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation
Report," CRM Tech, November 2003.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Draft
Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation
Report," CRM Tech, November 2003.)
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? ("Draft Interim Archaeological
Testing and Mitigation Report," CRM Tech,
November 2003.)
V. a), b) & d) Cultural resource surveys have previously been completed for the proposed project site3.
The 1998 survey included lands originally in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, including
lands to the west of Madison Street and north of Avenue 60. The 2003 report included
testing and mitigation for lands between Madison Street and Monroe, including lands
which, had previously not been part of the Specific Plan areas. The 2003 report, which
included extensive investigation of four recorded sites, previously identified, were
excavated. The resulting curation and documentation of the sites, currently under way,
will complete the previously imposed mitigation measures for this portion of the Specific
Plan, with the exception of on -going monitoring, which should occur during all earth
moving activities, and is included in the mitigation measures below.
Areas to the west of Madison Street have been surveyed but not investigated, and
mitigation measures for those areas must still be implemented. These areas include
petroglyphs, artifacts and pottery sherds. The significant sites identified on the west side
of Madison Street in 1998 were: CA-RIV-37, CA-RIV-193 North, CA-RIV-193 South,
CA- and CA-RIV-6122. All these sites must be investigated, recorded and curated prior
to any activity in this area, in order to preserve an adequate record. Mitigation has been
included below.
"Cultural Resources Report Coral Mountain Project," and "Draft Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation
Report Coral Mountain Expansion," prepared by CRM Tech, September, 1998 and November 2003, respectively.
1. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to
the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit.
2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for the project.
Collected archaelogical resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the
property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and
records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
V. c) The site is outside the historic lakebed for ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not
expected to contain resources.
-15-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
X
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (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)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a) i), iii), iv),
b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it
subject to landslides or liquefaction. Although the project will be connected to the sewer
system, the soil in the area is not expansive, and would support septic tanks. The
proposed project will have no impact on these geologic hazards.
-16-
VI. a) ii) The City and project site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of
significant seismic activity. The City Building Department has implemented California
Building Code which is intended to lower the potential impacts associated with
groundshaking to less than significant levels. Residential and golf -related structures will
be required to implement the most recent building codes in place at the time of
construction. The City Engineer will require site -specific soil analysis for each phase of
development, to assure that the construction of the structures occurs on properly
excavated and compacted fill. These City standards will assure that the impacts associated
with seismic activity are reduced to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
-18- > J
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of residential, commercial and golf -related uses on the proposed project
site will not result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City
implements the standards of the Household Hazardous Waste programs in place through
its waste provider. The golf course will be regulated in its use and storage of fertilizers,
pesticides and cleaning products as well as the commercial sites by County agencies.
These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the
project itself, are less than significant.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. II1-187 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? (Specific Plan)
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?
(Specific Plan)
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? (Specific Plan)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (Master Environmental
-20-
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)
VIR. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD), which is required to prepare a water supply assessment for the proposed
project. The assessment will be based on the factors published by the CVWD for
different land uses, and the acreage involved, as shown in the table below.
Coachella Valley Water District
Annual Consumption by Development Type
Development Type
Annual Consumption
Water Usage
(ac-ftlac/yr)
Acres
Golf Course Developments
7.36
497
3,657.9
Residential
6.09
435
2,649.1
Commercial
4.81
10
48.1
Total
6,355.1
The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and
replenishment measures which, will result in a surplus of water in the long term. These
measures, combined with the measures imposed by the City and discussed below, assure
a long term water supply for the proposed project.
The project proponent will also be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, which will ensure that the least amount of water
is utilized within the homes. The Coachella Valley Water District will impose conditions
of approval for the treatment of wastewater from the facilities constructed on the project
site. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards,
requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City
standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than
significant.
VIII. c) & d) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows, and has
been designed to include retention areas within the project. The City Engineer requires
that these retention areas retain the 100 year storm on site, and this will be accomplished
in the golf course and landscaped areas of the project. These City requirements are
expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The construction of the proposed project will not have an impact on the City's storm
drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year storm area.
-21- `j
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)
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed Specific Plan will result in the construction of residential units, golf course
facilities and commercial development consistent with surrounding development in the
area. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change lower the overall density of the
project to Low Density Residential, in keeping with surrounding designations. The
commercial component of the site is a smaller site than the previously approved site and
will cause less impacts by proving a shopping area closer to the residents, thereby
reducing traffic trips. The proposed project will not conflict with General Plan
designations or policies, with exception of the Major Community Facility site. The
applicant is proposing to eliminate the Major Community Facility designation shown on
the General Plan Land Use Map on the north side of Avenue 60, between Madison Street
and Monroe Street. The applicant will have to demonstrate, in a form of a letter, from
Riverside County Fire Department, that a Fire Station is not required and that the closest
station can serve the project. Otherwise, the applicant will have to provide a one acre site
for a future Fire Station on the property. Overall, the project is expected to represent an
extension of the existing development in the area.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-23- " J
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
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
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
map)
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)
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
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 Specific Plan will include residential, golf course and commercial uses in a
master planned community, to be located away from area roadways. The individual
developments within the project will be required to submit evidence of compatibility with
noise standards in the City prior to issuance of building permits. Overall noise impacts to
the residents of the project area are expected to be less than significant.
The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise
generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours, and entirely
-24-
" 0
within the master planned community. As phases of the residential development are built
and occupied, there is a potential for impacts when construction occurs adjacent to the
occupied portions of the site. In order to assure that impacts to the incremental increase in
occupied dwelling units and commercial sites is less than significant, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. All construction activities shall occur during the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
2. All stationary equipment shall be placed as far away from existing residential
development as possible once construction begins on the project site.
3. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with well maintained and operative
mufflers.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project will reduce the potential number of residential units on the project
site, by reducing the land use and zoning designations from Medium Density residential
to Low Density residential. The project site is currently vacant or in agriculture, and there
will be no displacement of housing as a result of the proposed project.
-26- ° '
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which, will offset the
costs of added police and fire services. The project will be required to pay the mandated
school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. The proposed project
includes two golf courses and landscaped open space areas, which will provide internal
recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City
facilities.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X1V. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed project includes two golf courses, a swim and tennis club and landscaped
open space areas with walkways and trails, which will provide recreational opportunities
for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City facilities.
-28- J
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. I1I-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (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)-g) The proposed project site has been studied extensively for traffic impacts4. As stated in
the Air Quality section above, the maximum potential number of daily trips which could
be generated by the project is 19,362, and the actual total is likely to be up to 25% less.
4 "EIR for Coral Mountain Specific Plan" and associated addenda, certified by both the County of Riverside and the City of
La Quinta.
-29-
The location and sizing of roadways established in the General Plan included the
proposed project, as it had been approved prior to its adoption.
The roadways in the area are predicted to operate within acceptable parameters at
buildout of the General Plan. Access points to and from the site will be controlled, and
limited along Madison, Avenues 58 and 60, and Monroe. Specifically, access will be
limited to two primary access points on Madison, a secondary access point on Monroe,
and one access point each on Avenue 58 and Madison for the neighborhood commercial
properties. Additional service entrances are proposed on Avenue 60, Madison and
Avenue 58, but will not be open to the public.
Individual project proposals will be evaluated -to assure that accesses and turning
movements are adequate to ensure safe circulation from the project onto City roadways.
All City roadways will be constructed to General Plan standards. Access from the
commercial parcels will be limited, and required to meet the City Engineer's standards.
Limited turning movements and restricted access have both been implemented by the City
Engineer to reduce potential impacts to public roadways.
-30-
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.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
1
-31- >
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land uses considered in the General Plan
resulted in a higher density, and these were found to result in adequate levels of service. It
is therefore expected that the less intense development of the proposed project will lower
potential impacts to utility providers for the project site.
-32-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site will be surveyed to assure that no burrowing owl occur prior to construction. The
site has been identified as having significant cultural resources. However, mitigation
measures included above will assure that these potential resources are protected, and that
potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing and recreational opportunities for City residents. The reduction in
density resulting from the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in a
parallel reduction in long term impacts to the City's infrastructure and services.
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will reduce those impacts
identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole.
-33- 1 1_)
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and
the site will generate a high level of criteria pollutants, which can cause negative health
effects, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the
potential impacts on air quality. The impacts are not expected to be any more than those
identified in the General Plan EIR, which included analysis of more intense development
at the project site. Noise impacts are those associated with construction, and have been
mitigated above to less than significant levels.
-34-
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.
"EIR for Coral Mountain Specific Plan" and associated addenda, certified by both the County of
Riverside and the City of La Quinta.
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.
-35-
i
MR
w
F
d
A
U p�q
av
U�
C�
oA
°A
b
o
.4
O
°
O
CGS
411Im.
U
cpi
° t
:.
O
N
.O
F+
p
N
•O
3•a
p
F+
p �
'�
�
�o
Cd
wo
U
U
U
m
U A
PQ
CA
b
o
c
d v
a�to
Cd
'I'd,o���
y
-d.�-o
,o
0 on ado
ocd p o
¢.�000
a�
U
U
�' �
•~•
� O � U � �
�
2
� O
C
}�.
A
A
WW
OU
aWv
UU
U
cd
0 0 °' o 0 0
�C* i
a i Cc*off, Q. A.
F
b° a
F
b° a° a
do -'a, �
a� v U '� n
U
° 42
o
A
U
��°, ° as
o
� N > i/� V]
�. Q.
C/� t�. C1. cn
to
to
a
tb : O
10,
3
gCd
cd
F
Rio Cd
cn
Q Q
��
Q � �o.
��
A•�
y
C;3 cd Cd
an on on to
b b v
cd
b
UA
UA
UA
CA cA Gil
a�
o En
N
to
c too
o� :?
C
o o
rn
to Q,
°
oQ o0 0:?
o ° to � �
d
��yply
�,o
d
o �, � a cn
a'•�O� ""4�••.+
mac �o
U gip. o o
O
�
� bio 0
aCdrn
a
Y
D
o�w oo�
2 �q N � �
0
�
ai
a
'C
�
U
� � cd U N � �
Q. N 0
1
,G'�,
A
A
U pq
U pq
aWWUW
aU
U�
U�
cl
cl
y U
i••i
m rn
c
as
C7a
c 0 co
H
H
o b) r.
cC
O
� • U v ccl
tw
O �
O y
�
to
co
� co
a a
A U U A U
CDw�
a
Hco
000
Cd
b b b
0
�A
UAU
pq
C,3"" c
Y
° C c
N
c�a
Cd
.ter c o
d ,w
'+r
d
�
"o a , 4440!!!
u go
b
u y 0
cdd
cF
u
cdoo~
Cd
cnIn
0 p, tom, 'b y N O v
b O �+ rn
cl a0.vate-C13"
cl
°`d o"
5
Q`��.oS3ocv..•0
'
g 0 m
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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND
USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND GOLF COURSE (G)
DESIGNATION, AND MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC) TO
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC), AND TO ELIMINATE THE
MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY (MC) DESIGNATION
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-093
APPLICANT: CORAL OPTION I, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 251h day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment to change land use designations
from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, and Golf Course (G)
designation, and Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) to Neighborhood Commercial
(NC), and to eliminate the Major Community Facility (MC) designation, for land
generally located at the northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street, more
particularly described as follows:
APNs: 764-200-001 thru 007; 764-210-001 thru 006
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 Environmental
Assessment 2003-483 and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to
recommend to the City Council approval of said General Plan Amendment:
1. General Plan Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment is
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that
PC RESO GPA 03 093
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-093
Coral Option 1, LLC
November 25, 2003
the Amendment will continue to provide for single-family, golf course and
commercial development adjacent to other development of a similar nature.
2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not
create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general
welfare in that the proposed changes will be less intensive and consistent with
existing land uses in the immediate area south of the site.
3. General Plan Compatibility: The proposed project will be compatible with
existing and surrounding land uses in that the Amendment will continue to
provide for single-family, golf course and commercial development adjacent to
other development of a similar nature.
4. Property Suitability: The proposed project will be suitable and appropriate for
the property and adjacent properties in that it will be consistent with the
permitted uses in neighboring communities and in accordance with the Zoning
Code and goals, objectives and policies of the City of La Quinta General Plan.
Urban services are currently accessible to the site which, would allow for
planned development in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the
City of La Quinta General Plan.
5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the proposed project is warranted
because the land has been determined to be suitable for residential and golf
course development. The change in land use from Mixed/Regional Commercial
to Neighborhood Commercial is also warranted because no commercial uses
currently exist to serve the project areas. Also, there is additional commercial
land available for future development near the site that would serve future
commercial uses to support the additional residential development.
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; and
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan
Amendment 2003-094, as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
a part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PC RESO GPA 03 093
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-093
Coral Option I, LLC
November 25, 2003
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of November, 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 GPA 03 093
Proposed General Plan / Land Use
oposed Land Use
Low Density Residential — LDR
Neighborhood Commercial — NC
Golf - G
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE ZONING
DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) TO
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) AND GOLF COURSE (GC),
MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC) TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (CN), AND TO ELIMINATE THE MAJOR COMMUNITY
FACILITY (MC) DESIGNATION
CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2003-116
APPLICANT: CORAL OPTION I, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 25th day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a Zone Change to change zoning designations from Medium
Density Residential to Low Density Residential, and Golf Course (GC),
Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), and to
eliminate the Major Community Facility (MC) designation, for land generally located
at the northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street, more particularly
described as follows:
APNs: 764-200-001 thru 007; 764-210-001 thru 006
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 Environmental
Assessment 2003-483 and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to
recommend to the City Council approval of said Zone Change:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Zone Change is consistent
with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the Zone
Change will continue to provide single-family, golf course and commercial
development adjacent to existing developments.
PC RESO ZC 03 116
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zone Change 2003-116
Coral Option I, LLC
November 25, 2003
2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed Zone Change will not create
conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in
that the proposed changes are less intense and consistent with existing land
uses north and south in the immediate area.
3. Land Use Compatibility: The new zoning will be compatible with existing and
surrounding zoning designations in that it will be consistent with development
in the immediate area and the City of La Quinta General Plan.
4. Property Suitability: The new zoning will be suitable and appropriate for the
subject property in that it will be consistent with the permitted uses in the
immediate area and in accordance with the Zoning Code. Urban services are
currently accessible to the area, which would allow for planned development
in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the City of La Quinta
Zoning Code and General Plan.
5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the new zoning is warranted because
the land has been determined to be suitable for residential, commercial and
recreational development. The change in zoning is also warranted because
similar uses currently exist north and south of the project site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission; and
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change
2003-116, as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of, for
the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of November, 2003, by
the following vote, to wit:
PC RESO ZC 03 116
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zone Change 2003-116
Coral Option I, LLC
November 25, 2003
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 ZC 03 116
EXHIBIT)
Proposed Zoning
,-*"q -4LY
Zoning Classifications
Low Density Residential — RL
Neighborhood Commercial (CI)
Golf Course - GC
4
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 TWO 18-HOLE GOLF
COURSES, ASSOCIATED FACILITIES AND 1,400 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM ± 3,150 TO ± 3,650 SQUARE FEET
ON ± 942 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
AVENUE 60 AND MONROE STREET
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-067
APPLICANT: CORAL OPTION I, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 25th day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider development principles and design guidelines to allow two 18-
hole golf courses, 16,400 square foot golf clubhouse, 4,000 square foot swim &
tennis facility, 400 square foot gatehouse, 14,000 square foot maintenance
building, and, 1,400 attached and detached residential model units ranging in size
from ± 3,150 square feet to ± 3,650 square feet, generally located at the
northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as
follows:
APNs: 764-200-001 thru 007; 764-210-001 thru 006
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 Environmental
Assessment 2003-483 and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to
Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code to justify recommending to the City Council
approval of said Specific Plan:
PC RESO SP 03-067
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Specific Plan 2003-067
Coral Option 1, LLC
November 25, 2003
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 land use designations in the General
Plan.
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 project's Specific Plan.
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 designations.
4. Property Suitability: The proposed project is suitable and appropriate for the
subject property in that the site is zoned for residential, golf course and
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
2003-067 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 25' day of November, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PC RESO SP 03-067 ��
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Specific Plan 2003-067
Coral Option I, LLC
November 25, 2003
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO SP 03-067 c.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 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 Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded
thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Specific Plan, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall
comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § §
66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter
13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's
Web Site at www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit
by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or
permits from the following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements
include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish
proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for
City approval.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's
NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq.
(Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) and 13.24.170
(Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457;
and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-
DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or
excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or
that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part
of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1)
acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this
project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available
for inspection at the project site at all times through and
including acceptance of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the
following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020
(Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the
applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any
onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
F. The approved SWPPP and BMP's shall remain in effect for the
entire duration of project construction until all improvements are
completed and accepted by the City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of
the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program
in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or
proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights
shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements
to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction
and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public
street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan,
Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the
City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this
development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Monroe Street (General Plan Primary Arterial, Option A,
1 10' ROW) - Sufficient right of way shall be dedicated to
accommodate the standard 55 feet from the centerline of
Monroe Street for a total 110-foot ultimate developed
right of way except for an additional right of way
dedication to accommodate improvements conditioned
under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
2) Madison Street pursuant to Specific Plan 218,
Amendment No. 1 (Primary Arterial , Option A*, 110'
ROW) - The standard 110-foot ultimate developed right
of way shall be dedicated except for an additional right of
way dedication to accommodate improvements
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
3) Avenue 58 (Proposed General Plan Secondary Arterial,
94' ROW) — If a proposed General Plan Amendment is
adopted by the City Council, sufficient right of way shall
be dedicated to accommodate the proposed standard 47-
foot right of way from the centerline of Avenue 58 to
comply with the existing Secondary Arterial Roadway
Classification plus a Class II bicycle. Additional right of
way shall be dedicated to accommodate improvements
conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
4) Avenue 60 (Proposed General Plan Secondary Arterial,
94' ROW) — If a proposed General Plan Amendment is
adopted by the City Council, sufficient right of way shall
be dedicated to accommodate the proposed standard 47-
foot right of way from the centerline of Avenue 58 to
comply with the existing Secondary Arterial Roadway
Classification plus a Class II bicycle. Additional right of
way shall be dedicated to accommodate improvements
conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
Note: *Equivalent to County of Riverside Arterial Highway Roadway
Classification
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private
street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan,
Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the
City Engineer.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required
for this development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Property line shall be placed at the back of curb similar the
typical street section. Use of smooth curves instead of angular
lines at property lines is recommended.
ij
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Private Residential Streets measured gutter flow line to gutter
flow line: 36-foot travel width where parking is allowed on both
sides and 28 feet if on -street parking is prohibited, and provided
there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors,
and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing
enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The
CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior
to recordation.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated
right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features.
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed
street right-of-ways shown on the Tentative Tract Map are necessary
prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the
applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a
written request by the City.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map, when
submitted, a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with,
and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be
reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all
public right-of-ways as follows:
A. Monroe Street — (General Plan Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from
the R/W-P/L.
B. Madison Street — (Pursuant to Specific Plan 218, Amendment
No. 1 — Primary Arterial, Option A) — 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
C. Avenue 58 - and Avenue 60 (General Plan Secondary Arterial) -
10-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a
meandering wall design is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not
limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned
setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for
those purposes on the Final Map, when submitted.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for
the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage
basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final
Map, when submitted.
16. Direct vehicular access to Madison Street, Monroe Street, Avenue 58
and Avenue 60 from lots with frontage along those respective
facilities is restricted, except for those access points identified on the
Specific Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of
approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the
recorded final tract map, when submitted. Vehicular access shall
meet requirements and/or restrictions per the La Quinta General Plan
for the roadway classification listed in Condition 8.
17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission,
as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which
grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other
encroachments will occur.
18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded,
over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval
of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map,
unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer.
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.
19. 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.
20. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for
review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line
item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City
Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if
additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be
required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant
to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street/Signing & Striping/Drainage Plans: 1 " = 40'
Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic
control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that
show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design
in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
B. On -Site Street/Drainage Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1
4' Vertical
C. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that
are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City
Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans
shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-
feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any
required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top
of Wall & Top of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a
minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent
obstructions.
21. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction
notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City
Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail
sheets and/or construction notes from the City.
22. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all
approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format
so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of
the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD
files in order to reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard
AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an
AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of
the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
23. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on
and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall
furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement
Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such
improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall
agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
24. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and
between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of
guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to any
Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC, when submitted.
25. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the
removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not
a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting
of the final survey monumentation.
26. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the
development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a
timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building
permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals
related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to
complete the improvements.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
GRADING
27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements), LQMC.
28. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other
purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the
City Engineer.
29. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and
obtain approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a
qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with
Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance
with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater
discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge
Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the
Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a
soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been
prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code §
17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City,
and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the
approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its
application for a grading permit.
30. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order
to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded,
undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or
k)
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved
in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
31. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have
undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC
Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition
requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in
the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at
the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully
planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet
adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of
sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope
within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway
areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches
(1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
32. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City
Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the
tentative map, when submitted, unless the pad elevations have other
requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval.
33. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that
one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments.
nRAINASF
34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120
(Drainage), LQMC.
35. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and
drainage report prepared specifically for Specific Plan 2003-067. The
tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public
streets.
36. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments,
nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach
field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand
filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3
gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
37. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff
water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water
utility authority as a requirement for development of this property.
38. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood
boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
39. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be
received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream
drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
40. 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.
41. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed
development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
42. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission
power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed
underground.
43. 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
44. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060
(Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) &
13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development),
LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design -
Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
45. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to
conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Monroe Street (General Plan Primary Arterial, Option A,
110' ROW):
Widen the west side of the street along all frontage
adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary to its ultimate
width on the east side as specified in the General Plan
and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate
and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as
necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -
road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design
standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three
feet (43') west of the centerline, except at locations
where additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Primary
Entry. The west curb face shall be located fifty one
feet (51') west of the centerline.
Other required improvements in the right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not
limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping,
legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering
sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout
that utilizes concave and convex curves with
respect to the curb line that either touches the
back of curb or approaches within five feet of the
curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The
sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50
and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse
curvature, the radius should change to assist in
creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
meander into the landscape setback lot and
approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at
intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
2) Madison Street pursuant to Specific Plan 218,
Amendment No. 1, Primary Arterial, Option A*, 110'
ROW:
No additional street widening is required except at
locations where additional street width is needed to
accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the West Side
Development Primary Entry. The curb face shall be
located fifty one feet (51') west of the centerline.
c) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the East Side
Development Primary Entry. The curb face shall be
located fifty one feet (51') east of the centerline.
Other required improvements in the right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not
limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping,
legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk along the east
side of Madison Street. The meandering sidewalk
shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that
utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to
the curb line that either touches the back of curb
or approaches within five feet of the curb at
intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk
curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300
feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the
radius should change to assist in creating the
arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into
the landscape setback lot and approach within 5
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed
250 feet.
c) MULTI -USE TRAIL - The applicant shall construct a
10' wide, multi -use trail with split rail fence along
the west side of Madison Street within the required
landscape setback. The location and design of the
trail shall be per the approved City of La Quinta
Standard Plan. The multi -use trail, trail signs, and
the split rail fence shall be completed prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first
residence. Bonding for the fence to be installed
shall be posted prior to final map approval.
3) Avenue 58 (Proposed General Plan Secondary Arterial,
96' ROW) — If a proposed General Plan Amendment is
adopted by the City Council, widen the south side of the
street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan
boundary to its ultimate width as specified in the
Proposed General Plan Amendment and the requirements
of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct
existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and
convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La
Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The south curb
face shall be located thirty six feet (36') south of the
centerline, except at locations where additional street
width is needed to accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
Other required improvements in the right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not
limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping,
legends, and signs.
b) MULTI -USE TRAIL - The applicant shall construct a
10' wide, multi -use trail with split rail fence along
the south side of Avenue 58 within the required
landscape setback. The location and design of the
trail shall be per the approved City of La Quinta
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Standard Plan. The multi -use trail, trail signs, and
the split rail fence shall be completed prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first
residence. Bonding for the fence to be installed
shall be posted prior to final map approval.
4) Avenue 60 (Proposed General Plan Secondary Arterial,
96' ROW) — If a proposed General Plan Amendment is
adopted by the City Council, widen the south side of the
street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan
boundary to its ultimate width on the south side as
specified in the Proposed General Plan Amendment and
the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or
reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to
augment and convert it from a rural county -road design
standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard.
The north curb face shall be located thirty six feet (36')
north of the centerline, except at locations where
additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a► Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
Other required improvements in the right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not
limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping,
legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering
sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout
that utilizes concave and convex curves with
respect to the curb line that touches the back of
curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The
sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50
and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse
curvature, the radius should change to assist in
creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and
approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at
intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
t�
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements
(e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment,
elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
46. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to
the following:
A. Monroe Street
1) Primary Entry (Monroe Street, The applicant shall align
the access with access on the east side of Monroe
Street. Full turning movements are permitted.
B. Madison Street
1) Primary Entry, West Development — Shall be located at
least 1,060 feet (measured curb return to curb return)
from Calle Conchita to the south and from the East
Development Primary Entry to the north: Full turn
movements are permitted.
2) Primary Entry, East Development — Shall be located at
least 1, 060 feet (measured curb return to curb return)
from Avenue 58 to the north and from the West
Development Primary Entry to the south: Full turn
movements are permitted.
3) West Commercial Development — Right turn movements
in and out are permitted. Left turn in movement is
permitted. Left turn out movement is not permitted.
4) East Commercial Development — Right turn movements in
and out are permitted. Left turn movements in and out
are not permitted.
C. Avenue 58
1) West Commercial Development — All turn movements are
permitted.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION 1, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
2) East Commercial Development — All turn movements are
permitted.
All service entries shall be right turn in and out movements only.
47. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking
capacity for inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around
outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed
exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger
vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make
a full turn -around out onto the main street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated
entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for
visitors.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner
cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown
on the approved construction plans, may require additional street
widths as may be determined by the City Engineer.
48. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans'
design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data
for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction
traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows:
Residential
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
49. 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
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations
until mix designs are approved.
50. 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.
51. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or
as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets,
access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by
qualified engineers.
CONSTRUCTION
52. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only
when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk
access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include
required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name
signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially
constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall
complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten
percent of homes within the development or when directed by the
City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
53. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping
Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
54. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks,
retention basins, common lots and park areas.
55. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks,
medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a
licensed landscape architect.
56. 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
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
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.
57. 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
58. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by
SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures
that meet with the approval of the City Engineer.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
<J
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
MAINTENANCE
63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
64. 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
65. 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.
66. 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).
COMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
67. The applicant shall provide verification in the form of a letter from
Riverside County Fire Department that a fire station is not required at
the site shown on the property and on the General Plan Land Use
Map. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that a fire station is not
required, then a one acre site shall be provided for a future Fire
Station.
68. The applicant shall submit a Tentative Tract Map to reflect the
Specific Plan and Site Development Permit at a future date to be
processed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act prior to
issuance of Building permits.
69. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program
associated with the project.
70. The applicant shall meet all Coachella Valley Water District
requirements to provide adequate water and sewer services to the
site.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
71. The applicant shall pay all development impacts fees and school fees
associated with the project prior to the issuance of building permits.
SP 03 067 COA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW TWO 18-HOLE GOLF
COURSES, ASSOCIATED FACILITIES AND 1,400
RESIDENTIAL UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM ±3,150 TO
± 3,650 SQUARE FEET ON ± 942 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 60 AND MONROE
STREET
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787
APPLICANT: CORAL OPTION I, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 251h day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
development plans to allow two 18-hole golf courses, 16,400 square foot golf
clubhouse, 4,000 square foot swim & tennis facility, 400 square foot gatehouse,
14,000 square foot maintenance building, and, 1,400 attached and detached
residential model units ranging in size from ± 3,150 square feet to ± 3,650 square
feet, generally located at the northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street, more
particularly described as follows:
APNs: 764-200-001 thru 007; 764-210-001 thru 006
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 Environmental Assessment
2003-483 and has determined that although the proposed project could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been
imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and
therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended
for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section
9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to recommend to the City Council approval of said Site
Development Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The project as proposed is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan in that residential, golf courses and
commercial uses are allowed under the designated land use designations.
(
PC Reso SDP 03-787
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-787
Coral Option I, LLC
November 25, 2003
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the
zoning districts in that the project meets the development standards including,
but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass,
exterior lighting, parking, circulation, open space and landscaping.
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed
project complies with the requirements of CEQA in that Environmental
Assessment 2003-483 was prepared for this project with imposed mitigation
measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified.
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 and quality of design prevalent in the
City. The proposed buildings lack the bulky mass of a building due to the
articulation, desert tone colors and different pitched tile roofs. The proposed
buildings are adequately set back with multiple wall planes so as to minimize the
appearance of a large structural mass.
5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited
to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design
elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are
compatible with the quality of design prevalent in the City in that the proposed
project meets the development standards of the Site Development Permit.
6. Landscape Design: The landscaping for the proposed project, including but not
limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant
materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the buildings,
and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the
project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in
that the variety of drought tolerant plants, trees and shrubs, provide an
aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit;
PC Reso SDP 03-787
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-787
Coral Option 1, LLC
November 25, 2003
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-787 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution and 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 25th day of November 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 03-787
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 03-787
CORAL OPTION I, LLC
NOVEMBER 25, 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 Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded
thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This approved Site Development Permit (SDP 03-787) shall be in
conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Specific Plan
2003-067 unless otherwise amended by the following conditions.
3. This Site Development Permit (SDP 2003-787) shall be binding with
the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 03-067. This includes,
but is not limited to, any property rights, street and traffic
improvement plans, grading, drainage, utilities, parking lots, access
points, construction, public services, landscaping, quality assurance,
maintenance, fees and deposits.
SDP 03 787 COA
ATTACHMENT #
pMA DESERT
f c
•
COAWEU A
PROJECT SIT
ATTACHMENT A
LIE
IL
51
j�
r
Lu
0
Lwu ci
z w
w
92
A _0
0
w 0 6 z
0
LU w 0 0 0
z
I ILI
0
Vu F1 7-
L, 1�1 ot 20--
r
a_ L)
a)
CL
U)
ATTACHMENT #5
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
October 1, 2003
6. It was moved and seconded by Comfnittee Members
Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minwte Motion 2003-040
recommending approval of Site .Development Permit 2003-767,
as recommended by staff and amended as follows:
a. Condition. added: Pine trees shall be substituted with a
different variety tree.
Ucxtnimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2003-787; a request of Coral Option 1, LLC
for a review of architectural and landscaping plans for a 16,400
square foot golf clubhouse, 4,000 square foot swim and tennis
facility, 400 square foot gatehouse, 14,000 square foot maintenance
building, and model units ranging in size from 3,150 to 3,650 square
feet.
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 Forrest
Haag who gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is well designed and
he has no comment.
3. Committee Member Thorns asked how the water conservation
requirements were mitigated for the golf course. Mr. Haag
stated CVWD holds them to the standards for conservation. It
is a careful balance between the water contract available and
the plant execution plan. Committee Member Thorns asked if
the roof tiles would be mudded. Mr. Haag stated yes.
Committee Member Thorns commended the applicant on the
project, but asked that the pine trees be removed. Mr. Haag
stated the Afghan Pine was used extensively at Rancho La
Quinta and can be successful if planted in the right place and
treated properly and they would like to use it here in appropriate
locations away from residences.
4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to
adopt Minute Motion 2003-041 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2003-786, as recommended by staff and
amended: J
a ..
GAbsawyer\WPD0CS\ALRC\10-1-03 WD.doc 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 111,
LLC for a review of architectural plans for two commercial buAdings
located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 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 Thorns 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 rhasses 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
took 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:\bsawyer\WPDOCS\ALRC\10-1-03 WD.doc 4
PH #F
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NO.: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006 — CENTRE POINTE
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND
WASHINGTON STREET.
APPLICANT: CENTERPOINT, LLC AND THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE REVISIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DO NOT
REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN THAT THE REVISIONS DO NOT
INVOLVE: (1) SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT NOT
PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED; (2) SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WITH
RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE
PROJECT IS BEING UNDERTAKEN; OR (3) NEW INFORMATION
OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE WHICH WOULD INVOLVE NEW
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOT
PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED.
CURRENT GENERAL
PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND
PARK
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
On May 27, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
the Development Agreement for the Centre Pointe project located on a 50-acre
property, situated at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street.
The project included the development of a hotel, casitas, medical office building,
restaurants, boutique hotel, park, and residential uses. None of these uses are
proposed to be changed with these revisions.
P:\JERRY\CTRPT-DA-PC STAFF REPT.DOC
The revisions pertain to the Agreement only and provide for a change to the
development entity from Center Point Development LLC to CP Development La Quinta,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, allowing flexibility for cost reallocation
relating to the perimeter landscaping improvement, and insurance requirements for the
development. All other provisions of the Development Agreement remain the same.
Public Noticing
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun on November 14, 2003. As of this
writing no correspondence has been received regarding this project.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Development Agreement can be
made, as noted in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of the revisions to the Development Agreement.
Attachments:
1. Development Agreement (Commission only)
P:\JERRY\CTRPT-DA-PC STAFF REPT.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 A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
AND CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC
CASE NO.: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
APPLICANT: CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
(the "Planning Commission") did on the 27th of May, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a Development Agreement by and between the City of La Quinta
("City") and Center Point Development, LLC, a California limited liability company (the
"Original Developer"), and by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2003-028
recommended approval thereof to the City Council of the City ("City Council"); and,
WHEREAS, since the time the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Development Agreement, the Original Developer has requested certain
changes thereto, including changing the developer entity from the Original Developer to
CP Development La Quinta, LLC, and revising the developer's obligations pertaining to
certain landscaping improvements to be installed in conjunction with the development
project proposed by the developer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 25h of November, 2003,
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised Development Agreement (the
"Revised Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan complies with the requirements of The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department completed an
Addendum to the previously prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment 2001-436, certified by the City Council on February 5, 2002, for the
Specific Plan and Revised Development Agreement. No changed circumstances or
conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent
environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said Revised Development Agreement:
� 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Development Agreement 2003-006
Adopted: November 25, 2003
1. The proposed Revised Development Agreement is consistent with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of the City of La Quinta
General Plan and Specific Plan 2001-055.
2. The land uses authorized and regulations prescribed for the Revised
Development Agreement are compatible with the zoning and its related
regulations applicable to the property.
3. The proposed Revised Development Agreement conforms with public
convenience and the general welfare by providing for extensive public
improvements and conforms to good land use practice by encouraging a long-
range, comprehensive approach to the development of a major hotel services
and mixed residential complexes.
4. Approval of this Revised Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, and general welfare since adequate provisions has been made in
previous City approvals to provide for necessary and desirable improvements
which are incorporated herein.
5. Approval of this Revised 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, phased growth.
6. Consideration of the Revised 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Development
Agreement 2003-006, as revised, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
G:\bsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\CP DA.DOC
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Development Agreement 2003-006
Adopted: November 25, 2003
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of November, 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
G:\bsawyer\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\CP DAWC
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED
MAIL TO
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Citv Clerk
Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use
(Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov't Code § 6103)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ERM
CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -1-
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 the California (the "City"), and CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC, a
California limited liability company (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 or concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, Developer has
entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") with the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"), pursuant to which (1) the Agency, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the DDA, has agreed to sell to the Developer, in one or more phases,
certain real property located within the City southeast of the Miles Avenue and Washington
Street intersection which is legally described in Exhibit A-1 attached hereto and shown on the
Site Map attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 (the "Site"); and (2) the Developer has agreed to
construct on the Site the "Project," which will consist of a mixed use residential and commercial
development, and other permitted uses. The Project is more fully described in, and subject to (i)
this Agreement, (ii) the Center Point Specific Plan, also known as Specific Plan No. SP2001-055
as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2003-035 on June 3, 2003 ("Specific Plan"); (iii) the
DDA, (iv) the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project, dated December 5, 2001,
as amended by the Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration, approved by the City Council
on June 3, 2003, by City Council Resolution No. 2003-035 (collectively, the "Revised Mitigated
Negative Declaration"); (v) any future Site Development Permits issued for the Project,
including all conditions of approval attached thereto (collectively, the "Project Site Development
Permits"); (vi) any future Tract Maps approved for the Project, including all conditions of
approval thereto (collectively, the "Project Tract Maps"); and (vii) the conditions of approval
associated with each and all of the foregoing approvals (collectively, the "Conditions of
Approval"). The documents described in the foregoing clauses (i)-(vi) are collectively referred
to herein as the "Development Plan," and are, or when approved or issued shall be, on file with
the City Clerk.
D. By virtue of the DDA, as of the execution of this Agreement, the Developer has
an equitable interest in the Site. By its execution of the consent form attached to this Agreement,
the Agency consents to recordation of this Agreement against the Site.
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 '1'
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) identifying the terms,
conditions, and regulations for the construction of the Project, certain components of which
constitute a Planned Development (as defined in Civil Code Section 1351(k)); (ii) setting forth a
payment schedule for the Developer's payment to the City of certain amounts designed to
compensate the City in the event that certain components of the Project fail to generate specified
levels of transient occupancy tax (as that term is used in La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter
3.24) (hereinafter, "transient occupancy tax" or "TOT"); (iii) setting forth a payment schedule
for the Developer's payment to the City of Three Hundred Forty -Six Thousand Eleven Dollars
($346,011), to cover the Developer's contribution towards the cost of certain landscaping
improvements the City desires to install within certain portions of the real property adjacent to
the Site; (iv) requiring the Developer, at its sole cost, to construct a neighborhood park on certain
real property owned in fee by the City; and (v) setting forth the extent to which Developer may
construct, develop, use and operate the Project.
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 they
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 June 17, 2003, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 385 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:
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -2-
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Term.
The term of this Agreement 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 July 17, 2003, which is the date that Ordinance No. 385 takes effect ("Effective
Date").
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 as set forth in Section 1.1. 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.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event the "Initial Escrow" or the
"Property Escrow" (as those terms are defined in the DDA), as applicable, fail to close within the
time set forth in the DDA, as such time may be extended pursuant to the terms of the DDA, this
Agreement shall automatically terminate and the Developer and City agree to execute and record
such document as the Title Company (defined in the DDA) reasonably requires to remove this
Agreement of record.
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 which, among other Conditions of Approval associated with future approvals and
permits issued by the City, includes but is not limited to the Conditions of Approval set forth in
Exhibit `B" attached hereto) shall be deemed vested upon approval of the Development Plan,
which vesting shall expire upon the earlier of the following occurrences: (a) termination of this
Agreement; (b) termination of the DDA; (c) an uncured material default by Developer of this
Agreement or the DDA; (d) as to a particular phase, parcel, or lot comprising a portion of the
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -3- ��
Site, the earlier of the final approved City inspection of the completed development on such
phase, parcel, or lot or the issuance by City of a certificate of occupancy for such phase, parcel,
or lot; or (e) as to a particular phase, parcel, lot comprising a portion of the Site, the date set forth
in the DDA when Developer was required to have completed the development of all
improvements on 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:
(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 optional the failure to adopt or apply such non -City law or regulation
would cause City to sustain a loss of funds or loss of access to funding or other resources), or (C)
New Laws the City reserves the right to apply under this Agreement, including but not limited to
Sections 2.2 and 3.4.10;
(iii) all subsequent development approvals and the conditions of approval
associated therewith, including but not limited to Site Development Permits, Project 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, 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.
394/015610-0061 -4- �I
390243.11 all/21/03
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, including new development impact fees, or increasing any existing City fees,
including existing development impact fees, including but not limited to the Community
Facility Fees, as discussed in 3.4 below, 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.
3.0 DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS
3.1 Development of the Project; Planned Development.
Developer shall construct the Project on the Site in accordance with the Development
Plan. The Project shall consist of a mixed -use residential and commercial development with the
following components:
(A) a mid -price suites hotel containing approximately one hundred thirty-four (134)
guest rooms ("Suites Hotel") to be constructed on a portion of the Site, as depicted on the Site
Map (the "Suites Hotel Parcel");
(B) a resort -style condominium/casitas project containing approximately one hundred
thirty-six (136) condominium/casitas units ("Casitas Development") to be constructed on a
portion of the Site, as depicted on the Site Map (the "Casitas Development Parcel(s)");
(C) a residential development containing approximately thirteen (13) "courtyard
cluster villas" homes ("Villas Residential Development") to be constructed on a portion of the
Site, as depicted on the Site Map (the "Villas Residential Development Parcel");
(D) a residential development containing approximately fifty-four (54) homes
consisting of approximately twenty-nine (29) "Courtyard Cluster Homes" and approximately
twenty-five (25) "Perimeter Homes" (collectively, the "Cluster/Perimeter Residential
Development"), to be constructed on a portion of the Site, as depicted on the Site Map
("Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development Parcel"), with
(i) fourteen (14) of the homes ("Unrestricted Cluster/Perimeter Component")
within the Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development to be sold on a market rate basis; and
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -5-
(ii) forty (40) of the homes ("Affordable Housing Component") within the
Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development to be marketed and sold to moderate income buyers
at an affordable housing cost (as those terms are defined in Health & Safety Code Section
50093);
(E) two (2) restaurants (the "Restaurants");
(F) a medical office/surgical facility ("Medical Office/Surgical Facility") to be
constructed on a portion of the Site (the "Medical/Office/Surgical Facility Parcel(s)"); and
(G) a development containing approximately twenty-six (26) sanctuary villas
("Sanctuary Villas Development") to be constructed on a portion of the Site, as depicted on the
Site Map (the "Sanctuary Villas Parcels)");
The Site Map is not a tract map and the parcels depicted there are not legal parcels. Upon
Developer's preparation of a tract map that creates legal parcels substantially consistent with the
Site Map, Developer shall prepare legal descriptions for each of the Suites Hotel Parcel, the
Casitas Development Parcel(s), the Villas Residential Development Parcel, the Cluster/Perimeter
Residential Development Parcel, the Medical Office/Surgical Facility Parcel(s), and the
Sanctuary Villas Parcel(s), and Agency and Developer shall cooperate to attach such legal
descriptions to any document where such legal descriptions are required.
The Villas Residential Development, the Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development, the
Sanctuary Villas Development, and the Casitas Development shall each constitute a Planned
Development, and shall be developed and operated in compliance with Section 1350, et SeMc . of
the Civil Code.
3.2 Conditions of Approval.
The Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit `B" include and incorporate the
mitigation measures of the Revised 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 including but not limited to Site Development Permits and Project Tract Maps.
3.3 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
3.3.1 Recordation of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions and Establish-
ment of Casitas Development Homeowner Association.
Prior to, and as a condition of, the City's issuance of any building permits for the Casitas
Development, the Developer shall submit to the City, obtain approval thereof, and record,
covenants, conditions and restrictions against the Casitas Development Parcel which, in addition
to the obligations set forth in the Conditions of Approval, shall (i) establish a homeowner's
association for the Casitas Development (the "Casitas Development HOA"); (ii) provide for the
Casitas Development HOA's payment of the fees described in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.5; and (iii)
provide for the rental of each of the units in the Casitas Development through a national
394/015610-0061 -6- e_
390243.11 all/21/03
reservation system (unless Developer provides to the reasonable satisfaction of the City a
written, final, and binding determination by a governmental authority with jurisdiction, or the
written opinion, subject only to reasonable qualifications, of a qualified legal counsel, that
requiring the rental of units in the Casitas Development through a national reservation system
would mandate registration of the Casitas Development or the sale of such units as a "security"
within the meaning of applicable federal or state law or regulation).
3.3.2 Recordation of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions and
Establishment of Sanctuary Villas Development Homeowner
Association.
Prior to, and as a condition of, the City's issuance of any building permits for the
Sanctuary Villas Development, the Developer shall submit to the City, obtain approval thereof,
and record, covenants, conditions and restrictions against the Sanctuary Villas Parcels which, in
addition to the obligations set forth in the Conditions of Approval, shall (i) establish a
homeowner's association for the Sanctuary Villas Development (the "Sanctuary Villas
Development HOA"); (ii) provide for the Sanctuary Villas Development HOA's payment of the
fees described in Sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.6; and (iii) provide for the rental of each of the units in
the Sanctuary Villas Development through a national reservation system (unless Developer
provides to the reasonable satisfaction of the City a written, final, and binding determination by a
governmental authority with jurisdiction, or the written opinion of a qualified legal counsel,
subject only to reasonable qualifications, that requiring the rental of units in the Sanctuary Villas
Development through a national reservation system would mandate registration of the Sanctuary
Villas Development or the sale of such units as a "security" within the meaning of applicable
federal or state law or regulation).
3.4 Payments to City by Developer.
3.4.1 General.
During the Term of this Agreement, Developer or the applicable HOA, as applicable,
shall make the payments to City described in this Section 3.4. The payments under this Section
3.4 are not the exclusive development impact fees for the Project and nothing in this Section 3.4
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.
3.4.2 Developer's Payments of One -Time Mitigation Fees.
a. Developer shall pay to the City, for each unit in the Casitas Development, with
such payment due upon the first close of escrow for each such unit, the sum of One Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500).
b. Developer shall pay to the City, for each unit in the Sanctuary Villas
Development, with such payment due upon the first close of escrow for each such unit, the sum
of Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($2,150).
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -7-
3.4.3 Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee, Termination.
During the term of this Agreement, on each July 1st following the Effective Date
("Annual Mitigation Payment Date"), the Casitas Development HOA shall pay to the City an
annual mitigation fee ("Casitas Development 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 Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall be the collective sum of One Hundred
Fifty Dollars ($150) [as the same may increase by the CPI in accordance with Section 3.4.71 for
each unit ("Casitas Development Unit Fee") in the Casitas Development that has been sold to a
purchaser, as evidenced by the close of escrow for such unit, prior to the applicable Annual
Mitigation Payment Date regardless of when or in which Operative Year the unit was sold.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Casitas Development Annual Mitigation
Fee shall not be required to be paid for any Operative Year in which the City has received
transient occupancy taxes derived from, collectively, the Suites Hotel Parcel, the Casitas
Development Parcel, and the Sanctuary Villas Parcel, which equals or exceeds Five Hundred
Forty -Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty -One Dollars ($546,131.00) [as the same may increase
by the CPI in accordance with Section 3.4.7] (the "Minimum Annual TOT Amount") for the
applicable Operative Year.
Notwithstanding the paragraph above, if the City has received the Minimum Annual TOT
Amount in each of three (3) consecutive Operative Years, the Casitas Development HOA's
obligation to pay the Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall be terminated and shall
be of no further force or effect.
3.4.4 Sanctuary Villas Development Annual Mitigation Fee, Termination.
During the term of this Agreement, on each Annual Mitigation Payment Date, the
Sanctuary Villas Development HOA shall pay to the City an annual mitigation fee ("Sanctuary
Villas Development 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 Sanctuary Villas
Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall be the collective sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars
($150) ) [as the same may increase by the CPI in accordance with Section 3.4.7] for each unit
("Sanctuary Villas Development Unit Fee") in the Sanctuary Villas Development that has been
sold to a purchaser, as evidenced by the close of escrow for such unit, regardless of when or in
which Operative Year the unit was sold. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the
Sanctuary Villas Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall not be required to be paid for any
Operative Year in which the City has received transient occupancy taxes derived from,
collectively, the Suites Hotel Parcel, the Casitas Development Parcel, and the Sanctuary Villas
Parcel, which equals or exceeds the Minimum Annual TOT Amount for the applicable Operative
Year.
Notwithstanding the paragraph above, if the City has received the Minimum Annual TOT
Amount in each of three (3) consecutive Operative Years, the Sanctuary Villas Development
39"15610-0061 '
390243.11 all/21/03 -8-
HOA's obligation to pay the Sanctuary Villas Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall be
terminated and shall be of no further force or effect.
3.4.5 Payment of Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee.
In addition to the other payments required to be paid pursuant to this Section 3.4, the
Casitas Development HOA shall be required to pay to the City the sum of five percent (5%) of
any rental amount charged for occupancy of a unit in the Casitas Development which is rented
for a period of more than thirty (30) days (the "Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee"). The
Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee shall be due and payable to the City within thirty (30)
days after any such occupancy terminates, regardless of whether the rent, or any amount thereof,
was collected. If the unit is provided free of charge or at a discount, as consideration for a
service provided to the owner of the unit or to the Casitas Development HOA and/or for
promotional or marketing purposes, the rent shall be deemed to be the higher of (i) the value of
the services received; or (ii) the average rent of all of the units in the Casitas Development
during the period the unit was provided. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the requirement to pay
the Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee shall not apply in the case where an owner of a
Casitas Development unit provides his or her Casitas Development unit to a person who is a
relative of the owner, for no consideration, for a period of more than thirty (30) days.
3.4.6 Payment of Sanctuary Villas Development Public Facilities Fee.
In addition to the other payments required to be paid pursuant to this Section 3.4, the
Sanctuary Villas Development HOA shall be required to pay to the City the sum of five percent
(5%) of any rental amount charged for occupancy of a unit in the Sanctuary Villas Development
which is rented for a period of more than thirty (30) days (the "Sanctuary Villas Development
Public Facilities Fee"). The Sanctuary Villas Development Facilities Fee shall be due and
payable to the City within thirty (30) days after any such occupancy terminates, regardless of
whether the rent, or any amount thereof, was collected. If the unit is provided free of charge or
at a discount, as consideration for a service provided to the owner of the unit or to the Sanctuary
Villas Development HOA and/or for promotional or marketing purposes, the rent shall be
deemed to be the higher of (i) the value of the services received; or (ii) the average rent of all of
the units in the Sanctuary Villas Development during the period the unit was provided.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the requirement to pay the Sanctuary Villas Development Public
Facilities Fee shall not apply in the case where an owner of a Sanctuary Villas Development unit
provides his or her Sanctuary Villas Development unit to a relative of the owner, for no
consideration, for a period of more than thirty (30) days.
3.4.7 Consumer Price Index Adjustments.
Each of the Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee, the Casitas Development Unit
Fee, the Sanctuary Villas Development Annual Mitigation Fee, the Sanctuary Villas
Development Unit Fee, and the Minimum Annual TOT Amount shall be adjusted annually, on
each May 1st during the term of this Agreement, by 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 Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (the
"CPI"), by comparing the CPI existing on the immediately prior March 1st to the CPI existing on
the March 0 of the previous year. No adjustment shall be made in any year in which there has
394/015610-0061 !
390243.11 al1/21/03 -9-
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.
3.4.8 Termination of Sanctuary Villas Development Fees.
In the event that, after the Developer constructs the Casitas Development, the escrow
pursuant to which the Developer is to acquire the Sanctuary Villas Parcel(s) from the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency is terminated, or the City has otherwise determined that the Developer
will not construct the Sanctuary Villas Development, the City and Developer agree to execute
and record any document reasonably required by the Riverside County Recorder's Office to
terminate the provisions contained in this Development Agreement as they pertain to the
Sanctuary Villas Development. From and after such termination the Developer shall have no
rights or obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Sanctuary Villas Parcel(s).
3.4.9 Landscape Improvements Payment.
The City has applied for various grants (collectively, the "Landscape Grants") to partially
fund the cost of certain landscaping improvements (the "Landscaping Improvements") the City
desires to make to certain portions of the real property adjacent to the Site (the "Agency
Landscape Property"). The Landscape Improvements are estimated to cost approximately Nine
Hundred Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Forty -Six Dollars ($911,246). The Developer's
contribution towards the Landscape Improvements is Three Hundred Forty -Six Thousand Eleven
Dollars ($346,011) (the "Developer's Contribution"). In the event the City obtains the
Landscape Grants, Developer shall pay to the City the Developer's Contribution, pursuant to the
following:
(i) Developer shall pay to City One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($115,337) prior to, and as a condition of, the close of escrow
pursuant to which the Developer will purchase the real property on which the Developer will
construct the Suites Hotel;
(ii) Developer shall pay to City One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($115,337) prior to, and as a condition of, the close of escrow
pursuant to which the Developer will purchase the Sanctuary Villas Parcel(s); and
(iii) Developer shall pay to City One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($115,337) prior to, and as a condition of, the close of escrow
pursuant to which the Developer will purchase the first of the Cluster/Perimeter Residential
Development Parcel or Villas Residential Parcel.
Notwithstanding the payment schedule outlined above, the full amount of the
Developer's Contribution shall be due and payable to the City on or before May 20, 2004.
Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if the City does not obtain
the Landscape Grants, (i) City shall not be obligated to construct the Landscape Improvements,
(ii) Developer shall not be obligated to pay to City the Developer's Contribution, and (iii)
Developer shall be obligated to construct on the Agency Landscape Property the landscape
improvements set forth in the Landscaping Plan that was approved as part of the various Site
Development Permits for the Project, in accordance with Section 312 of the DDA.
t�
3941015610-0061
390243.11 al1/21/03 -10-
3.4.10 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, subject to the next sentence, 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 agrees that it shall not to take any action, including
any assessment appeal, to decrease the assessed value of any of the Site or any portion thereof
below the final assessed value at the time the development of the Site or separate parcel thereof
is completed; provided, however, the foregoing restriction on challenging or appealing
assessments shall not apply to individual homeowners who have purchased units on the Villas
Residential Development Parcel or the Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development Parcel.
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.
3.5 Park Improvements.
Developer agrees to develop a neighborhood park on that certain City -owned property,
which is identified as "Lot 6" in the Site Map (the "City Park Property"), in accordance with the
list of park improvements set forth in Exhibit "D" hereto (the "Park Improvements") and all
applicable City and State laws and regulations. Prior to Developer's entry onto the City Park
Property, Developer shall enter into an Early Entry Agreement with the City substantially in the
form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit " E". The Park Improvements shall be completed and
accepted by the City prior to, and as a condition of, the City's final inspection of the first unit in
the earlier of the Villas Residential Development Parcel or the Cluster/Perimeter Residential
Development Parcel.
3.6 Dedications and Improvements.
Developer shall offer 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.
3.7 Indemnification.
a. The Developer agrees to and shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend, the City
and the Agency and their respective officers, officials, members, agents, employees, and
representatives, 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. 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
3941015610-0061 -11-
390243.11 all/21/03
the insurance policies referred to in this Agreement are applicable. In the event of litigation, the
City agrees, at no cost to the City, to cooperate with the Developer.
b. In the event of any court action or proceeding challenging the validity of this
Agreement or the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Developer shall indemnify, hold
harmless, pay all costs and provide defense for the City in said action or proceeding with counsel
chosen by Developer and reasonably approved by the City. The City shall, at no cost to the City,
cooperate with the Developer in any such defense as Developer may reasonably request. In the
event the Developer fails or refuses to provide such defense of any challenge to this Agreement
or the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, City shall have the right not to defend such
challenge, and to resolve such challenge in any manner it chooses in its sole discretion, including
terminating this Agreement.
3.8 Insurance.
Before beginning construction on the Site, the Developer shall cause the insurance
required under this paragraph to be issued and thereafter to be maintained until one (1) year
following the later of (i) the date City issues the last certificate of occupancy needed for the
initial occupancy of the last portion of the Project, or (ii) the date the City signs off on the last
final inspection of the last of the Project improvements.
Developer shall procure and maintain:
a, A policy of commercial general liability insurance written on a per occurrence
basis in an amount not less than: (A) for death and bodily injury, either (i) a combined single
limit of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) or (ii) Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) per person
and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) per occurrence, and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000)
in the aggregate, and (B) for property damage, Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) per
occurrence.
b. A policy of worker's compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply
with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure, and provide legal
defense for both the Developer and City against any loss, claim or damage arising from any
injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained
by Developer in the course of carrying out the work or services contemplated in this Agreement.
C. A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance written on a per
occurrence basis in an amount not less than either (i) bodily injury liability limits of Three
Million Dollars ($3,000,000) per person and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) per occurrence,
and property damage liability limits of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) per occurrence and
Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) in the aggregate or (ii) combined single limit liability of
Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non -owned,
leased, and hired cars.
The following additional requirements shall apply to all of the above policies of
insurance:
W
3941015610-0061 -12-
390243.11 all/21/03
(i) All of the above policies of insurance shall be primary insurance and,
except the Worker's Compensation insurance, shall name City, the Agency, and their respective
officers, officials, members, employees, agents, and representatives as additional insureds.
(ii) The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may
have against City, Agency, and their respective officers, officials, members, employees, agents,
and representatives, and their respective insurers.
(iii) All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not
be amended or cancelled without providing thirty (30) days' prior written notice to City and
Agency.
(iv) The policies of insurance required by this Agreement shall not require
Developer to meet a deductible of more than Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) unless
approved in writing by the City Manager in his or her sole and absolute discretion.
In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, the Developer shall, prior to
the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section to the
City Manager.
Not later than the Reference Date of this Agreement, Developer shall provide the City
Manager with Certificates of Insurance or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above
insurance coverages and said Certificates of Insurance or binders shall be subject to the
reasonable approval of the City Manager.
Developer agrees that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed as limiting in
any way Developer's indemnity obligations set forth in Section 3.7 or the extent to which
Developer may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property
resulting from the Developer's activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the
Developer is otherwise responsible.
4.0 CITY'S OBLIGATIONS
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 a form created by Developer and approved by the City,
which shall describe how all applicable Conditions of Approval have been fully complied with.
The Certificate shall be distributed to relevant City departments for checking the representations
made by Developer on the Certificate.
U
394/015610-0061 -13-
390243.11 all/21/03
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 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 shall
have been found in compliance with this Agreement, 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.
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
394/015610-0061 -14-
390243.11 all/21/03
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], shall and 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;
provided, however, that (i) City and Developer agree that City's right to pursue damages is
limited to the then -outstanding loan balance under that certain Note, executed by Developer, as
"Maker," in favor of Agency, as "Holder," pursuant to the DDA, and (ii) in no event shall City
be entitled to consequential 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 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 Remedy.
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 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 nay
future amendment or enactments thereto, or any land use permit or approval 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
394/015610-0061 -15-
390243.11 a11/21/03
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 Mortgage 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.
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 (i) the Mortgagee shall have no right to develop or
operate the Site, and (ii) 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 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], to commence to cure, correct, or remedy the default within such five (5) day
period [or thirty (30) day period for non -monetary defaults], and to 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.
394/015610-0061 - I6-
390243.11 al1/21/03
7.0 TRANSFERS OF INTEREST IN SITE OR AGREEMENT
7.1 Prohibition.
The qualifications and identity of the Developer as the developer of high quality
commercial developments are of particular concern to the City. Furthermore, the parties
acknowledge that the City has negotiated the terms of this Agreement in contemplation of the
development and operation of the Project on the Site and the tax revenues to be generated by the
operation of the Project on the Site and other benefits accruing to the City from the Project.
Accordingly, until the date the Agency, pursuant to the DDA, issues a Release of Construction
Covenants for the final Phase of Development (as defined in the DDA) to be constructed on the
Site (the "Completion of Construction Date"), (a) no voluntary or involuntary successor in
interest of the Developer shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement, (b) nor shall
the Developer make any total or partial sale, transfer, conveyance, assignment, subdivision,
refinancing or lease of the whole or any part of the Site or the Project thereon (collectively
referred to herein as a "Transfer"), except as provided in this Section 7.
7.2 Transfers Prior to Completion of Project.
Prior to the Completion of Construction Date, the City may approve or disapprove a
proposed Transfer in its sole and absolute discretion; provided that the City agrees to reasonably
consider a proposed Transfer to an entity in which the Developer or Richard Oliphant retains a
minimum of fifty-one percent (51 %) of the ownership or beneficial interest and retains
management and control of the transferee entity. The City may condition its approval of such a
proposed Transfer prior to the Completion of Construction Date (other than transfers approved
pursuant to the immediately preceding sentence) upon the payment of one-half of the net
proceeds of the Transfer.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, City approval of a Transfer prior to the
Completion of Construction Date shall not be required in connection with any of the following:
a. The conveyance or dedication of any portion of the Site to the City or other
appropriate governmental agency, or the granting of easements or permits to facilitate
construction of the Project (as defined herein).
b. Any assignment for financing purposes (subject to such financing being permitted
pursuant to, and subject to, the DDA), including the grant of a deed of trust to secure the funds
necessary for land acquisition, construction and permanent financing of the Project or of a Phase
of Development.
C. A transfer of any of the Suites Hotel, the Suites Hotel Parcel, the Casitas
Development, or the Casitas Development Parcel(s), to Center Point Hotel Development, LLC, a
California limited liability company.
d. A transfer of the Villas Residential Development Parcel or Cluster/Perimeter
Residential Parcel to (i) Ehline Development Co., a California corporation ("Ehline"), or (ii) a
limited liability company or limited partnership to be formed by Ehline, and in which Ehline is
the managing member of the liability company or the general partner of the limited partnership.
3941015610-0061
390243.11 al1/21/03 -17- .1
e. A transfer of the Sanctuary Villas Development or Sanctuary Villas Parcel(s) to
Center Point Sanctuary, LLC, a California limited liability company.
f. A transfer of the Medical Office/Clinic or parcel(s) on which that use is
developed to Medical Service Center of La Quinta, LLC, a California limited liability company
intended to be formed by Developer.
In the event of a Transfer by Developer under subparagraphs (a) through (f) above not
requiring the City's prior approval, Developer nevertheless agrees that at least thirty (30) days
prior to such Transfer it shall give written notice to City of such assignment and satisfactory
evidence that the assignee has assumed in writing through an assignment and assumption
agreement of all obligations (or specifically listed and defined obligations with respect to
Transfers for a portion of the Site) of Developer of this Agreement. In the event such transfer is
under subparagraphs (d), or (f) above (other than a transfer to Ehline), Developer shall, along
with the notice required to be given pursuant to the immediately preceding sentence, provide
City with evidence that such proposed transferee entity has been duly formed in accordance with
the laws of the State of California.
7.3 Assignment and Assumption of Obli atg ions.
Developer shall provide to City an assignment and assumption agreement in a form
reasonably satisfactory to the City's legal counsel for all proposed Transfers requiring the City's
approval.
7.4 Successors and Assigns.
All of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon the
Developer and its permitted successors and assigns. Whenever the term "Developer" is used in
this Agreement, such term shall include any other permitted successors and assigns as herein
provided.
7.5 Assignment by City.
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:
394/015610-0061 -18-
390243.11 al1/21/03
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: CP Development La Quinta, LLC
Attn: Richard Oliphant
44-139 Monterey Avenue, Suite 201
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Telephone: (760) 776-9900
Facsimile: (760) 776-9971
With a copies to: Genesis Hotel Development, LLC
76890 Sandpiper Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Attn: Francis A. Wong
Telephone: (760) 360-7886
Facsimile: (760) 345-7175
and Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill & Blasdel, LLP
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 328
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Attn: Emily Perri Hemphill, Esq.
Telephone: (760) 320-5977
Facsimile: (760) 320-9507
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 Maleure.
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 or the Agency 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
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -19-
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
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 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 City.
394/015610-0061 390243.11 all/21/03 -20_
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.
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 Severabilitv.
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
394/015610-0061 -21-
390243.11 all/21/03
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 ten (10) days following approval of the proposed
estoppel certificate by the City Attorney, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed. 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. 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.
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" — "E" to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed
appropriated herein in their entirety. Said exhibits are identified as follows:
394/015610-0061 -22-
390243.11 al1/21/03
A-1
Legal Description of Site
A-2
Site Map
B
Conditions of Approval
C
Mitigation Monitoring Program
D
Park Improvements
E
Early Entry 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.
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.
[end — signature page follows]
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -23-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City have executed this Agreement as
of the Reference Date.
"DEVELOPER"
CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC
a California limited liability company
By: Oliphant Family Trust
Its: Member
By:
Richard R. Oliphant
Its: Trustee
By: Oliphant Enterprises, Inc.
Its: Manager
By:
Richard R. Oliphant
Its: President
"CITY"
CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal
corporation
U.'a
Thomas Genovese
City Manager
ATTEST:
June Greek
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
M. Katherine Jenson
City Attorney
394/015610-0061
390243.11 all/21/03 -24-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
Z
co
0 0 r
m m m o D o 0 o m m
rm r- {
a a N y a r a m p
a a a m y a* m o
�' > < ; m
-t > { y '� m 0
`v m
m
cca N = z 2
< < 6 G) z
a C a z
m m (a co >
m m �
0
-� >
v
m
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r �r-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O m m m m== m> m m m m m
mct) c g o m m c_n M M 0 0 0 0 Z
r c o>> m> z m > G
> 0 0 0 Z Z� 1 o 0 o m>C
z o 0 0 � a � � w 0 c>D -Z+ m
q
m m m
c>D co co
c c c
v 0 0
co CAA cc �� 0
R�._o
5CWO
A-4
�W=
"NIBRO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. t t 1 n �� E %� • I `
AIN summ / erm mmam m m / Lem Sm mmm
,$ rm„ ,°. mas SCENTER POINT DEVELOPMENT, LLC
a La Ouinta, Caitfornia
PH #G
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-485, GENERAL
PLAN AMEDMENT 2003-095 AND ZONE CODE
AMENDMENT 2003-078
APPLICANT:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: CERTIFY A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; MODIFY
CHAPTER 2.0 (LAND USE ELEMENT) OF THE CITY'S
GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE COMMERCIAL PARK
DISTRICT; AND AMEND SECTION 9.80.040 (TABLE 9-5)
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL USES (UP TO 16 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) IN THE COMMERCIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT
WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
BEING PROCESSED
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2003-485; BASED UPON THIS
ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
PROJECT REQUEST:
The Community Development Department requests consideration to amend the
City's General Plan (Chapter 2 - Land Use Element) and Municipal Code (Title 9) to
permit High Density Residential uses in the Commercial Park (CP) District with
approval of a Conditional Use Permit and in accordance with High Density
Residential (Section 9.30.070) development standards.
Public Notice
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 13, 2003,
for the November 25th Planning Commission meeting, pursuant to Section
9.200.1 10 of the Zoning Code. Additionally, a Notice of Intent was filed with the
Riverside County Clerk on October 21, 2003, in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines.
Existing General Plan - Commercial Park Designation
The CP land use typically allows office and light industrial (i.e., warehouses,
storage, high technology manufacturing, and automotive repair) uses. High Density
Residential developments are not permitted in this land use district.
Existing Zoning Code - Commercial Park Designation
The Zoning Code does not list townhouses and multiple family dwelling units as
uses permitted in the CP District as noted below:
TABLE 9-5 PERMITTED USES IN NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
P - Principal Use
DISTRICT
M = 'Minor Use Permit
A = Accessory Use
T - Temporary Use Permit
(' - Conditional Use Permit
X = Prohibited Use
S = Specific Plan
Regional
Commercial
Community
Neigh-
Tour-
Ofc.
Major
Commercial
Park
Commercial
borhood
ist
Com.
Community
Com.
Com.
Fac.
LAND USE
CR
CP
CC
CN
CT
CO
MC
Residential, Lodging and Child
Care Uses
Townhome and multifamily dwelling as
C*
X
X
X
X
X
X
a primary use *If part of a mixed -use
project per Section 9.80.020 or 9.80.030.
Residential as an accessory use, e.g.,
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
caretaker residences per Section
9.100.160
('hild day care facilities, centers and
C
C
C
C
X
C
C
preschools as a principal use, subject to
Section 9.100.250 (also see Accessory
Uses)
Senior group housing, subject to Section
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
9.100.260
Rooming and boarding houses
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Single room occupancy (SRO) hotels,
subject to Section 9.100.270
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Emergency shelters
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Transitional shelters for homeless
persons or victims of domestic abuse
('
X
X
X
X
X
C
Single family residential
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mixed -use projects: residential and
office/ commercial
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
RV Rental Park and
Ownership/Membership Parks
C
X
X
X
C
X
X
Resort Residential
S
X
S
X
S
X
X
Hotels and motels
C
X
C
X
C
X
X
Timeshare facilities, subject to Section
9.60.290
C
X
C
X
C
X
X
Caretaker residences
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
ANALYSIS:
Within the City, there are approximately 64-acres devoted to the Commercial Park
designation. This land use category was originally set up in the early 1990's to
assist light manufacturing development and has been applied to properties along the
Whitewater River (between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road) and adjacent to
Regional Commercial areas south of Highway 111. Projects that are currently in
the CP District are two mini -storage businesses and other commercial developments
within Specific Plans 96-028 (La Quinta Corporate Centre) and 99-036 (Dune
Palms Plaza). This Amendment request will permit High Density Residential uses in
CP District areas (e.g., similar to the Regional Commercial land use designation)
which will assist the City in meeting its obligations to provide varied housing types
and urban housing close to Highway 1 1 1, a regional transportation corridor.
Currently, the Community Development Department is processing an apartment
complex on Dune Palms Road. This project is on hold pending design changes.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Environmental findings in support of the request are contained in the attached
environmental documents. Findings, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can be
made that the proposed Amendments will enhance the City's General Plan and
Zoning Code land use provisions by allowing residential uses in a Commercial Park
District.
RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of a Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment
2003-485) pursuant to the attached findings; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-095, subject to the
attached findings and text changes; and
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Zone Code Amendment 2003-078, subject to the
attached findings and text changes.
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map Excerpt
Prepared by:
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2003-095 AND ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
2003-078
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-485
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 25th day of November, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public
Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-485 for General Plan
Amendment 2003-095 and Zone Change Amendment 2003-078 to allow High
Density Residential uses in the Commercial Park land use area with a Conditional
Use Permit;
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for the above -cited applications to allow High Density
Residential uses in the Commercial Park land use area within La Quinta;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on
November 13, 2003, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside
County Clerk on October 21, 2003, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. The
public comment period begin on November 14, 2003; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as
the Findings of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2: The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration
has been prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative
Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental
effects of the City-wide Amendment, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this
Amendment, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there
are significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the Amendment.
SECTION 3: The Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-485.
SECTION 4: The Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants, or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history, or prehistory, in that additional environmental analysis will occur
during site -specific development projects.
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Amendment will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on
which the wildlife depends based on review of the City's General Plan EIR.
SECTION 6: The Amendment 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.
SECTION 7: The Amendment will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not
be significantly affected by the Project.
SECTION 8: The Amendment will not have the environmental effects that
will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services based on review of the City's General Plan EIR.
SECTION 9: The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed
Negative Declaration and the comments received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the Planning Commission.
6
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City
Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Amendment has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as
that term is defined in Fish and Game Code §71 1 .2.
SECTION 13: The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial
evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California
Code of Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 14: The Negative Declaration is hereby recommended to the City
Council for certification.
SECTION 15: The Community Development Director shall cause to be filed
with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA Guideline §
15075(a) once reviewed by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25`h day of November, 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
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Environmental Assessment 2003-485 for General Plan Amendment 2003-095
and Zone Code Amendment 2003-078
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Greg Trousdell
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Citywide
5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A
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 City is considering an amendment to the General Plan and Municipal Code (Title 9)
which would allow High Density Residential land uses in the Commercial Park land use
designation and zoning district, respectively. The text amendments would allow multi -family
development at densities up to 16 units per acre, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit,
in the Commercial Park land use designation, subject to the development standards in Section
9.30.070.
The change is being considered as a result of a request for construction of 192 apartment units
on a 10 acre parcel (CUP 03-081 and SDP 03-788) located approximately 650 feet south of
Highway 111, and east of Dune Palms Road. The Initial Study for the apartment project is
being processed separately, due to project redesigns, which require that the project review be
delayed (EA 2003-484).
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
Not applicable. The General Plan and Zone Code Amendments would apply Citywide.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None.
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
/s/ Greg Trousdell. Associate Planner November 12.2003
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
�l
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -3-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic
X
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Aerial photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment will not impact aesthetics,
scenic vistas or light and glare in and of themselves. Individual project proposals will still
require review under the site development and conditional use permit processes to assure
that they are compatible. Structures in the CP District are restricted to 35 feet in overall
height. No impacts associated with aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of
implementation of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment.
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
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -4-
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff. )
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(Project description, site photos.)
II. a)-c) The Commercial Park designation and zoning district occurs only on lands located
immediately adjacent to Highway 111. No agricultural lands occur in proximity to these
lands, nor are there any Williamson Act contracts on lands in this area.
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
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -5-
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a)-e) The Amendments will not impact air quality. The ultimate development of any site for
apartment uses within the Commercial Park land use designation will require additional
review under the requirements of CEQA.
As stated above, the GPA and ZCA were initiated due to an applicant's request for a
multi -family project on property at Highway I I I and Dune Palms Road. The primary
source of pollution in the City is the automobile. A traffic study was completed for the
above -referenced multi -family project'. It has been estimated that 200 units on
approximately 11 acres would generate average daily trips (ADT) of 1,326 ADT. By
comparison, if an office complex were built on this property, 1,583 ADT trips could be
expected 2. A similar trip generation was analyzed in the General Plan EIR for this
property, since office development was generally assumed for commercial park uses. It
can therefore be expected that the potential impacts associated with multi -family
development on air quality in the region would be generally less than those from office
development, which is currently the primary land use in this land use designation.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). Projects proposed in this land use category will be required to
implement the Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan, which implements 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
individual projects will be analyzed and may include mitigation measures if necessary to
reduce potential impacts associated with PM10 generation on any given site.
Finally, the proposed change in land use designation will require the processing of a
conditional use permit for high -density apartment projects in this designation, to assure
that potential land use conflicts associated with adjacent and previously existing light
industrial uses do not occur, particularly as it relates to air quality emissions. This level of
review will assure that residents of future projects will not be negatively impacted by
industrial or quasi -industrial emissions which may be located adjacent.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
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,
1 "Traffic Impact Study La Quinta Family Apartments Project..." prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, September, 2003.
2 "Trip Generation, 6`' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on 30% lot coverage on 11 acres, category 710,
General Office Building. The number of apartment units was reduced to 192 on October 24, 2003.
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -6- J
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan Biological Resources Element)
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?
(General Plan Biological Resources Element)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
0 Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
IV. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment and Development Code text amendment will not, in and of
themselves, have any impacts on biological resources. Individual projects which may be
proposed will be reviewed to assure that they are not in a survey area, as defined by the
Environmental Resources chapter of the General Plan. Should surveys be required, they
will be performed as part of the project -specific CEQA review.
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -7-
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 Sect. 15064.5? (General
Plan Cultural Resources Element)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Sect. 15064.5?
(General Plan Cultural Resources
Element)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan Cultural
Resources Element)
V. a)-d) The Amendments will not, in and of themselves, have any impacts on cultural or
paleontological resources. Individual projects which may be proposed will be reviewed to
assure that they are not in a sensitive area, as defined by the Environmental Resources
chapter of the General Plan. Should cultural resource surveys be required, they will be
performed as part of the project -specific CEQA review.
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)
k .)
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -8-
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)-e) The GPA and ZCA will not, in and of themselves, be impacted by geologic hazards.
Individual projects will be reviewed by the City Engineer to assure that they comply with
current standards for seismic zone construction, as is currently the case for all
development projects. These individual analyses, and the associated mitigation measures,
which may be required, will assure that impacts to individual projects are adequately
addressed.
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)
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -9- k )
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan Land Use
Map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
Land Use Map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
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 GPA and ZCA will not, in and of themselves, be impacted by hazardous materials.
Individual projects will be reviewed to assure that they comply with current standards for
household hazardous waste, and that they are not located adjacent to hazardous waste
generators. This review, and the potential implementation of mitigation measures, will
assure that potential impacts are adequately addressed.
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
Fnvironmental Hazards Element)
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 that would
result in flooding on- or off -site? (General
Plan Environmental Hazards Element)
c) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
Environmental Hazards Element)
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
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -1 I-
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)
VIII. a)-g) The GPA and ZCA will not, in and of themselves, impact water resources. Individual
projects which may be proposed will require additional review under CEQA, including
water demand analysis, and associated compliance with City water conservation
standards in construction and landscaping.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed General Plan Amendment will allow the construction of high density
residential land uses in commercial areas, which will improve the jobs/housing balance in
the City, and potentially add to the inventory of affordable housing in the City. In
addition, the Commercial Park designation has been applied to lands adjacent to the
City's primary arterials, and in close proximity to Highway 111, where transit routes are
available. Proximity to alternative transportation is also encouraged in the General Plan.
The GPA therefore enables the City to facilitate goals, policies and programs already in
place in the General Plan.
t J
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -12-
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 Commercial Park lands in the City are in areas already developed and not designated
for Mineral Resources. The GPA and ZCA will have no impact on these resources
regardless of the development which occurs there.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE B 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
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
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
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -13-
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment will have no impact on noise
levels in and of themselves. The ultimate development of any given site will be reviewed
separately under CEQA, and analyzed for both impacts associated with the proposed
project on adjacent development; and the impacts of adjacent development on the
proposed project. The City will impose mitigation measures should these impacts be
potentially significant. The additional review under CEQA will ensure that impacts can
be reduced to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -14-
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment will facilitate the
development of additional high -density dwelling units in the City. The City's
Redevelopment Agency has identified a need for 1,672 affordable housing units in the
City by 2004, and has secured 894 of these units. Additional projects, which are proposed
as affordable, including the project on Highway I I I and Dune Palms referred to above,
will help the City meet its affordable housing needs in the short term.
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) The General Plan and Zone Code Amendments will not impact public services directly.
Projects proposed on any site will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. These projects will generate property tax which will offset the costs
of added police and fire services. These projects will also be required to pay the mandated
school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits.
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -15-
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 GPA and ZCA will not directly impact recreational facilities. Private and common
recreation space is required under the Development Code for multi -family developments.
The City will review individual projects to assure that they meet these standards.
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
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -16-
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
c) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
0 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)-g) The proposed GPA and ZCA will not directly impact traffic and circulation. However, as
stated above under Air Quality, high density land uses appear to generate fewer trips than
office land uses. As such, the construction of apartments rather than offices on any of
these sites could reduce traffic impacts associated with General Plan buildout, and
provide a beneficial impact.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -17-
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment will not directly
impact public utilities and services. Additional review will be required for individual
projects which may be proposed for any site under this designation. This analysis will
include review to assure that adequate electricity, water, solid waste and wastewater are
available at the time of development.
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
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -18-
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The General Plan and Zone Code Amendments will have no impact on biological
resources. Specific projects will be required to provide site -specific resource analyses, as
required by the General Plan.
XVII.b) The proposed GPA and ZCA have the potential to achieve both short term and long term
goals, by providing additional affordable housing in close proximity to public
transportation, shopping and schools.
XVII. c) The General Plan and Zone Code Amendments will not exceed those impacts identified
in the General Plan EIR, and may result in slightly lower impacts to air quality and traffic
and circulation.
XVII. d) The GPA and ZCA will not have any direct environmental effects on human beings.
Additional environmental review will be required for individual project to assess the
impacts associated with specific sites. These reviews will assure that potential impacts are
adequately mitigated.
G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -19-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF CHANGES TO CHAPTER 2.0 (LAND USE ELEMENT)
OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES IN A COMMERCIAL PARK
(CP) DISTRICT
CASE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-095
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 251h day of November, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public
Hearing to consider General Plan Amendment 2003-095 to allow High Density
Residential uses in the Commercial Park land use area with a Conditional Use
Permit;
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the
November 251h Planning Commission Public Hearing notice (1 /8 page Display Ad)
in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 13, 2003, as prescribed by Section
9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Municipal Code. The public
comment period begin on November 14, 2003. Public Hearing notices were also
mailed to local public agencies. To date, no written comments have been
received; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2003-485. Based upon this Assessment,
the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment;
therefore, a Negative Declaration is recommended. A Notice of Intent to Adopt
a Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office
on October 21, 2003, as required by Section 15072 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard,
said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to
Section 9.230.020 of the Zoning Code to justify a recommendation to the City
Council for approval of said land use change:
A. Consistency with the General Plan: The General Plan provides direction for
growth and provides practical policy implementation tools to manage that
growth. The proposed Amendment is internally consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the General Plan in that it provides for a mix of
land uses in the Commercial Park District, and allows high density
residential uses to assist implementation of the City's Housing and
Circulation Elements goals and policies.
B. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed land use Amendment will not
create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and
general welfare in that high intensity residential uses are typically allowed
in urban corridors and subject to environmental review.
C. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed Amendment is compatible with
other high intensity land uses that are allowed in a Regional Commercial
District.
D. Property Suitability: The land use designation change is suitable for the
Commercial Park District in that it enhances the goals and objectives of
the City's General Plan (i.e., Housing and Circulation Elements).
E. Change in Circumstances: The Amendment broadens the number of land
uses that can be developed in the Commercial Park area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-485 in that no significant effects on the
environment were identified; and
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General
Plan Amendment 2003-095 as contained in Exhibit "A," attached hereto,
and made a part of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 251h day of November, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
hESM-15
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-095
November 25, 2003
Exhibit "A"
Amend Table 2.1 of Chapter 2.0 (Land Use) of the General Plan as
follows:
"Commercial Park, CP — The typical land use under this designation are office,
light industrial and high density residential: warehousing and storage,
office/warehouse combined uses, high technology light manufacturing,
automotive repair, and high density residential uses."
Amend Program 2.1 of the Commercial Goals, Policies and Programs
of Chapter 2.0 (Land Use) of the General Plan as follows:
"Program 2.1: Residential development shall not be permitted within 600 feet of
Highway 111 in the Regional Commercial designation, except as allowed in the
non-residential overlay in the Development Code. Residential developments in
the Commercial Park designation can be up to 16 dwelling units per acre without
being in a Specific Plan area."
, J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.80.040 (TABLE 9-5)
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL USES (UP TO 16 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) IN THE COMMERCIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT,
SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CASE NO.: ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 2003-078
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 25th day November, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing
to consider a Zone Code Amendment to amend Section 9.80.040 (Table 9-5) of the
Municipal Code to allow high density residential uses (up to 16 dwelling units per
acre) in a Commercial Park (CP) Zoning District, subject to a Conditional Use Permit
application; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the
November 25th Planning Commission Public Hearing notice (1 /8 page Display Ad) in
the Desert Sun newspaper on November 13, 2003, as prescribed by Section
9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Municipal Code. The public comment
period begin on November 14, 2003. Public Hearing notices were also mailed to
local public agencies. To date, no written comments have been received; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2003-485. Based upon this Assessment, the
Assessment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment;
therefore, a Negative Declaration is recommended. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office on
October 21, 2003, as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation to the City Council for approval of said Zone Code Amendment
pursuant to Section 9.200.020 of the Municipal Code:
1. The proposed text changes are consistent with the goals and policies of
General Plan Amendment 2003-095 to allow High Density Residential uses in
Commercial Park land use areas to enhance the land uses surrounding the
Highway 111 transportation corridor.
4
tix
2. The proposed text changes will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare, in that a Conditional Use Permit application will be
required for any residential development request pursuant to the
requirements of Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code.
3. The proposed change will ensure a broad mix of land uses in the Commercial
Park District that will enhance the City's marketability and promote a diverse
community of commercial and residential activities. A residential land use in
the Commercial Park area will enhance and provide a transition to Regional
Commercial land uses that abut Highway 1 1 1, a Primary Image Corridor.
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 in this case; and
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-485 in that no significant effects on the
environment were identified; and
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Zone Code Amendment 2003-078 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25'h day of November, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
G:G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\RESOPC ZCA03-078 Draft.doc
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\RESOPC ZCA03-078 Draft.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zone Change Amendment 2003-078
November 25, 2003
EXHIBIT "A"
Amend the Residential, Lodging and Child Care Uses in Table 9-5 of Section 9.80.040 of the
Municipal Code as follows:
TABLE 9-5 Permitted
Uses in Nonresidential Districts
P = Principal Use
District
A = Accessory Use
C = Conditional Use Permit
M = Minor Use Permit
T = Temporary Use Permit
X = Prohibited Use
S = Specific Plan
Regional
Commercial
Commun-
Neighbor-
Tour-
Ofc.
Major
Com.
Park
ity
hood
eommer-
ist
Com.
Commun-
Com.
vial
Com.
ity
Facil.
Land Use
CR
CP
CC
CN
CT
CO
MC
Residential, Lodging and Child Care
Uses
Townhome and multifamily dwelling as a
C*
C**
X
X
X
X
X
primary use *If part of a mixed -use project
per Section 9.80.020 or 9.80.030. **Subject
to Section 9.30.070 (RH, High Density
Residential District) to determine density,
building heights, setbacks, etc. Affordable
housing projects shall be subject to Section
9.60.270.
Residential as an accessory use, e.g.,
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
caretaker residences per Section 9.100.160
Child day care facilities, centers and
C
C
C
C
X
C
C
preschools as a principal use, subject to
Section 9.100.250 (also see Accessory Uses)
Senior group housing, subject to Section
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
9.100.260
Rooming and boarding houses
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Single room occupancy (SRO) hotels, subject
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
to Section 9.100.270
Emergency shelters
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Transitional shelters for homeless persons or
C
X
X
X
X
X
C
victims of domestic abuse
G:G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\RESOPC ZCA03-078 Draft.doc
Single family residential
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mixed -use projects: residential and
office/commercial
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
RV Rental Park and Ownership/Membership
Parks
C
X
X
X
C
X
X
Resort Residential
S
X
S
X
S
X
X
Hotels and motels
C
X
C
X
C
X
X
Timeshare facilities, subject to Section
9.60.290
C
X
C
X
C
X
X
Caretaker residences
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
G:G:\SDP788 Apt DunePalms\RESOPC ZCA03-078 Draft.doc
ATTACHMENTS
PH #H
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-079
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO
THE CITY COUNIL THE LA QUINTA MUNCCIPA OCODEEND
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: 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
BACKGROUND:
The following is a list of proposed Code changes. These changes are proposed to
clarify and carry out the intent of the existing Code, to comply with current
practices or streamline the entitlement process.
9.160.020 Exempt signs
The current Code provisions require that holiday decorations be removed seven
days after the applicable holiday. The Council previously has determined that this
time period is too short and directed staff to modify the Code to allow additional
time. Staff proposes that temporary holiday decoration be allowed for a period not
to exceed 30 days. Staff proposes the following amendment:
P:\Oscar\Zoning IssuesTC stf rpt Christlgts.doc
Excerpt of: Table 9-17 Exempt Signs Not Requiring a Sign Permit
Sign Type ;Placement ;Maximum ',Illumination
Area
7. Temporary decorations clearly n/a I n/a Yes
incidental and customary and
commonly associated with any
national, local or religious holiday,
provided such signs are removed
within seveR thirty (30) days after
the applicable holiday.
Section 9.040.040, Table 9-17.7
The City allows houses of worship in residential districts subject to conditional use
permits. However, Table 9-1 of the Zoning Code does not include churches,
temples or other houses of worship as uses allowed in residential districts. Staff
proposes to list these uses in the Table as uses conditionally permitted. Please
note that the conditional use permit will continue to allow the City the ability to
review theses uses, their location, and impacts.
Proposed Addition to Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts
P = Principal use District
A = Accessory use
C = Conditional use permit
M = Minor use permit
H = Home occupation permit
S = Specific plan required
X = Prohibited use
Very
Medium -
Low
Low
Medium High High
Density
Density Cove
Density Density Density
Residential
Residential 'I Residential,Residential!
Residential Residential
Land Use RVL
RL RC
RM RMH RH
Churches,
temples and
other places C C C C C C
of worship
P:\Oscar\Zoning Issues\PC stf rpt Christlgts.doc
Section 9.60.100
Currently, Section 9.60.100 of the La Quinta Zoning Code requires that detached
guesthouses conform to "...all applicable building code standards and all
development and design standards of the zoning district which they are located."
In addition, this Section provides certain requirements (e.g. deed restrictions, no
cooking facilities) that prevent the use of a guesthouse as a second dwelling.
Staff proposes that attached guesthouses also comply with this provision. The
intent of the Code (regulating occupancy) applies to attached or detached
guesthouses. Staff proposes the following language be added to Section
9.60.100:
(B)(1) ""Guest house" means a detached or attached unit which has
sleeping and sanitary facilities but no cooking facilities and which is
used primarily for sleeping purposes by members of the family
occupying the main building, their nonpaying guests, and domestic
employees. "
Section 13.12.160 B
Chapter 13.12 of the La Quinta Municipal Code provides the entitlement
requirements for tentative tract maps; specifically, Section 13.12.160 B, sets forth
the time extension requirements for tentative tract maps. Currently, all time
extension requests require public hearings and review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council. Staff proposes that the Community Development
Director be allowed to approve time extensions for tentative tract maps that have
no changes. Time extension requests for tentative tract maps with changes would
still require review and approval by both the Planning Commission and the City
Council. Note that the Code currently allows the Community Development Director
the authority to approve certain minor land divisions such as lot line adjustments,
parcel mergers, and final map amendments. Staff proposes the following language
be added in Section 13.12.160 (B):
'B. Request by the Subdivider. Before the expiration of the tentative map,
the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension of time. Requests for
extensions of time shall be filed with the community development
department on either an approved form or by letter. All requests for
extensions of time shall include:
1. A completed application form or letter,
2. An identification of the length of time requested and reasons for the
request,
3. The current processing fee as charged by the city for tentative map time
extensions;
PAOscar\Zoning Issues\PC stf rpt Christlgts.doc
4. Twenty-five copies of the tentative map as approved by the city council.
Additional copies may be requested subsequent to the application submittal.
Extensions of time may be granted by the Community Development Director
if there are no changes to the approved tentative map. The Director may
waive some or all submittal material as noted in Section 1 through 4 herein.
Extensions of time aFe that include modifications to the approved tentative
map are subject to the public notification procedure provided for in Section
13.12.090 and will be considered at a public hearing, to be held by the
designated approval authority as set forth in Section 13.04.060. The
approval authority may approve a maximum of three one-year time
extensions and shall impose additional conditions of approval if such
conditions are intended to maintain the public health, safety and welfare
and/or to comply with current city, state or federal requirements.
If, as part of the request for extension of the term of a tentative map, the
subdivider requests changes or amendments to the tentative map or the
conditions of approval for that map, the city may impose other conditions or
amendments to the tentative map or the conditions of approval including the
then -current standards and requirements for approval of tentative maps.
Note that LQMC Section 13.04.060 (Review and approval authority) must be
modified to reflect the change in the approval authority. Staff recommends the
following changes:
Type of Action ,Review
Authority
'Tentative map City staff
extensions Other
responsible
agencies
'Planning
Commission'
Approval
Authority
City council
Community
Development
Director
1 Planning Commission shall review tentative tract map when City Council is the Approval Authority
2 Community Development Director may only consider extension if there are no changes to the tentative tract map
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ recommending to the City Council
approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2003-079, as recommended.
P:\Oscar\Zoning Issues\PC stf rpt Christlgts.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMEND RECOMMENDING TO
CITYOF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, A
THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT VARIOUS SECTIONS
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
CASE NO. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2003-079
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
SECTION 1. These Municipal Code amendments clarify and carry out the intent
of the Code to comply with current practices, or streamline the entitlement process;
and
SECTION 2. That the La Quinta Municipal Code, be amended as contained in
the attached Exhibit "A"; and
SECTION 4. 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 25th day of November, 2003, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2003-079
Various Zoning Text Changes
Adopted: November 25, 2003
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
EXHIBIT "A"
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Zoning Code Amendment 2003-079
Adopted: November 25, 2993
Table 9-17, Section 9.160.020 is amended to include the following:
Excerpt of: Table 9-17 Exempt Signs Not Requiring a Sign Permit
Sign Type Placement ;Maximum ,Illumination
Area
7. Temporary decorations clearly n/a n/a Yes
incidental and customary and
commonly associated with any
national, local or religious holiday,
provided such signs are removed
within seven thirty (30) days after
the applicable holiday.
Table 9-1, Section 9.40.040 is amended to include the following:
Proposed Addition to Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts
P =
Principal use
District
A
= Accessory use
C
= Conditional use permit
M
= Minor use permit
H
= Home occupation permit
S
= Specific plan required
X
= Prohibited use
Very
Medium -
Low Low
Medium
High
High
Density Density
Cove Density
Density
Density
Residential Residential ,Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Land Use RVL RL
RC RM
RMH
RH
Churches,
temples
and other
C � C C C C C
places of
worship
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 9.60.100(B)(1) is hereby amended to include the following:
(B)(1) ""Guest house" means a detached or attached unit which
has sleeping and sanitary facilities but no cooking facilities and
which is used primarily for sleeping purposes by members of the
family occupying the main building, their nonpaying guests, and
domestic employees. "
Section 13.12.160 (B) is hereby amended to include the following:
"B. Request by the Subdivider. Before the expiration of the tentative
map, the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension of time.
Requests for extensions of time shall be filed with the community
development department on either an approved form or by letter. All
requests for extensions of time shall include:
1. A completed application form or letter;
2. An identification of the length of time requested and reasons for the
request;
3. The current processing fee as charged by the city for tentative map
time extensions;
4. Twenty-five copies of the tentative map as approved by the city
council. Additional copies may be requested subsequent to the
application submittal.
Extensions of time may be granted by the Community Development
Director if there are no changes to the approved tentative map. The
Director may waive some or all submittal material as noted in Section
1 through 4 herein. Extensions of time are that include modifications
to the approved tentative map are subject to the public notification
procedure provided for in Section 13. 12.090 and will be considered at
a public hearing, to be held by the designated approval authority as
set forth in Section 13.04.060. The approval authority may approve a
maximum of three one-year time extensions and shall impose
additional conditions of approval if such conditions are intended to
maintain the public health, safety and welfare and/or to comply with
current city, state or federal requirements.
If, as part of the request for extension of the term of a tentative map,
the subdivider requests changes or amendments to the tentative map
or the conditions of approval for that map, the city may impose other
conditions or amendments to the tentative map or the conditions of
W
EXHIBIT "A"
approval including the then -current standards and requirements for
approval of tentative maps.
Section 13.04.060 is hereby amended to include the following:
Type of Action Review
Approval
Authority
Authority
Tentative map City staff
'City council
,extensions Other
responsible
Community
agencies
Development
Planning
Director2
Commission'
' planning Commission shall review tentative tract map when City Council is the Approval Authori
Z Community Development Director may only consider extensions if there are no changes to the tentative
tract map
B I #A
DATE:
CASE NO:
APPELLANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE NUMBER 9693
ROBERT AND BARBARA VALDIVIA
APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE DETERMINATION
54-360 AVENIDA JUAREZ
This item was originally on the Commission agenda for October 28th, and
continued to this meeting to allow ample time for the appellant to be notified of the
meeting.
On August 13, 2003 an inspection warrant was served and executed at 54-360
Avenida Juarez ("Property"). During the inspection, it was found that there were
several additions made to the original building that required a building permit prior
to construction. A Public Nuisance was subsequently declared to exist at the
above -noted address. This determination was based on the existence of the
following items that were constructed on the Property without a building permit, in
violation of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 8.01.060 (Attachment 1); (1) the
garage was converted into an office, restroom, laundry room and storage room; (2)
patio covers on the north and east side of the residence; (3) room addition on the
southwest corner; (4) framing of a non -permitted patio structure for conversion to
a room; (5) several block walls; (6) electrical lighting above the garage door on the
exterior of the property; and (7) an air conditioning unit (collectively, "Additions").
A criminal citation has been issued for items 11 and 12 on the Notice of Public
Nuisance (Attachment 2) and the Indio Court will be determining their outcome.
These items are a recurring violation and were included on the notice only to serve
as a list of requirements/corrections needed to aid the homeowner in achieving
compliance. Since these items are before the court, the Planning Commission
should take no action on them.
The house at 54-360 Avenida Juarez was constructed in 1978, and was built to
the standards of the 1976 Uniform Building Code. The 1976 Uniform Building
Code Section 301(a) requires that building permits be obtained for room additions,
including those described above (Attachment 3). Any construction after that date
would have required the homeowner to obtain a building permit from Riverside
County.
Riverside County ("County") was responsible for the inspections and records
pertaining to the Property at the time the residence ("Residence") was constructed
on the Property in 1978. The County has indicated that the only building permit
("Permit") it has on file for the Property is for the original construction of the
Residence. (See Attachment 4.) This Permit reflects the County's approval for
construction of the original dwelling with an attached garage, and not for any of
the Additions listed above which are the subject of this appeal. The City's files
similarly do not contain any improvement permits on this Property.
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE:
A "Grandfather Clause" permits a use or condition of property to lawfully continue
after a law or ordinance is enacted making that use or condition unlawful. For a
Grandfather Clause to apply, two things must be true: (1) the unlawful use or
condition must have lawfully existed prior to the passage of the prohibitory law or
ordinance; and (2) there must exist explicit legal authority specifically providing for
the continued use or condition.
Here, the appellant contends that the above -noted Additions were "Grandfathered"
since they occurred prior to the City's incorporation (Attachment 5). However,
appellant has not identified the applicable "Grandfather Clause" he is attempting to
apply in any law, ordinance, or other legal authority. Perhaps more importantly,
appellant neither has, nor can, provide any evidence reflecting that the Additions
were ever lawfully constructed, thus rendering any attempted application of a
Grandfather Clause a futile exercise.
Clearly the requirement for obtaining a building permit was in place at the time the
Additions were made. The City, upon incorporation, is required to take over the
responsibility of maintaining the housing stock to the building codes that were in
place at the time of construction, and to regulate new construction. The Building
Code provides for the safety of the persons who occupy the dwelling, and ensures
that minimum safety standards are observed in the construction process. These
safety standards reduce the potential for electrocution, fire, collapse of the
structure, etc.
La Quinta Municipal Code Section 11.72.030 M (Attachment 6) declares any
violation of the uniform codes adopted by the City, including the Building Code, to
be a Public Nuisance. Failure to uphold this Public Nuisance places the occupants
of the Property, everyone who visits them, and everyone who lives near them at
potential risk of injury or loss of life.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2003- upholding the Notice Of Public Nuisance as
issued.
Attachments:
1. La Quinta Municipal Code Section 8.01.060
2. Notice of Public Nuisance
3. Copy of the 1976 Uniform Building Code Section 301(a)
4. Copy of original building permit and Declaration from County Custodian of
Records
5. Appeal letter
6. La Quinta Municipal Code Section 1 1.72.030 M
s..vvv rci i i nma i cyuu cu.
ATTACHMENT #1
Title 8 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 8.01 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
8.01.060 Permits required.
Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows:
Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming pool, spa
or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building service equipment,
including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except as specified in Section
301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building,
structure or service equipment from the Building Official.
(Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part),
1985)
p://194.169.1.2/cityclerk/citycode/_DATA/TITLE08/Chapter 8_01_ADMINIS... 10/23/21
P.O. Box 1504
78-495 CALLE TAMPICO
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
ATTACHMENT #�
(760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0
FAX (760) 777-7101
NOTICE
OF
PUBLIC
NUISANCE
September 30, 2003
Robert & Barbara Valdivia
54-360 Avenida Juarez
La Quinta, California, 92253
Dear Owner(s):
RE: Case # 9693
Parcel #774-233-005
& 774-233-017
Officer: Anthony Moreno
THIS NOTICE is hereby submitted to you as owner(s) of the above referenced property. The
purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Notice and Order served on September 12, 2003
via posting, certified mail and regular mail has been rescinded to provide an adequate appeal
process.
CASE NUMBER: 9693 -September 30, 2003
Page 2 of 5
This Notice of Public Nuisance is also being served via posting, certified mail and regular mail to
advise you of the following. A recent inspection of your property revealed conditions in violation
of the La Quinta Municipal Code. You are required to correct these violations within TWENTY-
ONE (21) DAYS from the date of this notice.
Your property will be re -inspected to verify compliance after the twenty-one (21) day time frame
has lapsed.
SEE ATTACHED INSPECTION REPORT FOR VIOLATION(S) AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
REQUIRED.
Failure to correct the listed violation(s) within the time frame indicated may result in the City
initiating abatement proceedings, criminal prosecution and/or the City placing the
aforementioned property into receivership to correct the violation(s).
If the City is forced to proceed with the abatement proceedings, the owner(s) of record may
incur the direct costs of the abatement. Also, any additional costs assessed due to possible
judicial process. In addition to the above referenced costs, all contractor abatement costs plus
an additional 25% will be charged to the property owner(s) as a lien upon the property and shall
become the personal obligation of the owner(s) of record.
You are entitled to appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the Planning
Commission. Within ten (10) days from the date of personal service, posting or mailing of the
Notice of Public Nuisance, the appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city cierk.
By acting immediately to correct the violation(s) referenced, you will avoid these and any future
costs.
If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Moreno at (760) 777-7034. Please
provide the case number (#9693) and the property address.
Your assistance in supporting the Code Compliance Department to maintain the safety and
appearance of our city is greatly appreciated. You may contact me at the above referenced
phone number if you require assistance.
Sincerely,
Anthony Moren
Code Compliance Officer
CC: Law Offices of Peter R. Cabrera
82-632 B Highway 111, Suite
Indio, CA 92201
Meritage Mortgage Company
Re: Loan # 1000084122
9710 Two Notch Road
Columbia, South Carolina, 29223
• •
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 9693
Page 3 of 5
PUBLIC NUISANCES
1. Code Violation: The garage located on the Subject Property was
illegally converted into an office, restroom, laundry room, and
storage facility, in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC")
8.01.060 and 11.72.030(M);
Correction: Restore the illegal garage conversion to its
original condition and its primary designated use (garage), including
removal of the block wall that denies vehicular access to that garage.
2. Code Violation: There are illegal patio covers installed on the
north and east side of the residence, in the absence of plans,
permits, or required inspections, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and
11.72.030(M);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work to remedy the illegal
patio covers on the east and north side of the residence on the
Subject Property, or in the alternative, remove those structures in
their entirety.
3. Code Violation: An illegal room addition on the southeast corner
of the dwelling on the Subject Property exists and was constructed
without a valid building permit, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and
11.72.030(M);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain a permit and the required
inspections, and complete any necessary work on the Subject
Property, to ensure that the illegal room addition at the southeast
corner of the residence meets the minimum building code standards,
or remove the illegal room addition.
4. Code Violation: An illegal patio cover in the rear yard is being
framed for conversion into an illegal room addition, without having a
valid building permit, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and Califomia
Health and Safety Code ("H &S") 17920.3(i);
• •
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 9693
Page 4 of 5
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work to remedy the illegal
enclosure of the illegal patio cover, or in the alternative, remove the
structure in its entirety.
5. Code Violation: Block walls were illegally constructed on the
Subject Property, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(M);
H&S 17920.3(i);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work on all block walls
constructed on the Subject Property to remedy the existing defects.
6. Code Violation: The premanufactured storage shed located on the
Subject Property violates the 3.5 foot side yard setback, in violation
of LQMC 9.60.050(D) and 11.723.030(M);
Correction: Relocate the premanufactured storage shed to
provide a minimum of a 3.5 foot side yard setback from the block
wall.
7. Code Violation: A block and wood framed storage shed
constructed on the Subject Property violates the 3.5 foot minimum
side yard and rear yard setback, in violation of LQMC 9.60.050(D);
Correction: Relocate the storage shed constructed of block
and wood to provide a minimum of 3.5 foot side yard and rear yard
setback from the block wall.
8. Code Violation: Electrical wiring and exterior lighting was
unlawfully installed above the garage door on the exterior of the
house, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(M); California
Uniform Housing Code ("UHC") 701.2 and 1005.5; H&S 17920(d);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain a permit and the required
inspections, and complete any necessary work to legalize the
illegally installed electrical wiring above the garage door on the
exterior of the house or remove same.
W
0 0
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 9693
Page 5 of 5
9. Code Violation: A mechanical air conditioning unit was installed
on the Subject Property without a valid permit, in violation of UHC
701.2, H&S 17920(f);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work to legalize the
mechanical air condition unit unlawfully installed on the subject
Property.
10. Code Violation: Holiday lights are displayed in the front patio
beyond seven days after the holiday, in violation of LQMC 9.160.020
and 11.72.030(M);
Correction: Remove the temporary decorations and holiday
lights from being displayed beyond seven days after the holiday.
11. Code Violation: Parking or storing construction equipment,
machinery or building materials in a residential zone except during
excavation, construction or demolition operations conducted
pursuant to a building or grading permit, in violation of LQMC
11.72.030 (E);
Correction: Remove all parked or stored construction
equipment, machinery or building materials on the Subject Property,
except during excavation, construction, or demolition operations
conducted pursuant to a valid building or grading permit
12. Code Violation: The establishment and operation of a Home
Occupation without a valid ("Permit") and compliance with all
conditions attached to that permit at all times, or in the alternative,
the cessation of operating a business on the Subject Property, in
violation of LQMC 9.60.110 and 11.72.030 (M).
Correction: Obtain a valid Home Occupation Permit ("Permit")
and comply with all conditions attached to that Permit at all times, or
in the alternative, cease operating a business on the Subject
Property.
J
1976 EDITION
ATTACHMENT #3
301
Chapter 3
PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
Application for Permits
Sec. 301. (a) Permits Required. No person, firm, or corporation shall
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert,
or demolish any building or structure in the city, or cause the same to be
done, without first obtaining a separate building permit for each such
building or structure from the Building Official.
(b) Application. To obtain a permit the applicant shall first file an ap-
plication therefor in writing on a form furnished for that purpose. Every
such application shall:
l . Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which
application is made;
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done, by lot,
block, tract, and house and street address, or similar description
that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building
or work;
3. Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is
intended;
4. Be accompanied by plans and specifications as required in
subsection (c) of this Section;
5. State the valuation of the proposed work;
6. Be signed by the permittee, or his authorized agent, who may be
required to submit evidence to indicate such authority.
7. Give such other information as reasonably may be required by the
Building Official.
(c) Plans and Specifications. With each application for a building per-
mit, and when required by the Building Official for enforcement of any
provisions of this Code, two sets of plans and specifications shall be sub-
mitted. The Building Official may require plans and specifications to be
prepared and designed by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to
practice as such.
EXCEPTION. When authorized by the Building Official plans and
specifications need not be submitted for the following:
1. One-story buildings of Type V conventional woodstud construction
with an area not exceeding 600 square feet.
2. Group M, Division I Occupancies of Type V conventional woodstud
construction.
3. Small and unimportant work.
(d) Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans and specifications
shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or cloth and shall be of suf-
ficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and
show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this Code and all
relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The first sheet of each
29
0
ATTACHMENT 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
APPEAL OF
ROBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA;
BARBARA VALDIVIA
Case No. 9693
DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF
RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE
DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
I, the undersigned, am authorized as the Custodian of Records in the Department of
Building and Safety ("Custodian of Record") for the County of Riverside, and I hereby certify
and declare as follows:
1. I am an employee of the County of Riverside and have personal knowledge of the
procedures and practices for preparing the records attached hereto. As the Custodian of Records,
I have the authorization to certify records on behalf of the County of Riverside ("County"). I
have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could
and would testify competently to such facts under oath.
2. The County records that are concurrently submitted with this Declaration are true
and correct copies of those records. As custodian, I can testify to the records' identity and method
of preparation. Such records were prepared by and/or at the direction of employees of the County
of Riverside within their scope of duty, concerning or relating to the facts and incidents described
in the records. The source of the information and method for preparation were such as to indicate
DECLARATION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CUSTODIAN OF
RECORDS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 li
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
their trustworthiness.
3. Submitted with this Declaration as Exhibit "A" is a certified, true and correct copy
of Building Permit No. 316946 ("Permit"), the only building permit contained within the
County's file pertaining to the property located at 54-360 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta, California
("Subject Property").
4. Submitted with this Declaration as Exhibit `B" is a certified, true and correct copy
of the "Application to Construct" pertaining to the Subject Property.
5. A diligent and thorough search of the County's files has been carried out under my
direction. This search has revealed that no further documents, permits, records, or other materials
pertaining to the Subject Property, other than those referenced in Exhibits "A" and `B," exist in
the County's files.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct. pp
Executed on the Lb day of October, 2003, at (1) re A , California.
1�,4o,�4
Lyn Tontz
Custodian of Records, County of Riverside
-2-
DECLARATION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CUSTODIAN OF
RECORDS
um HEADQUARTERS
DVARTMENT OF BUILDING A SAFETY ,Aw,o.,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE F �
NO. ELECTRICAL FEES NO, PLUMBING
�PJONSTRlKT10N ESTIMATE — --- -- — —
UNITS
kRa^ FT• I YARD SPKLR SYS`. EMS
,, wvT. ' •, • �. FT. -� 1 BAR SINK
,.: r„ , MOBIIEmOMESvc I ROOFGAAIrt$ i
�' POVAR OUTLET _ --
• S •: so FT --'} ----+ DRAINAGE PIPING -
.' 'Imp, 50. FT. I I DRINKING fOIiNTAiN
rk ' wAU SO. FT. ---�---i— I URINAL - —
`r`vC $Q FT. ® - I WATERPIPING
�SpMAfEDooraTaExT>ON VALWTION $
SWIM POOL PVT
FIOCR DRAIN
` t6 E+a a e. w.d o. orov«N a..arorw� -'- — - '----- WAT
CO;T --
- SWIM POOL. MM �.- .. ..-. � .-- ER SnF'ENER
MKHANICAL FEES — --- ----� - - -- —WASHER (AUTO«r.P•,
r.. /
FA39 EVAP. COOL HOOD
Writ�►tttM / GARBAGE p15Pr7SR;
}' NR4wCE� --- ' -1--- --- - ! l- --- -- —
IAUNDRY !RAt
m�( QumQ WALL QFLOOR CQ SUSPENDED _ --_—.+. - KITCHFN SINS i /
.. CfM IDLE METER !
- -�--
+ . TI sYii !.T U. TEMP USE PERMIT 5VC I _ I WATER CIOSf'
HP POLE. TEMPiPERM IAVATOR�
/ L'� AMPERES SERV ENT-_-
IIEAi1tiGSY3THd FORGED 0 GRAVITY SO FT (p t I I BATH TUB
e.T.u. "�---- {—
y,, ! I WATER HEATER50 FT --
FT RESID ZLZ-� / I-,FwAGE UISPCI$A, t'
SQ F7 GAR w w - ✓ HOUSE SEWER -
_. ("I ^IL'ING
PERMIT FEE j PERMIT FEF _... _ -�•• +PERMIT FEE
C _.
D/L YO! MM f!! N+C RC fEF M_CI'I fEE �`L r-K f F/t_UNST FEC EIEC' ff.•,E ��-. Al�(J
nwlsrtNo.
t T�/p++
1516 4 CDo
v
Cerir.w+en Fw Ol>t t Lpd (3..l.•o>.c•• _ 1 _. +- _ _-- L - _ � —---'r---
«.
B0 Ar •____ Mtr• N. ...- T Nam..-'Mr�r• T .I.. ' Iti•� ' I _. _
P 9M D" 3 I
DwwL Iw 3 Cwr+ L-WO A•—.
RN+Ie M 3 ----
WIrI11w M 3 -- -------------_ . -
R3.0.----
ftw. w a Gr +>acM. A o
hmmwfflfw
T�e8419u -- ► ,/
r.. awe ! j,
TA
r•ia...��. .ri•.�.t•
i�Au,�-;ear
y.� j rrt
•
rr�
FORM Z
•'
,: -•
r
• •
r�iir�rr
�ilTII71 •:I
WA
•
•' .
rr
,
�77,'
SWIM POOL. COMM
•
METER
WIA�DLE
if S • it.
TEMP USE PERMIT SVC
I
rsw�.iti
WATER HEATER
r��r'�1'�'•
�
r:�E�ir
• '
rlB�II
Y �r
Xi
0��1�'/ari_►'
IA• d Ann+
:o•f o..p'ao�
�,�c�-.,C�/i //e NSA•
nN r.c.
L 7`7 // lob/
.. � �. .. •n rn �c 1.•� • . ^ to 'M w.xtrr»n t Cd
IwN
ELECTRICAL APPROVALS
-IF
I n
StIntINAhNf
-
w
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
`
^�. OP��IVERSI�8 �
. �
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
the prmvia1uoa of State of California labor Code Succicn
k'applicint shall have on file or file with the Riverside County
mf*Bui%8log and Safety a certificate as designated in Items I or
or -shall indicate Item III, IV or V, whichever in applicable.
APPLICANTCERTIFICATE OF '
tm
I 3.
appropriate block: �
I.
Certificate of Consent to self -insure issued by the
Director of Industrial Relations.
[--1 Copy on file �—� Copy submitted
I%.
Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance issued by
an admitted insurer.
Copy file [--1 Copy
ru submitted
III.
The cost of the work to be performed is $100 or less.
-
IV.
I certify that in the performance of the work for whid`
this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in
'
any manner so as to become s',bject to the Nurkec�`
'
Compensation laws of California. I further certify that,
in the c:cct I become au6jecc to the Workers' Compensation
provisions of the Labor Code that I will comply forthwith
with the provisions of Labor Code Section 3700, oc seq.,
and understand that, if I do not comply, the permit shall
be deemed revoked.
V. I certify ar the owner (or the agent ~[ the owner) that in
the performance of the work for which this permit is issued
� I have engaged ,
controctnr' (Contractor must have nn rzlc, or submit
�certificate required by l or Il above.)
Applicant's at
Date Permit No. t -4
Address and location where work is to be performed
1 Rev. 8/77
''�r''
- '- - ' °=~r�
vs.
-
NOTICE: -THIS NOT 11A IVIILDINGIFERII, Nill
APPLICATION TO CONSTPUCT
DEPARTMENT OF WILDING AND SAF91 Y
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DISTRICT
Permit No
0
Ass
AyQA__ Addrts&-..K Address-__- . ..... .
City-+ -C-I,iltl
City-_'
Phone— _34L -ja Plume
:(**I,fh . a Vr4VrsWed, hereby certify and acknowledge that Ir (wel have read the at,911,cat,om and agree thd? if Cult) end Cttei,
jr;df0ve Dedication of right of way is required by the &�,, of Rivers -do the Riverside County Drisailmont of fluilding'arM Safety
1 that .., work I% to be ti-mve vrith-n the CC-MtV A 1`W
lot mA*'a Fliruil 11ASOirclion until said reQuir-rem"I have Seem me'- .1m also Aware
,"gl 9, it 11 agreed that I (Wei "It not oCCupy sent ofoperty and will not cause %aid protierly to be acturi,ed until I twei haw
ied. with Ali Z11.1 of the County of Riverside and fl`W State Of C41,10i'mill 90 ""'no "" P'
fsq- SIGNATURE OF OWNER AND/OR
z
D
Approval by Signature from the Following P.,tm.hh Ustod BelowMost
Permit.
Be Obtained Prior to the Issuing of a Construction
ISPACE NO. ,
'922.53 USE OF STIfo C�,T�U'RE
—66RESS:, SINGLE FAMILY OUPLEx
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY L*"O hlmk.-262 APARTMENTS AGRIC.
COMMERCIAL 'INDUSTRIAL
tf�ItiMl'TY ALTERATIONS
SUBMITTED PLANS USE OF PERMIT ---- DWft11iU9-&- Att- - .9,1111r,1119111L. - -j
PARXltild`SPACES REQUIRED No. OF BUILDING/ NOW EXISTING
i641E'_ eal „S.-SETBACKS: FRONT 2 0.' lg�X[F; 5 ------- REAR 21'
PERMIT REQUIRED? YES NO LOT SIZE ___.50JaW
ORDINANCE OF. FEET RECUIRED CN STREET
SIGNATURE OF LAND USE OF."ICIAL
WDICATION REQUIRED: YES I,:- NO C NO OF FEET
CURB AND GUTTER REQUIRED. YES [: NO [7; ir ET i
"CAN CURB AND GUT -TER FEASIBLY BE INSTALLED) YED 'L NO
HAS AN ACCEPTABLE APPLICATION BEEN MADE FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITFOR DRIVEWAY AND STREET
1 .-
)MP.ROVEMENT? Y— ,8 rZ NO Z !,. ___ -17--- -
-7
rJ�+d'}CYC"��T 7—"'. SIGNATURE OF POAD DEPT OFFICIAL,i
r 7 2
—LIC 4_^e�
&AGE DISPOSAL
-A
W 7POLLUTIONREMARKS
4
FLOOD CONTROL
AIR POLLUTION
DIVOFMWY
YOUR PROPERTY I'AAY BE SUBJECT TO
4,
FLOOD. RIVERSIDE COUNTY ASSUMES
NO RESPONSIBILITY IN EVENT OF FLOOD.
C ANAPY - fllE, PINK .— APPLICANT
ATTACHMENT #5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
22'
23
24
25
26
27
28
Peter R- Cabrera (SB Ng: 080911)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER R. CABRERA
82-632 B Highway 111, Suite 3
Indio, CA 92201
Telephone: (760) 863-3840
Facsimile: (760) 863-3842
Attorneys for Defendants, Robert Joseph
Joseph Valdivia and Barbara Valdivia
IkE CE
SEP 2 % P4 2 1
CIYv Of t_.� QUt?'•iA
OFF'CE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE BUILDING DIVISION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
APPEALS OF
ROBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA;
BARBARA VALDIVIA
54-360 Avenida Juarez
La Quinta, CA 92253
Appellants
File number: 9693
NOTICE OF APPEAL
STATEMENT OF APPELLANTS
Come now ROBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA and BARBARA VALDIVIA, appeal the
NOTICE AND ORDER issued against them and their property on September 12, 2003, and declai
as follows:
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
Robert Joseph Valdivia and Barbara Valdivia, are owners of the property commonly
known as 54-360 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta, California 92253, (hereinafter referred to as the
"subject property," which is subject to the NOTICE AND ORDER issued on September 12, 2003
ISSUES ON APPEAL
1. The garage located on the Subject Property was illegally converted into an office,
restroom, laundry room, and storage facility, in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"
-1-
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
§§ 8.01.060, 9.04.040, and 11.27.030(m).
Appellants deny the garage was converted illegally. Said conversion was accomplishe
prior to the incorporation of the City of La Quinta. Appellants are further informed and believe, an
upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was approved by the City of La
Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause.
2. An illegal room addition on the southeast corner of the dwelling on the Subject
Property exists and was constructed without a valid building permit, in violation of LQMC §§
8.01.060 and 11.72.030(m).
Appellants deny the room addition was illegal. Said conversion was accomplished
prior to the incorporation of the City of La Quinta. Appellants are further informed and believe, aj
upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was approved by the City of La
Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause
3. The illegal patio cover in the year yard is being framed for conversion into an illeg
room addition, without a valid building permit, in violation of LQMC § 8.01.060 and California
Health and Safety Code ("H&S") § 17920.3(i).
Appellants deny the patio cover is being framed for conversion. Appellants are
� informed and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was
approved by the City of La Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause
5. Block walls were illegally constructed on the Subject Property, in violation of
! LQMC §§ 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(m); H&S 17920.3(i).
Appellants deny the block walls were illegally built.. Said walls in the front yard we
accomplished prior to the incorporation of the City of La Quinta. Appellants are further informer
and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was approved
the City of La Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause. As to the walls in the rear yard,
Appellants admit they obtained necessary permits from the City of La Quinta, but admit they hav
never requested a final inspection and will do so immediately.
7. Electrical wiring and exterior lighting was unlawfully installed above the garage
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
door on the exterior of the house, in violation of LQMC §§ 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(m); California
Uniform Housing Code ("UHC") §§ 701.2 and 1005.5; H&S 17920(d).
Appellants allege that one of the lighting fixtures was in place at the time of the
construction of the residence. Appellants contend they changed a fixture, and contend that a mere
change of fixture is not an unlawful installation as alleged. However, Appellants admit and will
correct the installation of a second fixture above the garage area.
8. A mechanical air conditioning unit was installed on the Subject Property without a
valid permit, in violation of UHC § 701.2, H&S 17920(f).
Appellants deny that the mechanical air conditioning unit was installed on the Subjec
Property illegally. Appellants anre informed and believe, and upon such information and belief,
allege that H&H Air Conditioning Contractors obtained the necessary permits and installed the ur
in dispute.
9. The Subject Property is also in violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code section
11.72.030.
Appellants deny the property is in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code section
11.72.030, so as to constitute a nuisance
10. The inspection warrant issued in this matter resulting in the observations of
employees of the City of La Quinta was invalid, improperly served and the evidence seized as a
result was illegally obtained.
-3-
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
201
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
For all the foregoing reasons, Appellants appeal the NOTICE AND ORDER filed
against them and their property.
Dated: 09/22/03
Dated: 09/22/03
Dated: 09/22/03
LAW OFFICES OF PETER R. CABRERA
By:
PETER R. CABRERA
Attorneys for Defendants, Robert Joseph
Valdivia and Barbara Valdivia
"6bert
• ►
�z
U6�0t-'--
a
Barbara Valdivia
-4- .
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
County of Riverside )
I have read the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL and know their contents.
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as
to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them
to be true.
I declare under penalty of ped ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXECUTED on l 2 Z U 3
at La Quinta, California.
F)KOBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
County of Riverside )
I have read the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL and know their contents.
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as
to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them
to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXECUTED on Z Z 3 , at La Quinta, California.
r.vvY • MV..r ..M�JM..\rVJ VV\.�M)6,. �J•
ATTACHMENT
Ttle 11 PEACE, MORALS AND SAFETY
Chapter 11.72 PUBLIC NUISANCES*
11.72.030 Public nuisances declared.
The following are declared public nuisances:
A. Buildings or structures which are abandoned, partially destroyed or in a state of partial construction;
B. Buildings or structures that have dry rot or warped materials, are infested with termites, or the paint is
cracked, peeled or blistered, rendering the building unsightly;
C. Exterior walls, fences, driveways or sidewalks in a condition of deterioration or disrepair which are defective
or unsightly;
D. Broken windows, damaged doors or gates which constitute a health or safety hazard or which act as an
invitation to trespassers, vagrants, wild or domestic animals or minor children;
E. Parking or storing construction equipment, machinery or building materials in a residential zone except
during excavation, construction or demolition operations conducted pursuant to a building or grading perrrdt;
F. Land graded without a grading permit which causes or may cause eroding, subsidence or surface water
drainage problems and is injurious or potentially injurious to adjacent properties and the public health, safety
and welfare;
G. Any excavation, pit, well or hole maintained in a manner that is dangerous to life or limb;
H. Any accumulation of dust, sand, gravel, refuse and waste matter or discarded materials including building
and construction materials that endangers public health and safety;
(.Outdoor stairs, porches, hand railings, balconies and swings not maintained in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code adopted by the city;
J. Any swimming pool, spa, pond, foundation or other body of water which is abandoned, unattended, unfiltered
or not otherwise maintained resulting in polluted water;
K. Premises so maintained as to cause the accumulation of polluted or stagnant water from any source which
may cause a hazardous or unhealthy condition, breeding area for insects or erosion of foundation walls or soil;
L. The use of any spray, paint, dye, chalk or similar substance to mark or deface any building, structure,
hillside, rock(s), stormchannel, or any other surface open to public view which is commonly known as graffiti;
M. Violation of any of the zoning or sign ordinances of the city or any of the uniform codes adopted by the city
including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, plumbing code,
electrical code, mechanical code, swimming pool code, fire code, health code and Uniform Housing Code;
N. Maintenance of property so out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent
properties which causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties;
0. Outdoor burning of any material or structure unless sanction by the fire department as a training fire or when
used as a cooking or comfort fire contained in a fireproof container no larger than four feet in diameter;
P. Permitting any abandoned, unattended or discarded icebox, refrigerator, freezer or other similar container
with an airtight door or lid that cannot be readily released from the inside to remain unattended inside or
outside any building or structure;
Q. Stockpiling fill dirt or other material without a grading permit;
R. Maintenance of grounds, landscape, shrubs, plants or vegetation visible from the public right-of-way which
causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties;
S. Landfills containing organic materials except those permitted by the building director or the public works
director of the city;
T. Allowing the following to exist on property:
1. Lumber, junk, refuse and waste matter or abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as
furniture, appliances, and play equipment which is visible from the public right-of-way,
2. Attractive nuisances such as abandoned or broken equipment and machinery, hazardous pools, and
i://194.169.1.2/cityclerk/citycode/_DATA/TITLE1 I/Chapter_11_72_PUBLI... 10/23/2C
ic.uav ruviic nuisances ueciareu.
r-aye c Ui
excavations,
3. Clotheslines located in front yards or side yards of corner lots, clothes hung to dry on walls, fences, trees,
bushes or inside open garages or carports which can be observed from the public right-of-way,
4. Materials stored on rooftops which are visible from the public right-of-way,
5. Trash containers or plastic bags causing offensive odors or a breeding place for flies,
6. Gasoline, oil, grease, water or other materials flowing onto a right-of-way or an accumulation of refuse,
waste, grease and oil on any surface including but not limited to, surfaces such as improved or unimproved
ground, rights -of -way, buildings, structures, walls or fences,
7. Any tree, shrubbery or plant growing onto or over the public right-of-way which impairs pedestrian or
vehicular traffic or prevents drivers from clearly observing safety signs and signals,
B. Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, hedges, weeds, shrubs and overgrown vegetation likely to
harbor rats or vermin or constitute an unsightly appearance or fire hazard;
U. Dumping refuse and waste matter upon the following:
1. Any public or private highway or road,
2. Private property where the public is adrnitted by easement or license,
3. Private property with or without the consent of the property owner, and
4. Any public property not designated for such purpose;
V. Dumping or placing any rocks or dirt upon private property without the consent of the state or local agency
retaining jurisdiction over such highway or property;
W. Repairing, storing, or otherwise working on any motor vehicle or parts thereof not belonging to the person
residing on the premises in any residential area within the city unless:
1. Such activities are completely enclosed and not visible from the public right-of-way, or
2. Such activities constitute emergency repairs, provided that such repairs do not exceed seventy-two hours;
X. Parking a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, in public view when a failure to maintain its exterior causes
such vehicle to constitute an eyesore. Vehicles shall be deemed unsightly when body parts rust or become
corroded, paint becomes faded, chipped, or peeled or the vehicle exterior becomes otherwise dilapidated;
Y. Sanding or painting a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, anywhere in a residential zone;
Z. Failure to obscure vehicles and equipment which are stored in a residential zone out of public view;
AA. Storage of any item in a residential zone in a manner which endangers public health and safety;
BB. Any offensive or unwholesome business or establishment operated in a manner dangerous to the public
health, safety and welfare;
CC. Those offenses declared a nuisance anywhere in the code of the city or the statutes of the state of
California or known at common law as nuisances when the same exist within the jurisdiction of the city. (Ord.
265 § 1, 1995; Ord. 177 § 1, 1990; Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989)
://194.169.1.2/cityclerk/citycode/_DATA/TITLEII/Chapter 11_72 PUBLI... 10/23/2,