Loading...
2003 12 23 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California DECEMBER 23, 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 2003-110 Beginning Minute Motion 2003-021 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of November 25, 2003 and December 9, 2003 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-486, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003- 096, ZONE CHANGE 2003-117, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-069, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31798 Applicant .......... Robert Selan Location ........... Northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street Request ............ Consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) an Amendment to the General Plan from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential; 3) an Amendment to the Zoning Code from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential;4) development plans for 250 condominium units, with a clubhouse building, common pools and lighted tennis courts; and 5) the subdivision of approximately 21 acres into 250 condominium units. Action .............. Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003- , Resolution 2003 Resolution 2003- , Resolution 2003- B. Item ................. CONTINUED - SIGN APPROVAL 2003-734 Applicant .......... Klein Building and Development, Inc. Location ........... 79-215 Corporate Centre Drive and 79-245 Corporate Centre Drive Request ............ Consideration of a planned sign program for two commercial buildings in the La Quinta Corporate Centre on a 1.13 acre site. Action .............. Minute Motion 2003- C. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31732 Applicant .......... Michael La Melza Location ........... Southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60 Request ............ Consideration of a subdivision of 43.8 gross acres into 197 single family lots in the Medium Density Residential Zone. Action .............. Resolution 2003- and Resolution 2003- PC/AGENDA D. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31733 Applicant .......... Michael La Melza Location ........... Northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61 Request ............ Consideration of a subdivision of 37 gross acres into 127 single family lots in the Medium Density Residential Zone. Action .............. Resolution 2003- and Resolution 2003- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of Commercial land uses (Memorandum dated 12/23/03) B. Review of City Council meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on January 13, 2004, 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 November 25, 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 Tyler 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, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Martin Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of October 28, 2003. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as submitted. 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 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 Commercial to Low Density Residential and to subdivide of 47.72 acres into 73 lots for the property located at 46-201 Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone the item was being tabled. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to table the project. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permits 2003-790 and Sign Program 2003-737; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of: 1) development plans for two multi -use retail stores consisting of 10,980 and 11, 040 square fee; and 2) review of a sign program for Parcels 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 plus the remainder building on Parcel 5, for the property located at the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and La Quinta Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign sizes were defined by the Specific Plan or the City's standards. Staff stated by the Specific Plan. Commissioner Tyler questioned Conditions #4 and #5 as being the same. Staff stated they would delete one. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #6 delete Coachella Valley Unified School District; Condition 19.A paragraph 4 refers to Condition #10. Staff stated it should be changed to Condition #15. Commissioner Tyler stated the sign program states a corner shop can have signage on three sides and he does not believe that is possible. Staff clarified the applicant was requesting to have three signs for the corner stores. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated businesses could have a rear entrance which would allow an additional sign. Commissioner Tyler asked that the language be clarified to read to end shops. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the sign program for the multi -tenant buildings would doubled the amount allowed by the Zoning Code. Staff stated at the maximum sign area it could be doubled, but they will still need to meet the amount allowed for the total store lineal frontage. Chairman Kirk asked if the remainder Parcel 5 was next to the approved PetsMart. Staff stated yes. The size of the approved height for the Marshals and PetsMart sign is five feet. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 Chairman Kirk asked if signage was allowed on the end cap buildings. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Chris Clarke, owner, reviewed the approved signs and asked for the deletion of the conditions that have already been completed. Conditions #4 and #5 can be combined; Condition #6 deleting reference to CVUSD; Condition #8 should be changed to reflect they are to pay $6,000 per acre for the developers fee; Condition #11 was approved under Site Development Permit 2002-728 and she does not understand why she is being required to do this if it is already done. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that Condition #10, #12, and #17 are being deleted. The right-of-way condition is standard. As a standard practice staff includes it, but it can be deleted if the Commission so desires. Staff clarified that Condition #8 should be modified to state the fees are based on the Specific Plan or $6,000 per acre. Ms. Clarke asked that condition #16 be deleted as she has finished constructing the improvements. Staff noted that easements are determined after the application is submitted. Staff indicated there may be some drainage issues and staff therefore, does not want the condition deleted. Ms. Clarke stated the requirements were completed under Site Development Permit 2002-728. She then questioned Condition #19. Staff stated that if the applicant has completed the requirements, she will not be required to do it again, but until a review of the site has been completed, staff cannot sign off on these conditions. Ms. Clarke expressed her frustration regarding the conditions as it allows the City the opportunity to require additional conditions on her when she has already completed the work. Chairman Kirk asked if verbiage could be added that if the conditions were approved under Site Development Permit 02-728, it would not be required again. She questioned condition #28. Staff stated again, that if the requirements are completed, they are not going to ask for anything further. Ms. Clarke asked about Condition #31. Discussion followed regarding the conditions. 5. Commissioner Quill asked that the same language be applied to all the conditions that if the condition was met under Site Development Permit 2002-728, it will not be required again. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 There being none, 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. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated he too questions why conditions are added that are not needed. He suggested staff use a disclaimer on conditions of this nature in the future. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-091, recommending approval of Sign Program 2003-737, as amended: a. The Sign Program shall be amended to refer to the building end cap. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-092, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2003-790, as amended. a. Conditions #4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17: Deleted. b. Condition #6: The school district shall be changed to Desert Sands Unified School District C. Condition #16, 28 and #31: A disclaimer shall be added that if the applicant has satisfied the condition under Site Development Permit 2002-728, shall not be required again. d. Condition #19; refers only to the internal circulation. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. C. Site Development Permits 2003-789 and Conditional Use Permit 2003- 082; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of development plans for a 5,909 square foot automotive repair and retail facility located on the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and La Quinta Drive. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the location referred to by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee request regarding the removal of the pedestrian walkway. Staff indicated the location on the site map and stated the applicant has stated it would not be needed. Commissioner Tyler requested Condition #4 be delete any reference to Coachella Valley Unified School District; Condition #9.A.1 and #1 1 be clarified as either a local or collector street; and clarify the language in Condition #26 as he is uncertain what staff is asking. Staff explained that the condition addresses a driveway that is a shared access for the parking. Commissioner Tyler expressed concern on the west elevation door colors. Staff displayed the color board. 3. Commissioner Quill asked if the roof on the front extended across the entire roof line. Staff stated it does not, it is a usable space they intend to use for storage. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Chris Clarke, owner, explained the design of the doors and asked that Condition #6 be modified to note they are to meet the conditions of the Specific Plan; Condition #16 should be limited to the parcel; Condition #25 again should have the disclaimer that if completed under Site Development Permit 2002- 728, it is not required and the same for Condition #29. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the roll up doors could disappear visually. Ms. Clarke stated this was the best way to deal with the roll up doors to make them compatible with the rest of the center. Mr. Gilbert Alcala, architect, clarified the pedestrian access way to be removed is only that portion from the sidewalk to the connecting sidewalk that goes into the building. As to the color of the roll up doors, they will be heavily landscaped to hide the doors. The color is an accent. He went on to describe the building architecture. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked the elevation of the berm on La G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 Quinta Drive. Mr. Alcala stated from the curb to the top of the berm it is 5-feet 6-inches. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being none, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 8. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-093 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2003-082, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-094, recommending approval of 2003-789, as amended. a. Condition #4: Delete any reference to CVUSD. b. Deletion of Conditions #8, 10, and 14. C. Conditions #6, #16, #25, #29: Disclaimer added that if the condition was satisfied under Site Development Permit 2002-728, it will not be required again. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. D. Environmental Assessment 2003-784 and Site Development Permit 2003-792; a request of Whiteco Residential, LLC for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and review of development plans for a 224 market -rate apartment complex for the property located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was transit access. Staff stated the bus stop is south of this site. I Commissioner Abels asked the location of the old Darby Road. Staff indicated its location on the map. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the revised conditions. Staff stated there is a change in regard to moving the entrance further east away from Washington Street. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer gave an explanation of the changes. Discussion followed regarding the circulation pattern. Commissioner Tyler asked if the traffic analysis was done on the basis that Palm Royale Drive would not be extended to the south. Staff stated the School District's study took into account that there would be a signal at Fred Waring Drive and Palm Royale Drive. Staff used these figures as well, in evaluating this project. The cost of the signal will shared between the three developers. Discussion followed regarding the Darby Road. 5. Commissioner Quill asked if anything would happen to Darby Road that goes back to the Bermuda Dunes Country Club. Staff stated that from this project point east, it is not in the City. The County burdened the City with the cost of maintaining the street. Any capital improvements are the responsibility of the County. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant was aware of the additional 500 feet of dedication. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked about the impact to the single family homes to the east in the Environmental Assessment on page 15 La)-c). He questioned there were no homes within a mile of this site. Staff noted there are some nurseries and single family homes in close proximity. Commissioner Tyler noted the elevation plans say there are six different models proposed and yet the packet only shows two. Staff stated the applicant could answer that question. Commissioner Tyler asked that the water efficient landscaping requirement be added to the conditions. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tim Connelly, representing Whiteco, gave an explanation of the project and discussed concerns with certain G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 conditions. In regard to the accessway, it is their estimation the most optimal location is 250 feet from Washington Street. After meeting with staff they revised their plan to meet the General Plan requirements. To move it 500 feet east of Washington Street would create a problem for them. They would have to relocate more residential buildings along Washington Street which would limit their buildings to one story. The issue is created by the School District and their main entry access. They would like to retain the original requirement of the Public Works Department. They would like to conduct a traffic study to validate this determination. In regard to the elevations, they are all varied, but the foundations are the same. Some buildings have garages, and some do not. He questioned Condition #9 in regard to the landscaping setbacks. Staff clarified the setbacks. Mr. Connelley questioned Condition #14 as it needed an ending date. Staff stated this condition could be deleted and any other reference to final map deleted. Mr. Connelly questioned Condition #25 regarding building pad elevations. Staff stated the condition could be deleted. Mr. Connelly questioned having the condition regarding a meandering sidewalk on Palm Royale Drive. They would prefer changing Condition 42.2.e. and allow a straight sidewalk as it would give them more opportunity for landscaping along their frontage. They would also like to ask that the portion of Darby Road that is on their site be vacated. Staff stated they would see that it is removed from the title report. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked about the two previously graded parcels and asked how they would handle these parcels. Mr. Kurt Saxon, Saxon Engineering, explained the grading plan. 9. Commissioner Quill asked the location of the retention basin. Mr. Saxon stated it is spread throughout the entire site. Commissioner Quill asked if all the units have garages. Mr. Connelley stated some residents will have a garage and some units will not. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked if they agreed with the ALRC conditions. Mr. Connelly stated yes, but they did question the change in the stucco treatment requested by the ALRC. Mr. Rick Havenough, Whiteco, described the difference between the two finishes and stated that to them, it is a waste of money. 11. Chairman Kirk asked about the design for the covered parking. Mr. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 Havenough explained the design. Chairman Kirk asked if they considered a three story building. Mr. Connelly stated they have found a resistance from people to live on a third floor. 12. Commissioner Tyler asked why the ALRC wanted the different finish. Staff explained they wanted a more authentic look. 13. Commissioner Quill asked why they would not mix up the colors. Mr. Havenough explained how they would mix the colors on the different elevations. 14. Chairman Kirk asked where the stone was being added to the buildings. Mr. Havenough stated this project would not have stone. 15. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any discussion regarding the access. 16. Commissioner Abels stated he would concur with staff's recommendation. Mr. Connelley stated he takes issue because they have never been required to supply a traffic study. They have always used the School District's study. He believes this is an over compensation for the half hour of traffic. 17. Chairman Kirk asked if they would be in favor of having a continuance and to allow them time to conduct a traffic study. Mr. Connelley stated there are two issues in regard to the entry: 1) a need to accommodate the right turn movement onto Washington Street; 2) the location of the entry as they have it now. They would like to be able to work with the School District to resolve the problem. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated there are two issues. Staff is asking for the 500 foot long extra turn lane and to relocate the driveway out of this area. 18. Commissioner Quill asked if there were two right turn lanes would that not solve the problem. Staff stated that if the cars are stacked back past the right turn lane into this project, the left turn in would be blocked. 19. Commissioner Daniels asked what the original City standards were G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 for this development. Mr. Connelley stated they originally received a requirement for the 250 foot right turn lane. The 500 foot requirement came into being recently. Commissioner Daniels stated he is troubled by requirements that go beyond the normal standards after the fact. It seems studies were not required to ask for the additional requirements. 20. Commissioner Quill stated the burden has been placed on the developer by a problem caused by the School District. If there was no school across the street, the issues would not be the same. During the time before school and after school there is always this problem with the traffic. 21. Chairman Kirk clarified staff's concerns that the stacking that will occur during that half hour of school traffic the residents will not be able to enter through this one entrance, but there is a second entrance. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated some residents will use the second entrance, but some will not. The City has hired a traffic engineer to fix some of the problems that exist in school zones. He has been meeting with the School District and has become aware of the needs at this particular location. As a result of meeting with the School District, his immediate reaction was to move the apartment complex access further to the east. This is why the condition came in so late. The developer is right in that the original conditions did not make this requirement, but due to the information obtained, it has changed. 22. Commissioner Tyler stated the biggest problem around schools is the driving pattern of the parents. In his opinion, having 500 feet to accommodate a half hour traffic problem is too much. Mr. Connelley stated the School District still has not closed on the purchase of the land, so there is the possibility it may not be constructed at this location. They believe this is the best design for this site. 23. Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 24. Commissioner Tyler stated this is a tremendous improvement for this site. There is a problem with the access due to the school traffic, but the 500 foot lane is too much. 25. Commissioner Daniels stated their should be a sense of fair play in G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 regard to the conditions. He would recommend moving forward with the plans as submitted by the developer but encourage the developer to continue to work with staff to resolve the issue. Two turn lanes at 270 feet seems to be adequate and is consistent with the City's General Plan. 26. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with staff's recommendation. He has always been developer friendly, but this is a problem the Commission has to face with and it needs to be resolved. 27. Commissioner Quill agrees this is a nice project, but he would have to agree that if the approval includes the additional 500 feet lanes, he would not be able to support it. He supports two 270 foot lanes. 28. Commissioner Tyler stated the only place where there is a dual right hand lane is Fred Waring Drive and Highway 1 1 1. To require this little street to do the same, is too much. 29. Chairman Kirk stated it is a great project for the location. The architecture is good, but the stone and enhanced paving would add to the project. He has no problem requiring a project to conduct a traffic study to address their issues, but not an adjoining project's issues. He does believe it is too late to require a change to 500 feet. 30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-095, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2003-487, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-096, approving Site Development Permit 2003-792, as amended: a. Conditions #14 and 25: deleted. b. The ALRC recommendation for lace stucco deleted, but G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 keeping the requirement for the roof pitch. C. Condition added requiring stone accents being added to the elevations. d. Deletion of amended Conditions #7.A.2, #1 1, #42, #42.A.2. e. Condition #42.2.e: Delete the requirement for the meandering sidewalk. f. Condition added that the City would vacate Darby Road. g. Condition added: Applicant shall construct two 270 foot long right turn lanes (to their driveway from Washington Street) . h. Condition added: The applicant shall meet the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Chairman Kirk introduced Business Item A at the request of the City's Attorney and the applicant. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. 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 the City's Attorney and the applicant would like the opportunity to work out some issues and request this item be continued to the meeting of January 27, 2004. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to continue Public Nuisance Case 9693 to January 27, 2004. Unanimously approved. 3. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston noted that both parties are present and received notice that this will be the date of the hearing. E. Environmental Assessment 2003-483, General Plan Amendment 2003- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 093, Zone Change 2003-116, Specific Plan 2003-067, and Site Development Permit 2003-787; a request of Coral Option 1 for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; General Plan Amendment Zone Change to 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 Designations, add Golf Course Designation, and eliminate the Major Community Facility Designation; development principles and design guidelines for two 18-hole golf courses, associated facilities and 1,400 residential units; development plans for two 18-hole golf courses, associated facilities and 1,400 residential units for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe 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. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about the requirement for an additional fire station. Staff stated that for every 4,000 homes a fire station is needed. Trilogy currently has 1,203 homes but, whenever it is built out a fire station will be needed and it would be addressed at that time. Planning Manager Oscar Orci clarified that staff was requesting the applicant obtain proof from the Fire Department that a fire station will not be required. To date staff has not been able to get a reply by the Fire Department and therefore, the burden lies on the applicant to obtain such a statement. We have indicated to the applicant that we would like to have the land available for a fire station there, but have left it up to the discretion of the Fire Department. 3. Commissioner Daniels stated it appears the City will be losing 122 acres of Medium Density zoning. Staff stated yes, but it is being replaced with a similar single family homes land use designation. Commissioner Daniels asked if we were losing our housing mix. Staff stated no, there is a mix of single family as well as duplexes contained in this project. Commissioner Daniels asked if Madison Street is an Arterial and whether or not it would go through to Highway 1 1 1. Staff stated it would go to Avenue 50, to the City of Indio. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 4. Commissioner Tyler stated the conditions should be changed to reflect that this project is within the Coachella Valley Unified School District. He then stated that on page 75 and 76 of the staff report it is not clear what the applicant would have to do if a General Plan Amendment was not approved. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer clarified that bike lanes were not included in the condition and need to be accommodated. The condition needs to be rewritten to have a 96 foot right of way for an Arterial. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition 46.A.1 be rewritten for clarity. Also, the Water Efficient Landscaping requirement should be added. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Patrick O'Dowd, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He introduced Forrest Haag, Dwight DeMay, Lloyd Watson, and Kelly Abeyratne who were part of the project team. Mr. Forrest Haag gave a presentation on the Specific Plan. Mr. DeMay gave a presentation on the master plan. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Quill asked if there was a 60-inch water line through the middle of this property. Mr. Haag stated yes, but it was being relocated. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked why the properties on Avenue 58th were not acquired as part of this project. Mr. Haag stated they are smaller lots that they were unable to obtain. Commissioner Tyler asked the disposition of the palm trees. Mr. Haag stated the palm trees are no longer agriculturally producing, and have become a problem to the developer as they can be a hazard. Palms will be used in the perimeter landscaping, if they can be saved. 8. Commissioner Daniels stated two five acre parcels of commercial land seem unreasonable. Mr. Haag stated the bigger pieces are harder for one developer to develop. The Code requires ten acres of Commercial so they split it into two adjacent pieces that partner developers could develop. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if he had an example of a five acre commercial project that works. Mr. Haag stated a ranch/market G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 with a dry cleaner would be a good use. The mix similar to that on the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street would work. 10. Commissioner Tyler asked if the requirement for a bike lane was a problem. Mr. Haag stated they have no issue with the requirement. They will continue to work with staff to reflect them on their map. 11. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Joe Hammer, 74-757 North Cove Drive, Indian Wells, stated his family owns the property on the northeast corner of where this project is proposed. In addition, he and his wife own the 40 acres directly to the east of this property. Under the City's General Plan his property would be zoned commercial and residential. He supported this project, but would like to know what they intend to do on the east side and what street improvements are proposed for Monroe Street. Also, he questions why they are moving and proposing two small areas of commercial. 12. Mr. O'Dowd stated the property to the east will be developed medium density, but currently, there are no plans. The street will be developed at the 110 foot width as required by the City. The purpose of the commercial is to provide some services for their residents. 13. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-097, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2003-483, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-098, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-099, recommending approval of Zone Change 2003-1 16, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-100 recommending approval of Specific Plan 2003-787, as recommended and amended: a. Condition #3: change to CVUSD b. Condition added: The applicant shall meet the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-101 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2003-787, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. F. Development Agreement 2003-006 a request of Center Point Development, LLC and the Redevelopment Agency for consideration of a proposal to change the developer entity to CP Development La Quinta, LLC, for the property located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 2. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated there is a dispute in regard to the ownership entities status of present party to the Development Agreement. He is asking that a condition be added requiring the City receive a receipt of an operating agreement identifying the party who is responsible to negotiate with the City. The applicant has agreed to the condition. 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard Oliphant asked that the Commission approve the proposed changes to the Development Agreement. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being none, 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. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-102, recommending approval of Development Agreement 2003-006, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. G. Environmental Assessment 2003-485, General Plan Amendment 2003- 095, Zoning Code Amendment 2003-078; a request of the City for consideration of certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, an Amendment to Chapter 2 of the General Plan to allow High Density Residential uses in the Commercial Park District, and 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. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked why this should not be tabled with the application that initiated the change. Community Development G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 Director Jerry Herman stated that if the applicant were to submit his applications now, it would be a mute issue as the General Plan would not currently allow the requested change. Staff is therefore taking the General Plan Amendment forward as it will not only assist this project when it is submitted, but other areas of the City as well. 3. 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. 4. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether this was good planning practices. 5. Commissioner Quill stated he disagreed and thought it was a good opportunity to have mixed uses. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-103, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-485, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-104, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-095, as recommended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-105, recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2003-078, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 H. Zoning Code Amendment 2003-079; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to the Municipal Code Sections: 9.160.020, Table 9-17-7 Exempt Signs, relating to Christmas Lights; 9.40.040, Table 9-1 Other Uses, adding churches as conditionally permitted in residentially zoned area; 9.60.100.D.1 Guesthouses, to include detached guesthouses in the Minor Use Permit process, and 13.12.160.13 of the Tentative Subdivision Maps, to allow tentative tract map time extensions to be granted by the Community Development Director when there is no change. 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 Daniels asked if the issue of Christmas lights was enforceable. Staff stated that was why it was being presented. 3. Commissioner Tyler stated Section 9.160.020 does not state when the lights can put it up. It should give a date of when to begin and end. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated that in light of Code Enforcement issues it would be best to have a date to begin and end. Staff recommended 45 days prior to and 21 days after. 4. 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. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether this was good planning practices. 6. Commissioner Quill differed in that he thought it was a good opportunity to have mixed uses. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-106, recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2003-079, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: X. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Staff informed the Commission that there was a need to hold a Commission on December 23, 2003 and staff was asking whether or not Commissioners would be present. Following discussion, it was determined the meeting would be held. B. Commissioner Daniels asked for a report on how much commercial acreage had been lost this year. C. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the Council meeting of November 18, 2003. XI. 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 December 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-25-03WD.doc 8 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 9, 2003 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Quill to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to excuse Commissioner Daniels. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2003-486, General Plan Amendment 2003- 096, Zone Change 2003-117, Specific Plan 2003-069, and Tentative Tract Map 31798; a request of Robert Selan 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 Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential and the subdivision of approximately 21 acres into 250 condominium units for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-9-03WD.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2003 1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone the item was being continued. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue the project to December 23, 2003. Unanimously approved. B. Sign Application 2003-734; a request of Neil Kleine for consideration of a planned sign program for two commercial buildings in the La Quinta Corporate Centre on a 1.13 acre site for the properties located at 79-215 and 79-245 Corporate Centre Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone the item was being continued. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to continue the project to December 23, 2003. Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permits 2003-727, Amendment #1; a request of PM Renaissance, LLC for consideration of architectural plans for three additional prototype residential units for construction in Tract 29053, located on the north side of Avenue 50, west of Jefferson Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if it was necessary to require compliance with the new Water Efficient Ordinance. Staff stated they would have to comply, but staff would add it to the conditions. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Geoff McComic stated he was available to answer any questions. 4. Commissioner Quill asked why the rock element was not on all the elevations. Mr. McComic stated it would be made available on all the all three elevations. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if these would replace the existing floor plans. Mr. McComic stated yes. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-9-03WD.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2003 6. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-107 approving Site Development Permit 2002- 727, as recommended: a. Condition added: Compliance with the Water Efficient Ordinance. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. D. Sign Application 2003-735; a request of Kleine Building and Development, Inc., for consideration of a sign program for a commercial building with 63,550 square feet of floor area for the property located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 331 feet west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked why the maximum sign height for panel signs was 48 inches and how did staff come to that figure. Staff stated it was based on what the applicant requested. Staff was recommending only two lines of copy be allowed. 3. Chairman Kirk stated if the sign height was 48 inches, the length would be ten feet. Staff clarified if they had 50 feet of frontage they would have a 50 square foot sign. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked if any of these tenants had the ability to have signs on three sides. Staff stated there are, but it was restricted to two sides as defined by the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if three square feet of vinyl was appropriate. Staff stated they were signs along the arcade for the window signs. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-9-03WD.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2003 5. Chairman Kirk asked what, if anything, in the sign program deviated from the Zoning Code. Staff stated the vinyl signs at eight square feet are larger than what is allowed by Code. 6. There being no applicant present and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked what the Code allowed in regard to window signs. Staff stated it is an under canopy sign and it allows three square feet. Commissioner Tyler stated an under canopy refers to hanging signs. Staff stated they have been allowed previously. Commissioner Tyler stated he was also concerned with the size of the monument sign, especially the one with one tenant name. He would propose the monument sign on Highway 1 1 1 be reduced. 8. Chairman Kirk stated he agreed, but asked how it compared to other signs on Highway 1 1 1. Discussion followed regarding sign heights along Highway 1 1 1. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-020 approving Sign Application 2003-735, as amended: a. Condition added: Panel sign copy shall be reduced to 40 inches. b. Condition added: Window signs shall not exceed three square feet. Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2003-791; a request of McDermott Enterprises for consideration of architectural plans for an 1 1,300 square foot two- story office building in the La Quinta Professional Plaza located on Parcels 8, 9, and 10 of Tentative Parcel Map 29889 on the west side of Caleo Bay, approximately 300 feet south of Avenue 47. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-9-03WD.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2003 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked that a condition be added requiring compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if this project would comply with that Ordinance. Staff stated they would have to comply. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Colin McDermott, applicant, stated they would comply with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being none, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. 6. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-107, approving Site Development Permit 2003- 791, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: compliance with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2 Redevelopment Plan Amendment; a request of the City's Redevelopment Agency for consideration of a Text Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-9-03WD.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2003 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked once the City has meet its housing quota, do we have to build any more houses Staff stated any time the private sector builds a unit, the City must meet their portion and therefore the number could never be reached until the City is built out. 3. There being no further discussion, It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-108 making findings for recommending the proposed 2003 Amendment to Redevelopment Project No. 2 to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Quill, and Tyler, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: X. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of Commercial land uses. Continued to the next meeting. B. Discussion regarding the 2004 League of California Cities Planners Institute. Commissioners would notify staff if they were attending. C. Commissioner Abels gave a report on the Council meeting of December 2, 2003. XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-9-03WD.doc 6 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2003 CASE NO'S: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-486 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-096 ZONE CHANGE 2003-117 SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-069 TENTATIVE TRACT 31798 REQUEST: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2003- 486), 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-096, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ON ±21 ACRES, 3. ZONE CHANGE 2003-1 17, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LA QUINTA ZONING MAP, FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY (RMH), ON ±21 ACRES, 4. SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-069, APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR 250 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, WITH CLUBHOUSE BUILDING, COMMON POOLS AND LIGHTED TENNIS COURTS, ON ±21 ACRES, AND; 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31798, A DIVISION OF ±21 ACRES INTO 250 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PARCEL AND ONE CLUBHOUSE PARCEL. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT SELAN / WARNER C. LUSARDI, TRUSTEE ENGINEER: FOMOTOR ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-486, FOR THE REFERENCED CASES. BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND, ACCORDINGLY, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED, AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION GENERAL PLAN: (EXISTING) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) ZONING: (EXISTING) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) GENERAL PLAN: (PROPOSED) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), UP TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE ZONING: (PROPOSED) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) BACKGROUND: Site Background The project site was originally approved for commercial development as part of Specific Plan 90-016 (The Grove), a 327-acre specific plan that included 1,208 units and one championship golf course. The Grove was approved by the City Council on December 3, 1991. Subsequently, the property was sold to Toll Brothers, who revised the original approval to 550 units, renamed it Mountain View Country Club, and eliminated the subject 21-acre commercial site from their new specific plan in favor of a relocated 14-acre commercial site, on the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Mountain View Country Club was approved by City Council on February 5, 2002. Currently, the site is vacant, but has historical signs of agricultural use as a date grove. The property is completely covered with date palm stands, and has no structures located within it. Tamarisk rows border the west and north property lines, beyond which lie the boundaries of the Citrus Course Country Club. Project Request The applicant proposes to subdivide ± 21 acres into a common -interest subdivision of 250 residential condominiums (Attachment 2), which will include various on -site amenities. To accomplish this, a Specific Plan (SP), General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) have also been filed, requesting the site be re -designated from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential (Up to 12 units/acre). General Plan Amendment 2003-096 The proposed GPA involves ±21 acres, surrounded by the Citrus Course Country Club is developing to the north, Mountain View Country Club to the east, and The Hideaway to the southeast. To the south and southwest lies the City -owned SilverRock Ranch property. The applicant has applied to re -designate the property to Medium High Density Residential (Up to 12 units/acre) to build a gated condominium project. Zone Change 2003-117 This application proposes to affix the Medium High Density Residential (RMH) zoning district on the project area, in -lieu of the current Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Specific Plan 2003-096 The proposed Specific Plan establishes general design guidelines, land uses and development standards, for a gated development that combines residential and recreational uses within the 21-acre site. The following uses and amenities are proposed: • 250 condominium units in 32 buildings • 13,700 square foot recreation room/restaurant • 2,700 square -foot homeowner's office • 1,500 square -foot maintenance building • 9 common area pools • 2 lighted tennis courts The residential portion consists of an undivided common -interest subdivision of 250 condominium dwelling units in 31 eight-plex, two-story buildings, and one duplex single -story building. Each two-story building footprint is about 5,700 square feet, and each will incorporate its own subterranean parking. There will be one central community pool, and eight smaller satellite pools spread throughout. A two—story combination recreation room/restaurant with covered parking will be sited in the southeast corner of Watermark Villas, adjacent to the roundabout at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The recreational space will be located on the 8,000 square foot first floor, and the restaurant will occupy the 5,700 square foot second floor. Building height is shown in the document to be at 22 feet. Additional facilities include a small building for a 2,700 square -foot homeowner association office, with limited sundries for the convenience of the residents, and a nine -stall parking area. There will be two lighted -play tennis courts, and a 1,500 square -foot maintenance structure, in the northeastern portion of the project along Jefferson Street. Presently, no architectural elevations or concepts are provided in the specific plan for these proposed uses. Tentative Tract Map 31798 The tract application is to subdivide ± 21 acres into a common -interest subdivision of 250 residential condominiums. The overall density of the project is 11.9 units per acre. There are two access points; one main access from Avenue 52, and a secondary "auxiliary" access onto Jefferson Street, which will be limited to right - turn movements. The main entry road off Avenue 52 is designed with an offset 12- foot wide median, a 20-foot southbound travel lane and 28-foot northbound travel lane. Guard -gated access is shown via two 13-foot wide gated entry lanes divided by a two -foot separation, a 12-foot wide center island and a 20-foot wide gated exit lane. The entry road leads to a 28-foot wide collector road, which services the cul-de-sac and entry drives to the unit buildings. A golf tunnel access is proposed, leading from the north side of Avenue 52, south into the SilverRock Ranch property. Public Notice This proposal was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 2, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a public hearing notice copy. To date, one written comment has been received beyond those from public agencies. A letter from the Citrus Course Homeowner Association (Attachment 3) indicates their support for the project, provided various items in their letter are required of the developer. All comments received prior to the meeting will be presented to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review Staff mailed a copy of the applicant's request to responsible public agencies on November 5, 2003. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case, to the extent they are applicable. ANALYSIS Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Ordinance, the following analysis of the project is provided: General Plan Consistency 1. The General Plan designates the project site as Neighborhood Commercial. GPA 2003-096 proposes a re -designation of the site to Medium High Density Residential (Up to 12 units per acre), to allow a 250-unit residential condominium project, with an overall density of 11.9 units/acre. This is consistent with the Land Use Element in terms of development type and density for the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) category . Land Use Issues 2. The project site was originally part of Specific Plan 90-016 (The Grove), approved in 1991 for 1,208 residential units, a championship golf course, and the 21 commercial acres which constitute the subject property. The site is surrounded primarily by low -density residential country club development, and is located at the intersection of two arterial streets. While the site itself is suited to commercial as a viable use, a re -designation to MHDR would provide a more compatible land use type in terms of land use intensity. 3. Development pressures have extended into the southeasterly areas of the City over the past few years. In general, development of these areas has occurred at lower densities than those actually approved for various projects, or permitted under the land use element. The table below illustrates a few City -approved projects that demonstrate this. PROJECT /../ APPROVED/POTENTIAL UNITS /.., ACTUAL PGA West 5,000 2,600 The Grove (Now Toll Bros.) 1,208 550 PGA Weisko f 880 210 Norman Course 1,060 220 Hideaway 2,900 840 TOTAL 11,048 4,420 While these projects provide a specific buyer segment several alternatives in terms of a specific product, they do not provide the overall housing market with alternative housing types. Currently, the only MHDR land use is in the Coral Mountain/Trilogy and Travertine project areas. The General Plan and Housing Elements contain policies intended to promote alternative types of housing, at varying cost levels, for all segments of the housing market. The proposed project concept serves to meet this objective through the provision of a higher -density product in a private condominium community, which will offer a different product into the general housing market. 4. The project is located at the intersection of a Primary (Jefferson Street) and Secondary (Avenue 52) Image Corridor. The intent of the Image Corridor concept predicates that development along these corridors be designed to convey low -density character and high aesthetic quality. In addition, Policy 3 of the General Plan requires development of lands previously in agricultural use to incorporate elements of that past use. The project design demonstrates consistency with this General Plan Policy, as detailed below. Specific Plan 5. The Watermark Villas Specific Plan sets forth general guidelines for development of the proposed uses therein. Generally, these guidelines are tailored to the project as a whole and not to the individual uses. Therefore, Site Development Permit (SDP) approval will be required for architectural, landscape and site plan components of the residential and ancillary uses proposed. Due to surrounding development and the site's location along two main arterial roadways that are General Plan -designated Image Corridors, building heights are required to be limited to address noise, minimize appearance of building mass, and to ensure that view sheds and privacy are not excessively restricted. It is recommended that findings of the acoustic analysis prepared for this project be incorporated into the conditions of approval. 6. The site is an agriculturally dormant date palm grove, which historically was in production. The proposed project design proposes to maintain a number of the date palm trees within the overall landscaping concept (Attachment 3), which will preserve a portion of this traditional agricultural feature on site. The date palm trees can successfully continue production in the urban environment, and should be maintained as producing trees once integrated into the site. Both its size and its location compromise the value of the site as agricultural land, as the surrounding area is entirely urban in nature. 7. An overall preliminary landscaping plan is recommended to be required for all common area landscaping and parkways, prepared to the requirements of the recently adopted Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, to include a preliminary estimate of water use for the entire site. This plan should be reviewed and accepted by the ALRC prior to final construction plans being accepted for sign -off. 8. Staff recommends restricting building height for the two-story residential buildings to a maximum of 26 feet. This is to limit barriers to views from surrounding Citrus Course properties, and to minimize noise impacts from Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Tennis court lighting plans will require review prior to installation, along with landscape lighting designs for perimeter parkways and any date palm tree uplights. 9. The applicant has had extensive interaction with Citrus Course residents and their Homeowner's Association in regard to the overall project design. Based on their discussions, the Citrus Course HOA has submitted a letter of items that they state the developer has agreed to. Their stated position is, that with the inclusion of those items in the project approval, they will support the project. Staff has reviewed these provisions and feels that those which the City has the authority to impose can be, and have been, incorporated into the project conditions. 10. Golf Cart Tunnel — The proposed golf cart tunnel underneath Avenue 52 has been excluded from approval in the conditions provided by Public Works. At present, the precise improvement plans for SilverRock Ranch are undetermined. There may be conflicts or impediments to development of the City's project that may cause complications if this improvement is integrated into the project at this time. It will need to be reviewed by the Council and RDA to determine how this improvement might impact the SilverRock Ranch project. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: General Plan Consistency The proposed General Plan Amendment is required for the project to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. A recommendation of denial would require that the subordinate applications be denied as well, as they would not be consistent with the Land Use Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Tract Design/Imorovements The design of the private interior streets and the proposed condominium layout is consistent with standards of the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance. Street and other infrastructure improvements will be installed to service the proposed subdivision. Impacts associated with development of the project shall be mitigated through adherence to the recommended conditions. Health and Safety Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be required during development of TT 31798. These include water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. The Environmental Assessment also has determined that the health, safety and welfare issues of current and future residents can be assured based on the conditions of approval and mitigation measures to be incorporated. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-486, subject to findings, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-096, 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- recommending approval of Zone Change 2003-117, 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending approval of Specific Plan 2003-069, subject to conditions, and; 5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- recommending approval of Tentative Tract 31798, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. TT31 798 layout 3. Letter from Citrus Course Homeowner's Association 4. Proposed landscape concept Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-486, FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-096, ZONE CHANGE 2003-117, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-069 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31798 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-486 ROBERT SELAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of December, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on the Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 2003-096, Zone Change 2003-117, Specific Plan 2003- 069 and Tentative Tract Map 31798 (hereinafter "Project"), a request by Robert Selan to develop a gated 250-unit common undivided interest subdivision, with clubhouse/restaurant and ancillary uses on a ±21 acre site, located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows: LOT 47 of TR 24889, BOOK 210 PAGES 38 THROUGH 52, RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2000-486) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1 . The proposed Project applications will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City J Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Environmental Assessment 2003-486 - Robert Selan December 23, 2003 standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The Project will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause 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. 2. 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. 3. The proposed Project applications will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects or environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment which can not be mitigated. 4. The proposed Project applications will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed Project. 5. The proposed Project applications will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. 7. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003- 486 and determined that it reflects the independent judgement of the City. 8. 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). 9. The location and custodian of the City's records related to this Project is the Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La 2 resoeapc486.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Environmental Assessment 2003-486 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 Quinta, California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That is does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-486 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23`d day of December 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 3 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California resoeapc486.doc 2. 4. A 0 Environmental Assessment 2003-486 Environmental Checklist Form Project title: General Plan Amendment 2003-096, Zone Change 2003-117, Specific Plan 2003-069, Tentative Tract Map 31798, Watermark Villas Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit 760-777-7125 Project location: Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. APN: 772-220-007 Project sponsor's name and address Robert Selan 23-679 Calabasas Road, #386 Calabasas, CA 91302 General plan designation: Current - Neighborhood Commercial Proposed - Medium High Density Residential Zoning: Current - Neighborhood Commercial Proposed - Medium High Density Residential Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed project site consists of 21 acres located at the northwest comer of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The site is in agricultural use, but commercially dormant. The proposed project would result in the construction of up to 250 condominium units, 9 swimming pools, 2 lighted tennis courts, a clubhouse/restaurant, an office with sundry store, and ancillary facilities. The project proposes 31 two story, eight unit buildings and one single story two unit building, all with underground parking. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required to change the land use designation from its current Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential, to allow the residential land use. The Specific Plan has been prepared to establish design standards and guidelines for the project. The Specific Plan does not, however, include floor plans or elevations, and no Site Development Permit application has been submitted. The Tentative Tract Map is required to allow conveyance of the condominiums. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Single family residential, golf course - Citrus Course Country Club South: Avenue 52, Vacant, Golf Course (Silver Rock Ranch) West: Single family residential, golf course - Mountain View Country Club East: Vacant Neighborhood Commercial 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic 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 X 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 fmd 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. Name / Signature / Title 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 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 that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects m 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 -3- 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 project occurs on both Primary (Jefferson Street) and Secondary (Avenue 52) Image Corridors. As such, landscaped parkways will be required to conform to the requirements for Image Corridors in the General Plan. The project proposes to maintain a number of the date palm trees as part of the project landscaping. This landscaping feature will improve the aesthetic of the site both for residents and for those traveling on both Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Impacts associated with scenic vistas and aesthetics are expected to be less than significant. I. d) The proposed project site is currently vacant. The project will generate light from landscaping lighting as well as from lighting of the proposed tennis courts on the eastern boundary of the project. All lighting is required to be contained on -site, including the lighting for the tennis courts, which will have to be shielded to ensure that they illuminate only the courts themselves. No stadium type lighting will be allowed. The standards imposed by the City for project lighting will therefore lower impacts to less than significant levels. -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 f.) 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 site is, and has been, a date palm grove. The proposed project design proposes to maintain a number of the date palm trees within the landscaping, which will preserve this traditional agricultural feature on site. The date palm trees can successfully continue production in the urban environment, and should be maintained as producing trees once integrated into the site. The site's size, 21 acres, limits its potential for long term agricultural potential, especially since the location is entirely urban in nature. The site's value as agricultural land, therefore, is considerably limited by both its size and location. Its loss in agricultural production will be a less than significant impact on agricultural resources in the area. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA I landbook) 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a, b & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will result in up to 250 residential dwelling units, which could generate up to 1,465 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions are expected to be generated from the project site. "Trip Generation, 6"' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Residential Condominium category. -6- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds Der dav) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 1,465 x 15 = 21,975 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 1,977.75 51,421.50 10,548.00 - 219.75 219.75 Pounds at 50 mph 4.37 113.51 23.28 - 0.49 0.49 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1,465 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75`F, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality 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 554.4 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. 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. -7- Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower hydroseed mix on the affected portion of the site. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street shall be installed immediately following mass grading of the site. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour 11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. 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? ("Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC, October 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? ("Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC, October 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? ("Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC, October 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? ("Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC, October 2003) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC, October 2003) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X 1n adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ("Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC, October 2003) IV. a-f) A biological resource survey was prepared for the project site 2. The survey found that the agricultural activity had significantly impacted the site's potential for indigenous species, and that the likelihood that sensitive species, including the Burrowing Owl, occurred on the site was extremely low. The survey included both site inspections and record searches. In the site inspections, no Burrowing Owl was observed on the site. Although the species can often be found in agricultural lands, date palm groves, which do not provide clear views of the species predators, are not suitable for their use. The survey further did not identify species under consideration in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan on the site. Given its use as agricultural land, and its relatively isolated location, with development on two sides and roadways on two sides, the site's value for indigenous species is limited. Impacts of development of the project site on biological resources are expected to be less than significant. 2 "Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," prepared by MEC Earth and Environmental, October 2003. -10- I 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 ' 15064.5? ("llistorical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM 'Tech, October 2003) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("I listorical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM Tech, October 2003) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment," CRM Tech, October 2003) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, October 2003) V. a, b & d) A cultural resource survey was completed for the project site 3. The records search identified several sites in the area of the proposed project, but none immediately adjacent; while the historic record shows structures on the property dating back 60+ years which are no longer in existence. The field survey identified neither historic nor archaeological resources on the site. Since cultural resources can remain buried, including on agriculturally active sites, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to assure that any buried artifact is adequately mitigated. 1. Should any historic or archaeological artifact be uncovered during any earth moving activity on the site, all work shall cease, and an archaeological monitor shall be retained to evaluate the material. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth -moving activities. The archaeologist shall file a report with the Community Development Department immediately following completion of earth moving activities, on the findings at the site. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. V. c) A paleontologic survey was conducted for the project site 4. The study included both records searches and field surveys. The field surveys found remains of freshwater snails 3 " I listorical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2003. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2003. -11- and mollusks, which are considered evidence of Halocene Lake Cahuilla lakebed. The study further found that excavation at the site could result in the identification of additional materials, and that impacts could be significant without mitigation. The following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented: 1. A paleontologic monitor shall be on site during earth moving activities on any portion of the site where undisturbed Lake Cahuilla lakebeds occur. The monitor shall quickly salvage any uncovered fossils and avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth -moving activities. All specimens shall be professionally collected, cleaned and curated. The monitor shall file a report with the Community Development Department immediately following completion of earth moving activities, on the findings at the site. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to paleontologic resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. -12- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ("Geotechnical Engineering Report," Earth Systems Southwest, October 2003) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X ("Geotechnical Engineering Report," Elarth Systems Southwest, October 2003) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical ingineerng Report," Earth Systems Southwest, October 2003) iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Engineering X Report," Barth Systems Southwest, October 2003) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the X loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical Engineering Report," Earth Systems Southwest, October 2003) 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 ("Geotechnical Engineering Report," Earth Systems Southwest, October 2003) e) 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) -13- VI. a-e) A geotechnical study was prepared for the proposed project'. The analysis found that the site is located in a seismic Zone 4, and that like other parts of the City, a significant earthquake in the region will result in significant groundshaking at the project site. The study also found that the soils at the site are suitable for both the above -ground and underground facilities planned for the site. The City Engineer will require site specific analysis of the soil conditions on the site with the submittal of grading and building permits. These analyses will provide the City with the data to ensure that the structures are constructed to a sufficient standard to withstand significant ground shaking. The study also determined that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction, landslides or expansive soils. Although the site is subject to high winds, the applicant will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan (see Air Quality, above), which will ensure that impacts associated with wind erosion are reduced to less than significant levels. "Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed 21 Acre Development... " prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, October, 2003 -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project. a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (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 I lazardous 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 physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan ME A p. 95 f ) h) Expose people or structures to a X -15- 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 through its waste provider. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project itself, are less than significant. SM y Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Specific Plan) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that 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 Assessment Exhibit 6.6) -17- g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental !Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The proposed project will generate a need for water for residential units and landscaping. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan, which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures, which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will 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 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. I". 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 Specific Plan and Tract Map will result in the construction of residential units consistent with surrounding development in the area. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will increase the amount of Medium High Density Residential land available in the City. The site is located at an intersection where three of the four corners are now designated for neighborhood commercial development, and the use of this site as neighborhood commercial is therefore less likely. The proposed project will not conflict with General Plan designations or policies, and is expected to represent an extension of the existing development in the area. so 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 f.) 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. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (("Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 2003) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 2003) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 2003) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 2003) 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) A noise impact study was conducted for the proposed project6. The study found that unmitigated noise levels at the subject property can be expected to exceed the City's standards for both exterior and interior noise levels, due to the high volume of traffic 6 " /LPN 772-220-007 Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 2003. -21- s expected on both Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. These noise levels, however, can be mitigated through physical improvements to the site, as follows: 1. A minimum 5-foot high wall shall be constructed along the entire frontage of the property on Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The wall shall be of solid construction, with no openings or cutouts. 2. All buildings along Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 shall be provided with a "windows closed" condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation. 3. Homes on Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 shall be provided with weather-stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assemblies which are free of cut outs and openings. The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours. Sensitive receptors occur immediately west and north of the project site. They could be subjected to higher noise levels during construction operations. In order to assure that impacts to the occupied dwelling units 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. -22- 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 project site is currently in agriculture, and there will be no displacement or need for additional housing as a result of the proposed project. The project will provide additional Medium High Density Residential Development in the City, and broaden the variety of housing available for current and future residents. Impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be less than significant. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan M'A, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan WA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan WA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. X 46 tT.) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The County Sheriff and Fire Departments will serve the proposed project, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax, which will assist in offsetting 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. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a & b) The proposed project includes on site recreational amenities, including swimming pools, tennis courts and landscaped open space areas, which will provide recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City facilities. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that 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 Report...," Paul Singer, PE, September, 2003) 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 Report...," Paul Singer, PE, September, 2003) 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)? ("Traffic Impact Report...," Paul Singer, PE, September, 2003) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X ("Traffic Impact Report...," Paul Singer, PE, September, 2003) 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 impact report was prepared for the proposed project'. The traffic impact report found that the daily trips associated with the proposed project will not significantly impact "Traffic Impact Report for Watermark Villas at SilverRock Ranch," prepared by Paul Singer, P.E., September 2003. -26- the circulation at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Further, the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, from a commercial to a residential land use, will provide an overall reduction in trips at this intersection, since a commercial project at this location would result in considerably higher traffic volumes, particularly during the peak hour. The traffic study also found that access from the project site on Avenue 52 should be right in-right-out/left-in only, and that on Jefferson should be right -in -right -out only. No other mitigation measures are necessary. -27- 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 M ,,A, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect -28- connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. No significant impacts are expected as a result of the construction of the proposed project. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has been identified as having a potential for paleontologic resources. However, mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. The proposed project varies from the standard subdivision often proposed in the City, and will broaden the City's housing stock. XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will reduce cumulative traffic impacts by changing the land use from commercial to residential. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality -30- and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, 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. Noise impacts have been mitigated above to less than significant levels. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -31- N a� a� Cd r. O ti 0 a� E O CD O � O rA o z o N N a N ® ►-r U � � A ao® a i �CN o ' 0 N ' M � O � O j O N > M � oa N V pp 4, CN M � Cd o N U edO �, ed _ CD >00Ln 0 o Q C7UF-�NP4 oz o z� A U W d t F d A U pq �A a� U W o� ^d 0 0 ° ° o 0 i� a � c� • U � p � � � � O• by � ur O O p o V O O 0 to 0 a O a a s O a O Q, a on A A A A a rA� G7 Q, z� Cd Cd CIS z ¢ O o0 o to i0 � �' ri O � Cd ''' pA `� O �� • �! N o o ° w a, °�' , >,P�� a b� �.� a N VV+ ti s y00 O bA N ¢ O v� A , ;° I Cd � 0 : > w * A b� \o a u w E� � 2.0§ 7•0§ u aA AA .7 � ./ / / t b % % q § \ § q� q� ƒ> ƒ� c q o g k \ k EU \ \ w& 2 0 q Cj /A u ©ƒ q « 0 k 0-4 t � k Q �/ 2 3 ° t \ �/ - \ / 0�' 0 � d E � § k § \? �? k @ G § w d 0 d� \o § \� uu 2 § § § § § § . a a a A A a u � � §2 � .) k •% %% U U U 2 Cd .. _0 Cd 22 22 2 2 2 d « 8 ® § o § a G ./ § k § k a 0 /\ o§ Q S � Eu \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 \ 2Cd g g g M $ 2 / C o 2 2 O § 0 d > 8 § § % 2 � � k r e A 7 / c § § r f °m 2 $ � d k 2j] •� ( @% �._ / W k# k /� t § o /\ § a k A/ ƒ/ W 0 2 q \ k k ( 3 q / m u ° \ * o o o � k � �� a+ a2§§ 2Ed // U® d PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON ± 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET CASE NO: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-096 APPLICANT: ROBERT SELAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day December, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Robert Selan, for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit A, and more particularly described as: LOT 47 of TR 24889, BOOK 210 PAGES 38 THROUGH 52, RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment. 1. This General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with policies and programs of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment focuses on the Land Use Plan only; the proposed project for which this Amendment was prepared is consistent with all other aspects of the General Plan. The Amendment will allow increased housing opportunities while maintaining a low density character in the area, consistent with goals as stated in the General Plan. 2. The General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The property involved in the Amendment is served with adequate utilities, public services and access. 3. The new land use designation of Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) is compatible with adjacent properties, in that other residential projects are being developed in the immediate area of the subject land. The proposed MHDR designation provides a better transitional land use, and allows a buffer from the main arterial roadways that border the subject property. Planning Commission Resolution 2003- General Plan Amendment 2003-096 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 4. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the subject properties, as they are served with direct access to Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, and can be served without adverse impact by all necessary public services and utilities. There are no natural physical constraints to restrict development of the property at this designation. 5. Approval of this General Plan Amendment is warranted, as the situation and surrounding conditions affecting the property have substantially changed since the property was designated Neighborhood Commercial. Development pressure has been building greatly over the past few years. The area once was sparsely developed, with little or no sign that surrounding approved projects would ever develop. The surge in housing demand in the City has caused many of these projects to quickly evolve. The need for more housing opportunities, beyond low -density residential country club development warrants this proposed Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment request (Exhibit A) 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 23rd day of December, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: peresogpa.096.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- General Plan Amendment 2003-096 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California a peresogpa096.doc .L�J�ia1.5 NU58��A-Jl' o cfl 0 oQ M� 0 00 N = Q x CL LL 0 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 ZONE CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET CASE NO: ZONE CHANGE 2003-117 APPLICANT: ROBERT SELAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of December, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Robert Selan, for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit A, and more particularly described as: LOT 47 of TR 24889, BOOK 210 PAGES 38 THROUGH 52, RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan, in that the proposed Zone Change will allow increased housing opportunities, consistent with goals as stated in the General Plan. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the subject site is served with adequate utilities, public services and access to properly support the requested development. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties, in that the proposed change from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Medium High Density Residential (RMH) is a more compatible zoning with the surrounding RL zoned lands, which are being developed with low density country club uses. The RMH zoning provides a better transitional land use, and allows a buffer from the main arterial roadways that border the subject property. 4. The Zone Change is suitable and appropriate for the property involved, as it is located on a major intersection, affording direct access to main transportation arteries and public transportation options, which makes the site more suitable for a higher intensity residential use than in the surrounding areas. Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Zone Change 2003-117 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 5. Approval of the Zone Change is warranted, as the general circumstances around development of the property have changed since the existing zoning was imposed. The property was originally re -zoned from A-1-10 to CPS in 1991, and subsequently to CN on September 6, 1996. No commercial development plans have been submitted for the site in that time, and the present housing market conditions, as evidenced by the proposed project, dictate that the site is now suitable for residential development. 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 Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Zone Change request (Exhibit A) 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 23rd day of December, 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 peresocz117.doc 133HiS NOS83JJ3f M O O N U N 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 250 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A ± 21 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND .JIEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-069 APPLICANT: ROBERT SELAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of December, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Robert Selan for approval of development principles and design guidelines for a Specific Plan to allow a common undivided interest subdivision of 250 condominium units on a ± 21 acre site, generally located at the northwest corner Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows: LOT 47 of TR 24889, BOOK 210 PAGES 38 THROUGH 52, RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-486), and determined that while the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Specific Plan 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 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Land Use designation. puesosp069. doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Specific Plan 2003-069 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed project will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2003-486, and no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. 3. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed Specific Plan is compatible in terms of surrounding land uses, in that other residential projects are being developed in the immediate area of the subject land, as lower density country club residential. The proposed MHDR designation provides a better transitional land use, and allows a buffer from the main arterial roadways that border the subject property. 4. Property Suitability: The proposed project is suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that it is located on a major intersection, affording direct access to main transportation arteries and public transportation options, which makes the site more suitable for a higher intensity residential use than in the surrounding areas. The Specific Plan can be served without adverse impact by all necessary public services and utilities. 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 2003-069 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 23`d day of December, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: peresosp069.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Specific Plan 2003-069 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California peresosp069.doc 1) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- EXHIBIT „A„ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-069 WATERMARK VILLAS DECEMBER 23, 2003 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Specific Plan 2003-069 (SP 2003-069) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, and the approved Specific Plan document. In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SP 2003-069, these conditions shall take precedence. 2. 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 Specific Plan or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. 3. All changes to the Specific Plan which are required under these conditions shall be made in a revised document to ensure consistency. All other applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 31798, and any subsequent amendment(s), shall be incorporated into the revised text for SP 2003-069 in the appropriate sections. The project proponent shall submit five (5) copies of the amended Specific Plan documents within 30 days of City Council approval of the Specific Plan, or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 4. SP 2003-069 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-486 • Tentative Tract Map 31798 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 5. Minor changes, as determined by the Community Development Director to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan, may be approved. Examples include modifications to landscaping materials and/or design, parking and circulation arrangements not involving reductions in required standards beyond those identified in the Specific Plan, minor site, building area or other revisions necessary due to changes in technical plan aspects such as drainage, street improvements, grading, etc. Such changes may be approved on a staff -level basis and shall not constitute a requirement coapcsp069.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Specific Plan 2003-069 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 to amend the Specific Plan. Consideration for any modifications shall be requested in writing to the Director and submitted with appropriate graphic and/or textual documentation in order to make a determination on the request. 6. The Specific Plan document for SP 2003-069 (Watermark Villas) shall be revised in conformance with the following: A. The conditions of approval for SP 2003-069 and TT 31798 shall be incorporated into the specific plan document as an appendix. In addition, the letter from the Citrus Course Homeowner Association, dated 12/10/03, shall also be incorporated in the appendix. These documents shall be reflected in the Table of Contents. B. Section VI, Phasing and Implementation 1). Revise the statement regarding tennis courts to read, "The two lighted regulation -size tennis courts are permitted by inclusion within this specific plan. As part of the permit requirements to build these courts, a photometric survey of the proposed light standards based on siting and lighting type will be required by the La Quinta Community Development Department. All lighting must comply with the Outdoor Light Control Ordinance provisions as in effect at the time permits are requested.". 2). Add the following provision: "Perimeter wall plans shall be in compliance with the acoustical analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated October, 2003, and with the design standards as specified in the Watermark Villas Specific Plan. All perimeter wall plans shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any wall permit(s) being issued.". C. Page 5, Lighting - revise last sentence from dark sky ordinance to Outdoor Light Control Ordinance. D. Page 6, Residential Communities Architecture, Section B.1.a - This section shall include the requirement that all two-story residential buildings will be limited to a 26-foot height limit. E. Page 8, C.2. Project Perimeter Landscaping - include discussion of 2 coapcsp069.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Specific Plan 2003-069 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 landscape screening methods to be employed along the north and west project boundaries to buffer views from the Citrus Course properties, as per the agreement between Citrus Course homeowners and Watermark Villas and set for the in their letter dated 12/10/03. F. Page 9, Landscape Development Standards — Include the following standard: "An overall preliminary landscaping plan shall be prepared for all common area landscaping and parkways, pursuant to the requirements of the recently adopted Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, to include a preliminary estimate of water use for the entire site.". Incorporate the landscape requirements as set forth in the letter dated December 10, 2003, prepared by the Citrus Course Homeowner Association, into the development standards listing. 3 coapcsp069.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 THE SUBDIVISION OF ± 21 ACRES INTO A COMMON UNDIVIDED INTEREST TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 250 CONDOMINIUM UNITS CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31798 APPLICANT: ROBERT SELAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of December, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract 31798, a request to subdivide t 21 acres into a common undivided interest subdivision of 250 condominium units, generally located at the northwest corner Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows: LOT 47 of TR 24889, BOOK 210 PAGES 38 THROUGH 52, RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-486), and determined that while the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend approval of said Tentative Tract Map 31798: Finding Number 1 - Consistency with CEQA The La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2003-486. Based on this assessment, the Community Development Department has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance. J Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 Finding Number 2 - Consistency with the General Plan The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City's General Plan with the implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide for adequate storm water drainage, and other infrastructure improvements. The project is consistent with the adopted Medium High Density Residential land use designation of Up to 12 dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment 2003-096. Finding Number 3 - Consistency of Design and Improvements The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the City's General Plan, with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval to ensure proper street widths, perimeter walls, parking requirements, and timing of their construction. Finding Number 4 - Consistency of Public Easements As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Finding Number 5 - Public Health and Safety The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2003-486, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. Finding Number 6 - Suitability of Site The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the proposal as natural slopes do not exceed 20%, and there are no identified geological constraints on the property that would prevent development pursuant to the geotechnical study prepared for the subdivision. 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; peresoTT31798.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required for Tentative Tract Map 31798; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31798 to the City Council, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23`d day of December, 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 peresoTT31798.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- EXHIBIT „A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31798 ROBERT SELAN — WATERMARK VILLAS DECEMBER 23, 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 Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Title 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. oapc31798.doc 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storm water discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Storm water 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. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City.) B. 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"). C. 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. D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. G. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. PROPERTY RIGHTS Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication 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. 7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial - Option A, 110' ROW) — No additional right of way dedication is required except for an additional right of way dedication at the primary entry of to accommodate improvements shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map and as conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — No additional right of way dedication is required. 8. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street rights - of -way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include any additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Said easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 11. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaped setbacks along all public rights -of - way as follows: A. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet from the right-of-way/property line. ;oapc31798. rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 B. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) — 20-feet from the right-of-way/property line. The listed setback depths shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g. sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 12. 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. 13. Direct vehicular access to Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 from lots with frontage along Avenue 52 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Tentative Tract Map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restrictions shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 14. 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. 15. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right- of-way, or access easement, the recordation of the tract map is subject to the Applicant providing an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 16. 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. FINAL MAPS 17. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptab►e to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. ,oapc31798.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Final Map. 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. Off -Site Street/Signing and Striping Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical B. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical C. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal D. Site Development Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berm design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans 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. )apc31798.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 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. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building and Safety Director and the City Engineer. "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. "Street Parking" plan shall include appropriate signage to implement the "No Parking" concept, or alternatively an on -street parking policy shall be included in the CC & R's subject to City Engineer's Approval. The parking plan or CC & R's shall be submitted concurrently with the Street Improvement Plans. 20. 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. 21. 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 )apc31798.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 22. Prior to the 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. 23. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 24. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions that are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 26. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, dated October, 2003, to the extent they are applicable. oapc31798. rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 27. 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. 28. 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. 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. 29. 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. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform to 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. 31. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. coapc31798.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 32. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot from the building pads in adjacent development. 33. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 34. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 35. 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. 36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, storm water 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. ;oapc31798.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 December 23, 2003 41. 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. 42. Stormwater may not be retained in any General Plan -required 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. 43. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 44. 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. 45. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. ;oapc31798.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 50. 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. 51. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial - Option A; 1 10' R/W): a) No widening of the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan is required for its ultimate width as specified in the General Plan. Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: L All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. ii. Class I Off Street Golf Cart Pathway - Construct 12-foot wide meandering pathway within the 32-foot parkway/landscape set back along the easterly boundary of the Tentative Tract Map. The design of the pathway shall be as approved by the City Engineer. iii. Reconstruct the existing landscaped median to provide the left turn in with physical left turn out restriction and restore the median landscaping. 2). Jefferson Street - (Major Arterial - Option A; 120' R/W): a) No widening of the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan is required for its ultimate width as specified in the General Plan. oapc31798.doc ti. Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: i. All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. ii. Class I Off Street Golf Cart Pathway — Construct 12-foot wide meandering pathway within the 32-foot parkway/landscape set back along the easterly boundary of the Tentative Tract Map. The design of the pathway shall be as approved by the City Engineer. iii. Reconstruct the existing landscaped median to provide the left turn in with physical left turn out restriction and restore the median landscaping. B. INTERIOR STREETS 1). On -site streets except at entry gate area: construct 28-foot wide full - width improvements (measured from front of curb to front of curb) 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. 2). Private cul de sacs - Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb using a smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. 3). Knuckle - Construct the knuckle to conform with the lay -out shown in the tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. 52. 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 -entry accepted vehicles. 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. 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 full turn -around back out onto Avenue 52 from the gated entry. coapc31798.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 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. 53. 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 Streets/Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or approved equivalents of alternative materials 54. 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. 55. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Jefferson Street - Auxiliary Exit (Jefferson Street, 500 feet north of Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out are permitted. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. B. Avenue 52 1) Primary Entry (Avenue 52, 750 feet west of Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out and left turn in movements are permitted. Left turn movements out are prohibited. 2) The Golf Cart Tunnel Access under Avenue 52 to the SilverRock Ranch project on the south side is excluded from this approval, but may be added if approved by separate proposal to the City Council. coapc31798.doc r Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 56. 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. 57. 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 quaUied engineers. 58. 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). CONSTRUCTION 59. 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 60. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 61. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 62. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. Prior to CVWD review, the applicant shall provide calculations that ;oapc31798.doc B 1) Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 meet the requirements of Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code - Water Efficient Landscaping. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 63. 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 64. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as may be required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. 65. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department: A. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be spaced every 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along outside travel ways. B. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. C. Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the front street side of the buildings. FDC's and PIV's may not be located at the rear of buildings. Note also that FDC's must be at least 25 feet from the building and may not be blocked by landscaping, parking stalls or anything that may restrict immediate access. D. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. E. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. F. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard 0313 is allowed). Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. ;oapc31798.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 G. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. H. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1'. floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Minimum road width is 20 feet clear and unobstructed with a vertical clearance of 13 '/2 feet clear. Turning radiuses shall be no less than 38 feet outside. The split gate entrance will be approved provided that both gates open when activated by the KNOX system. The auxiliary exit may be restricted to emergency access only however it must allow unrestricted public egress. I. Any commercial operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.) J. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed. K. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and a KNOX key switch on all gated entrances. (Contact the fire department for an application) L. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. QUALITY ASSURANCE 66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 67. 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. 68. 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. ;oapc31798.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 69. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans that were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - 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 70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 71. 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 72. 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. 73. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 74. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 75. Architecture and site plan provisions for all proposed uses, including typical building design for the residential unit buildings, shall be subject to review by the City under the Site Development Permit process. Building heights for the residential unit buildings shall be limited to 26 feet. Height limits for other ancillary use structures shall be as set forth in the Watermark Villas Specific Plan document, or as specified during site development review for each particular use. -oapc31798.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 76. The design of all parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). 77. Perimeter wall plans shall be in compliance with the acoustical analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated October, 2003, and with the design standards as specified in SP 2003-069 for Watermark Villas. All perimeter wall plans shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any wall permit(s) being issued. 78. Revisions to the tentative map during plan check including, but not limited to, lot line alignments, easements, improvement plan revisions, and similar minor changes which do not alter the design (layout, street pattern, etc.) may be administratively approved through the plan check process, with the mutual consent and approval of the Community Development and Public Works Directors. This shall include increases or decreases in number of lots, which meet the general criteria above, but involve a change of no more than 5% of the total lot count of Tentative Map 31798 as approved. Any revisions that exceed the General Plan density standards, based on net area calculations, must be processed as an amended map, as set forth in Title 13, LQMC. 79. The applicant shall incorporate those measures as outlined in the letter on file dated December 10, 2003, prepared by the Citrus Course Homeowner Association and submitted into the written record, into the plans, CC&R's and other documents as appropriate. If any measure set forth in said letter conflicts with other City requirements and/or standards, alternative methods of compliance shall be investigated that are commensurate with the original standards, and in the absence of any commensurate alternative, the City standard(s) shall take precedence. CULTURAL RESOURCES 80. Should any historic or archaeological artifact be uncovered during any earth moving activity on the site, all work shall cease, and an archaeological monitor shall be retained to evaluate the material. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth -moving activities. The archaeologist shall file a report with the Community Development Department immediately following completion of earth moving activities, on the findings at the site. 81. A paleontologic monitor shall be on site during earth moving activities on any portion of the site where undisturbed Lake Cahuilla lakebeds occur. The monitor shall quickly salvage any uncovered fossils and avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth -moving activities. All -oapc31798.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31798 — Robert Selan December 23, 2003 specimens shall be professionally collected, cleaned and curated. The monitor shall file a report with the Community Development Department immediately following completion of earth moving activities, on the findings at the site. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 82. An overall preliminary landscaping plan shall be prepared for all common area landscaping and parkways, pursuant to the requirements of the recently adopted Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, to include a preliminary estimate of water use for the entire site. This plan should be reviewed and accepted by the ALRC prior to final construction plans being accepted for sign -off. The landscape plan design shall maintain the date palm trees within the overall landscaping concept, as stated in the Watermark Villas Specific Plan Landscape Guidelines, which will preserve a portion of this traditional agricultural feature on site. The date palm trees should be maintained as producing trees once integrated into the site. Landscape requirements as set forth in the letter on file dated December 10, 2003, prepared by the Citrus Course Homeowner Association, shall also be incorporated, as set forth by Condition 77. coapc31798.doc i P- 2 vt r I s COURSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION December 10, 2003 Mr. Tom Kirk, Commissioner La Quinta Planning Commission P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 91152-1504 General Plan Amendment 03-096 Zone Change 03-117 Specific Plan 03-069 Tentative Tract Map 31798 Watermark Villas Dear Mr. Kirk, o DEC 18 20 I am writing in regard to the proposed project located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 known as the Watermark Villas. The Citrus borders the project on its north and west sides and naturally, our community has concerns about the views from not only the homes bordering the proposed development but also from our golf course. Our Architectural Committee has met with the developer's representatives and they have generously made the following commitments to screen their two story villas and balconies from view from the Citrus community and golf course: Landscape: • Developer will install rows of palms as indicated on the tentative tract map application #31798. • Developer will construct a 5' high by 8' wide berm and or planter boxes along the entire northerly and westerly perimeters of the Watermark Villas property and will plant mature citrus trees at no more than 20' apart. The developer assures us that the foliage of the trees will extend above the 6' high wall as indicated on the attached sketch effectively screening the villas from the Citrus community's view. In addition, planting within the 150' site line corridor on Jefferson and 52"a Avenue to be on a case -by -case basis. There are no buildings in this site line corridor. • Developer will provide and plant forty trees on the Citrus side of the 6' wall bordering our communities. The trees are to be 36" box size and will be a mix of variegated Jacaranda trees (20) and variegated (non-thom type) Mesquite trees (20). In addition, these trees will be installed implementing standard planting methods only, no cranes will be utilized. The Citrus Course HOA will determine the exact location of each tree placement. • The Citrus Course HOA will be responsible for irrigating each of the 40 new trees planted on our property and maintenance will be the responsibility of the Citrus Course HOA. Tennis Courts: • Developer will insure that tennis court use will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM by including this use time in the CC&R's of the Watermark Association. The developer also agrees that these hours will be strictly enforced. • Lights will have an automatic timer switch that will turn off the light when not in use. • Extra trees will be planted around the lighted area to prevent glare to the Citrus residents if necessary. Villa balcony use: Due to the visibility of these balconies from our community, the developer has agreed that appropriate restrictions will be incorporated into the project's CC&Rs to prevent the use of villa balconies as clothes drying areas, storage areas, and a general repository for tools, grills, toys etc. ATTACHMENT 3 P.O. Box 4772 Palm Desert, CA 92261-4772 • 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 5 Palm Desert, California 760.346.1161 • FAX 760.346.9918 v E-mail: drmCdrminternet.com- www.citruscoursehoa.com City of La Quinta Water Mark Villas Project Page: 2 We were also pleased to learn that the developer plans to construct a golf cart tunnel under Avenue 52 that would allow residents from both communities access to the proposed Silver Rock Ranch project. As the only contiguous neighbor of the Project, we request that we have the right to review and "sign off' on the inclusion of the above stated provisions, before the City approves their rezoning request. We further request that we be notified when detailed plans and specifications have been submitted to the City for approval, so we may have the opportunity to review these documents and make comments as part of the City's approval process. If the City of La Quinta makes the above commitments a condition of Approval, then the Citrus Course HOA will support the development of the Watermark Villas. If you have any questions regarding our concerns, please call me at (760) 771-6835. Yours truly, _ Tom Morton, President Board of Directors Citrus Course Homeowners Association lop 5—#" �, • cc: CCHOA Board of Directors T. H. Gallaudet 111, Chair, CCHOA Architectural Committee Tom Miller, CCAM, Community Association Manager Desert Resort Management Matthew Hladek, Watermark Villas :'k� z g sag � � --� , --asaNI� Rosasgugr— - T-4 111'dh ATTACHMENT 4 ■ . DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 23, 2003 SIGN APPLICATION 2003-734 KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. REVIEW A SIGN PROGRAM FOR TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CORPORATE CENTRE DRIVE AND COMMERCE COURT M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99- 383 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1999. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. On April 22, 2003, the Planning Commission approved Site Development Permits 2003-780 and 781 for two commercial buildings located at the southeast corner of Corporate Centre Drive and Commerce Court (Attachment 1). One of the conditions of approval was to submit a sign program for the buildings for approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted a sign program for both buildings. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of the sign program for the buildings. The sign program provides criteria for the individual tenant signs as well as the monument signs adjacent to the street entries (Attachment 2). The proposed sign criteria for individual tenants is as follows: PC Stf Rpt SA 03-734 Sign Locations: Signs are to be mounted on the building wall or fascia as shown on the submitted elevation exhibits. Maximum Number of Signs: A tenant may have a maximum of one sign per building frontage. Maximum Sign Area: The maximum sign area may be one square foot per linear foot of lease frontage up to a maximum 50 square feet, including logo emblems. The maximum width of the sign shall not exceed 75% of the lease frontage or wall width upon which the sign is placed, whichever is smaller. Maximum Letter Heights: Maximum letter height is 12 inches for signs installed on the in -line suites of the building between the bottom of the shed roof/parapet and above the walkway. Overall height of panel sign area in this location shall not exceed 18 inches as illustrated below: 24' 18„ 12. Signs Galore 120 All other sign panel areas on the end suites shall have a maximum letter height of 16 inches. Overall height of panel sign area in this location shall not exceed 36 inches as illustrated below: 24' 3 Signs Galore ��__J_ While the applicant proposes the overall height of panel sign areas not to exceed 36 inches, staff recommends that they be limited to 24 inches. PC Stf Rpt SA 03-734 Sign Construction and Materials: Signs are proposed to be individual non -illuminated channel letters, wall mounted using a clear silicone adhesive, as follows: 1. Letter Depth: 3 inches 2. Face Colors: Medium Bronze Anodized Aluminum 3. Return Color: Medium Bronze Anodized Aluminum Additional Building Signs: Secondary business identification is proposed as follows: A. Glass Door: 1. Letter Font; Color: Helvetica, Optima or Helvetica Italic; Oyster 2. Letter Height: 3 inches 3. Sign Area: 2 square feet 4. Identification: Business name, hours of operation, emergency telephone. B. Window Panel (One panel only adjacent to entry door): 1. Letter Font; Color: Optional Typestyle 2. Letter Height: 4 inches 3. Sign Area: 8 square feet 4. Identification: Business name, hours of operation, emergency telephone. While the applicant proposes a sign area of 8 square feet for the window panel, staff recommends that the sign area be limited to 3 square feet. Temporary Signs The Zoning Code only allows banners for grand openings after the sign is installed and the tenant is open for business. The applicant is requesting approval of temporary banners, not to exceed twenty square feet in area, to be placed in the tenants sign area pending fabrication of their signs. Staff recommends that the applicant comply with the Zoning Code by allowing banners for grand openings only after the sign is installed and the tenant is open for business. The banner can be a maximum of thirty-two square feet in size and installed for a maximum period of thirty days. There is no fee for the banner but at a minimum, an application is required along with an exhibit showing the size and copy of the banner. PC Stf Rpt SA 03-734 Center Identification Signs: A freestanding center identification (monument) sign is proposed for each driveway entry on Corporate Centre Drive. Both signs have a 50 square foot face per side. The designs mimic the architecture of the building elevations. The signs are rectangular with a cornice treatment at the top, supported by two, three and one- half feet high columns at each end. Both signs are proposed at eight feet in height, as permitted by the Zoning Code, 12 feet long, and 2 feet wide. Each sign will read "Corporate Centre Professional Plaza" with both signs having the addresses on the ends of each sign. The colors of the sign background will match the tan exterior stucco finish of the buildings. The letter and numbers will be one inch thick acrylic with a bronze finish color. The signs will be externally illuminated with upward, angled, landscape lighting. The lighting will comply with the City's Dark Sky Ordinance. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The following findings to approve the Sign Program can be made; 1) the sign program will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code; 2) the sign program will be in harmony and visually related to the proposed architecture of the buildings in terms of materials, colors and type of sign. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2003- , approving the Sign Program for La Quinta Professional Plaza, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Sign Program Plan Set Prepared by: -4y Martin Magana, Associate Planner PC Stf Rpt SA 03-734 fi Minute Motion 2003- SA 2003-734 - Kleine Building and Development, Inc. Conditions of Approval — Recommended December 23, 2003 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La auinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Signs shall be mounted on the building wall or fascia as shown on the submitted elevation exhibits. 3. A tenant may have up to two signs, but no more than one sign per building frontage. 4. Building mounted sign size shall be one square foot in area per linear foot of frontage up to a maximum 50 square feet. However, the width of the sign cannot exceed 75% of the lease frontage or wall width upon which the sign is placed, whichever is less. 5. Maximum letter height is 12 inches for signs installed on fascias of the interior suites of the building between the bottom of the shed roof/parapet and above the walkway. Overall height of sign area in this location shall not exceed 18 inches. All other sign panel areas (exterior suites) shall have a maximum letter height of 16 inches. Overall height of sign area in this location shall not exceed 24 inches. 6. Signs shall be individual, non -illuminated, channel letters, wall mounted using a clear silicone adhesive with the following criteria: a. Letter Depth: 3 inches b. Face Colors: Medium Bronze Anodized Aluminum c. Return Color: Medium Bronze Anodized Aluminum Tenants with federally registered trademarks may use their designs and colors in their signs. Font style is not specified. ,j Minute Motion 2003- SA 2003-734 - Kleine Building and Development, Inc. Conditions of Approval — Recommended December 23, 2003 7. Secondary business identification shall be as follows: a. Glass Door: 1. Letter Font/Color: Helvetica, Optima or Helvetica Italic/Oyster 2. Letter Height: 3 inches 3. Sign Area: 2 square feet 4. Identification: Business name, hours of operation, emergency telephone. b. Window Panel (One panel only adjacent to entry door): 1. Letter Font/Color: Optional Typestyle 2. Letter Height: 4 inches 3. Sign Area: 3 square feet 4. Identification: Business name, hours of operation, emergency telephone. 8. The applicant shall apply for any temporary banners to be placed on the building facades. Temporary banners shall only be allowed for grand openings after the permanent sign is installed and the tenant is open for business. The banner shall be a maximum of thirty-two square feet in size and installed for a maximum period of thirty days. 9. Two freestanding center identification (monument) signs are allowed, one for each driveway entry on Corporate Centre Drive. Both signs shall have 50 square feet of sign area per side. Both signs shall be eight feet in height and twelve feet long. Each sign will read "Corporate Centre Professional Plaza" with both signs having the addresses of the buildings on the ends of each sign. The colors of the sign background shall match the tan exterior stucco finish of the buildings. The letter and numbers shall be one inch thick acrylic with a bronze finish color and be externally illuminated with upward, angled, landscape lighting, meeting the requirements of the City's dark sky ordinance. ATTACHMENT A ?R.OnCT' -SIT N _LVA y PH ##C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2003 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 APPLICANT: MICHAEL LA MELZA ENGINEER: TERRA TECH, INC. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 60 REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF 43.8 ACRES INTO 197 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING: RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SP NO. 218, AMENDMENT #1 SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: CC AND RL / VACANT SOUTH: RM / VACANT LAND OWNED BY APPLICANT EAST: RIVERSIDE COUNTY / DATE GROVE WEST: RMH / HOMES IN TRILOGY AT LA QUINTA AND VACNT LAND p:\stan\ttms\tt 31732 pc rpt.wpd BACKGROUND: The vacant site, at the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60, is a part of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1) which was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 15, 2000 (Attachment 1). The property was annexed into the City of La Quinta on August 13, 2002. The majority of the property within the Specific Plan is being developed by Shea Homes (as The Trilogy at La Quinta) and T.D. Desert Development (as Coral Option 1). The subject property and land to the south (proposed for TT 31733) have been sold to the applicant for subdivisions that are not to be a part of the larger Trilogy project. The site, which is slightly below street grade, is covered with desert shrubs and appears to have been used, at least in part, for agricultural purposes in the past. The vacant property is presently zoned and has a land use designation of Medium Density Residential (up to eight dwelling units per acre (du/ac)). The current zoning permits the Tentative Tract Map at the 4.49 du/ac density proposed. The Specific Plan approved a Medium -High Residential Density range of up to eight du/ac that is within the Medium Density Residential range of up to eight du/ac. PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 43.8 gross acres (40.9 net acres) into 197 residential lots (Attachment 2). Several miscellaneous lots would be created, primarily for storm water retention areas. Several small lots are labeled as park sites, but are intended to be landscaped areas. The proposed density of this subdivision is 4.49 dwelling units per gross acre which is in within the eight du/ac range allowed, but slightly lower than the 5-8 du/ac range of the Specific Plan. The existing zoning and Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. All lots exceed this requirement with the smallest lot being 5,090 square feet and the largest 10,430 square feet. The project will have private internal streets with a card access security gate. The tract is laid out in a modified loop with smaller loops and cul-de-sacs within the loop and to the north of the loop. The streets are curvilinear with landscape islands used at the cul-de-sac bulbs and several other locations. Internal streets are proposed at 32-feet wide that will allow on -street parking on one side of the street only. The main access to the project is on Monroe Street just north of, and across the street from, the new Trilogy entry. A second emergency access is shown near the eastern boundary on Avenue 60. The applicant proposes to add a 105±-foot wide strip of land to the south boundary p:\stan\ttms\\tt 31732 pc rpt.doc of the project to use as part of this tract. The property to the south is also owned by this applicant and proposed for consideration at this meeting under TT 31733. This adjustment of land will need to be completed as a separate procedure prior to recordation of the final tract map. The majority of the lots in the center portion of the project will use an accessway (alley) concept for garage access. These 20-foot wide accessways will be at the rear of the lots. Most of the lots that are adjacent to the retention basins will front on the basin with the alley at the rear. The map indicates a five foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the front of the lot on the retention basin that will provide pedestrian access to the residence. On site storm water retention is provided in three 4-5 foot deep basins located in the middle of the project. The applicant indicates these areas will be open space and a park site. Four additional small "park sites" are indicated on the map. These areas will be landscaped for passive use. The finish grade of the project will slope slightly upward from Monroe Street along the west boundary and be approximately five feet higher than the adjacent date grove property to the east that is in the unincorporated Riverside County area. Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 13, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made, as conditioned, and are contained in the attached Resolutions for the Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map. a p:\stan\ttms\\tt 31732 pc rpt.doc J RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-492; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31732, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. TT 31732 map exhibit Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\ttms\tt 31732 pc rpt.doc 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 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 APPLICANT: MICHAEL LA MELZA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-492 for Tentative Tract Map 31732, a subdivision of 43.8 acres into 197 residential lots located at the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-290-001 and 764-290-002 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment 2003-492 has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-492) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will 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 certified; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003- 492. PAstan\ttms\ea 03-492 pc res tt 31732.doc J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 — MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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. 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 mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003- 492 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). P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-492 pc res tt 31732.doc 2 J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 — MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 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 recommend to the City Council, certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-492 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Plan on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto (Exhibit "A"). 3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-492 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23`d day of December 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 P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-492 pc res tt 31732.doc 3 Environmental Checklist Form — EA 2003-492 Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31732 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60. APNs: 764-290-001 & - 002 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Michael LaMelza 74900 Highway 111 Indian Wells, CA 92210 6. General plan designation: Medium Density 7. Zoning: Medium 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.) Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 41.5 acres into 197 single family residential lots, street lots and open space lots. The open space, which is also expected to serve as the site's retention area for flood control purposes, runs from north to south in the center of the property. The lots are proposed to range from approximately 5,100 square feet to about 8,400 square feet. Other than the open space/retention area, a park of approximately 0.3 acre in size is proposed in the western half of the property. Primary access will be taken from Monroe, with a secondary access point on Avenue 60. Interior streets are proposed to be 32 feet, curb to curb. The property is part of the eastern extension of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Avenue 60, Vacant Desert Lands South: Vacant Desert Lands West: Monroe Street, single family residential development within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. East: Agriculture 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Reclamation (Laterals 123.45-2.3 and 123.45-2.3-1.0) S P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature December 10, 2003 Date j P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chk1st.d0c 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 cro$s-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. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc `� 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 resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-d) The proposed project is not located on a General Plan Image Corridor. The approval of the Tract Map will not result in aesthetic impacts, or impacts from light and glare. The ultimate construction of homes on the site, which is flat and without significant physical features, will have only limited impacts on viewsheds in the area, since the City limits heights for residential structures to one and two stories. Since there are no significant physical features in the area, and urban uses are being built immediately to the west, impacts to aesthetics are expected to be less than significant. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 tT..) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (`boning 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) I1. a)-c) The proposed project is not currently in agriculture, and has not been for some time. Agricultural land uses do occur to the east of the project site, and will remain unaffected by development of the site. The site is part of a master planned community, in a rapidly urbanizing area of the City. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property. Development of the site will not impact agricultural resources. PASTAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc -, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I11. 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 I landbook) 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 CF,QA I landbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed tract map could result in 197 single family homes, which could generate up to 1,885 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. I "Trip Generation, 6"' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Tota Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/da 1,885 x 15 = 28,275 PM10 PM10 PM, Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wea Grams at 50 mph 2,544.75 66,163.50 13,572.00 - 282.75 282.7 Pounds at 50 mph 5.62 146.06 29.96 - 0.62 0.6 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs /day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1,885 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EWAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F light duty autos catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality 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 1095.6 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. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. 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 Avenue 60 and Monroe Street shall be installed with the first phase of development on the site. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour 11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. I11. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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 Exhibits 6.1-6.7) 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 E'xhibits 6.1-6.7) 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 Exhibits 6.1- 6.7) 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 Exhibits 6.1-6.7) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan Exhibits 6.1-6.7) 0 Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc habitat conservation plan? General Plan Exhibits 6.1-6.7) IV. a)-f) The proposed project site has previously been in agriculture, but has been vacant for some time. The boundaries of the subject property have been significantly impacted by roadway improvements, particularly on the Monroe Street frontage. The site is not shown as habitat for any species of concern in the General Plan. The project is outside the boundary of the Fringe -toed Lizard Fee Area. Biological resources were previously analysed on the site under The Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218, certified by the County. Impacts of development of the site to biological resources are expected to be less than significant. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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 ' 15064.5? (" I listorical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM 'Tech, October 2003) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("I listorical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM 'Tech, October 2003) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment," CRM Tech, October 2003) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("I listorical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM Tech, October 2003) V. a)-d) A cultural resource survey was completed for the project site as part of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR2. The survey identified and catalogued 2 sites, CA-RIV- 5211/H and CA-RIV-6115, on the project site. Although site 6115 was determined to be of no historical significance, Phase II investigations were required of site 521 I/H. These have yet to be undertaken. A Phase II site investigation will be undertaken and submitted to the Community Development Department for review. No earth moving permit shall be issued on this site until the Phase II report has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. 2 "Cultural Resources Report Coral Mountain Project," prepared by CRM Tech, September 1998. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chkist.doc 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? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X ("Rancho I.a Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) iv) Landslides? ("Rancho I,a Quinta Specific X Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the X loss of topsoil? ("Rancho I.a Quinta Specific Plan FEJR, #218," September 1988) 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 ('Rancho I,a Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1989) 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 EAhibit 8.1) VI. a)-e) Geotechnical analysis was conducted for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR. The site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of a strong earthquake. The City will, however, impose Uniform Building Code standards on the project when structures P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc are proposed. The site is located in a liquefaction hazard area. The City requires the preparation of site -specific geologic analysis with the submittal of grading and building plans. This analysis will be completed when structures are proposed for the site, and will determine whether additional construction techniques will be required. The site is not subject to landslides, and soils on the site are not expected to be expansive. Impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. Lj P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project. a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (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 I lalardous 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 physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 f3) P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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 through its waste provider. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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 EJR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ("I lydrology Report Tentative Tract 31732," Tetra Tech, October 2003) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ("I lydrology Report Tentative Tract 31732," Tetra Tech, October 2003) 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? ("Hydrology Report Tentative Tract 31732," Tetra Tech, October 2003) 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 P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc delineation map? (Coachella Valley Water District letter dated 10/20/2003) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service for residential units and landscaping. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will 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. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and CVWD have irrigation lines in the vicinity of the proposed project. The site is bisected by Lateral No. 123.45-2.3-1.0 and by Tile Drainage System No. 2983. This line must be protected or relocated to ensure that on -site runoff does not affect the water distributed by the lines. In order to assure that water quality is no affected, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer, the CVWD and the BOR that all appropriate clearances have been secured and that the location of the irrigation lines have been protected through appropriate easement(s). VIII. c) & d) A hydrology study was completed for the proposed project4. 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 through the central landscaped open space areas of the project. These City requirements are expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. e)-g) The CVWD indicated in a letter dated October 20, 2003 that the property is located in an area designated Flood Zone D by the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps'. This designation indicates that insufficient data exists to determine the risk associated with Letter dated October 20, 2003, signed Dan Farris, CVWD Director of Engineering. " I lydrology Report Tentative Tract 31732," prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., October 2003. Letter dated October 20, 2003, signed Dan Farris, CVWD Director of Engineering. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc flooding on the property. In order to mitigate for this potential risk, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer and to CVWD that construction of the proposed homes will not place these homes in a flooding hazard, and that a Letter of Map Revision has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I J P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chkist.doc 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 Tract Map conforms to the General Plan and Zoning land use designations assigned to the site. The development of housing on this property represents a continuation of the urbanizing pattern experienced in this area of the City. The site is outside the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee area. . v P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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 f.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is outside the boundaries of the Resource Study Area of the California Department of Conservation, but is consistent with land within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) 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) P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc XI. a)-f) A noise analysis was conducted for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR6. The study found that the proposed project site occurs in an area where noise levels are expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL at the property line. The EIR requires that projects in areas where the 65 dBA CNEL will be exceeded will be required to perform noise analyses to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The City requires such analyses as part of the application for building permits. Therefore, in order to assure that noise levels are within City standards at the time that structures are constructed on the site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval, a noise analysis demonstrating that noise levels on the project site will not exceed 65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior, to both the Building Department and the Community Development Department. Mitigation measures in that report shall be shown on all building plans. The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours. The site is relatively isolated, and does not occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Impacts associated with construction noise are therefore expected to be less than significant. The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport. 6 "Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," prepared by Westec Services, September 1988. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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 is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the property, and is in an area designated for low and medium density residential land uses. The project will not induce growth or displace an existing community. J P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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, p. X 46 ff. ) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. The project includes considerable areas for open space, which will offset the need for off -site recreational facilities within the City. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc " 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 on site landscaped open space areas which will provide recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City facilities. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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)? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988)) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988)) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative "Tract Map 31732) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Tentative Tract Map 31732) 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Tentative "Tract Map 31732) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The proposed project is consistent with the densities analysed in the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218 and the City General Plan EIR. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc Traffic levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at buildout of the General Plan. The applicant will be required to improve Avenue 60 and Monroe Street to City standards to ensure adequate traffic flow. Impacts associated with the buildout of the project site are expected to be less than significant. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 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 Ml?A, 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.) P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc 1 0 XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The CVWD has indicated that additional facilities may be necessary, and that the project proponent will be responsible for providing them. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has been identified as having cultural resources. However, mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chkist.doc XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. The proposed project varies from the standard subdivision often proposed in the City, and will broaden the City's housing stock. XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan designation on the property. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate 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. Noise impacts have been mitigated above to less than significant levels. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218 was used in this analysis. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc N M h_ M o Cd 0 cis � 5 (U�a cd U p U Q HNC H d A U pq �A a� U W O� a; 0 o c, o °' °' °' A a ICJ Cd bA 04 04 o V U ✓ rq bA on oo .� o Q 0 U a)U N moo± V U bA U • � U • � . '� � � °v oq on °A �" bA M bA bA a 0 G7 a� > z� A 0 Cd Cd Cd Cd U U U m U A > N N N N O 0 an a 0 0 E� .• tn ac Mc, o A 3 v 0 CA aw d Cd b o ; on o.a A d �� o0, U,o Q �. o N '0 ' 3 o Cd�. o H d A W �A a� U W Om FW' o g � v oq L7 0 F � o a ao �o A c°� Q Q � U a d a ax ram. � U kn � U � F d A U pq �A a� U W Om � o N y U U a-d �w � O :d U to G7 0 o o ° � o a o� w a �o oz U U z � � 5 a;m� Ow F d A U pq �A a� U W OV F � G7 0 F � o o a " a w c� �zCd a O "tj a� o ,y d ^tj N Qn a � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 43.8 ACRES INTO 197 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31732 MICHAEL LA MELZA WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23`d day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Michael La Melza for the subdivision of 43.8 acres into 197 residential lots and miscellaneous lots, located at the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60, more particularly described as: APN's 764-290-001 and 764-290-002 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2003-492 and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will 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 certified; 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 Tentative Tract Map 31732: 1. The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan in that its lots and improvements conform with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, in terms of lot size, street widths, utilities and provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or P:\stan\ttms\tt 31732 pc res.doc ) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 — LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been imposed to mitigate those impacts. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31732 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23`d day of December, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: p:\stan\ttms\tt 31732 pc res.doc a TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\ttms\tt 31732 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 — MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 CeT7I191.E" 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency 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. J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 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. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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, 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 (Secondary Arterial , 88' ROW) - The standard 44 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total 88-foot ultimate developed right of way. 2) Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial, Option A, 110' ROW) - The standard 55 feet from the centerline of Avenue 60 for a total 110-foot ultimate developed right of way. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 A. PRIVATE STREETS Property line shall be placed at the back of curb similar to the lay out and the typical street section shown in the tentative map. Use of smooth curves instead of angular lines at property lines is recommended. Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line: 36-foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, 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. B. CUL DE SACS 1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger, using a smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown on the tentative map. A minimum twenty -foot travel way shall be maintained when a center island is incorporated in the cul de sac design. C. KNUCKLE 1) The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revision as may be required by the City Engineer. A minimum twenty -foot travel way shall be maintained when a center island is incorporated. D. ALLEY 1) The design of the alley shall conform to the shape and layout shown on the tentative map and as required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall establish 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. 2) The applicant shall get approval of the Riverside Sheriff's Department and Fire Department for addressing of lots with alley El PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 frontages only. For lots with both private street and alley frontages, vehicular access shall be via the alley frontage. 11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: A. Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial, Option A) — 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L to provide for the multi -purpose trail conditioned herwith. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 16. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street and Avenue 61 from lots with frontage along Monroe Street and Avenue 61 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. R PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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. FINAL MAPS 19. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Final Map. 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. 20. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LO.MC. 21. 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. C:� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 A. Off -Site Street and Signing & Striping 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 " = 4' Vertical C. On -Site Rough Grading Plan D. Site Development Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "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. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. "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. 22. 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. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 24. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off - site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 25. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 26. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 27. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 28. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 29. 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. (91 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 GRADING 30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 31. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 32. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer 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. 33. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 34. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 35. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 36. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher than 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. 37. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 r)RAINAr;F 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 40. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 41. 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. 42. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 43. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. Walls abutting retention basins shall be a maximum 3-foot high solid wall topped with wrought iron. The applicant shall establish provisions for the abovementioned restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 44. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. 45. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 46. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development, especially along the east boundary. The lots abutting the property to the east shall be graded level up to any perimeter wall. If the slope on the tentative tract map remains, the applicant may relinquish the sloping portion as shown on the tentative tract map to the property owner to the east to accomplish this condition. 47. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 48. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 50. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 51. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 52. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 54. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial; 88' R/W): Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the east side as specified in the General Plan. 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 east curb face shall be located thirty two feet (32') east of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) A Multi -Use Trail. The applicant shall construct a meandering 10-foot wide multi -use trail along the Monroe Street frontage within the required 22-foot wide combined setback/parkway. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. 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. 2) Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial, Option A — 110' R/W): Widen the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the south side as specified in the General Plan. 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 forty three feet (43') south of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Avenue 60 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: 1) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. Half width of a 14 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Mapplus variable width as needed to accommodate a left turn only lane for the west bound traffic with left turn out restrictors at the secondary entry. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). B. PRIVATE STREETS Construct 28-foot wide travel width as shown on the tentative map measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line, provided parking is prohibited on both sides and there is adequate off- 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb using a smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. D. KNUCKLE 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. E. ALLEYS 1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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: Alley Residential Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial 2.5" a.c./4.0" c.a.b. 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. 58. 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. 59. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Monroe Street, Secondary Arterial, approximately 730 feet south of Avenue 60 measured curb return to curb return): Full turn movements are permitted. B. Secondary Entry (Avenue 60, Primary Arterial, Option A, approximately 900 feet east of Monroe Street measured curb return to curb return): Right turn in and out movements and left turn in movements are permitted. Left turn out movements are prohibited. 60. 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. 61. 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. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 CONSTRUCTION 62. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 63. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 64. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 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. 66. 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. 67. All landscaping shall comply with the City Water Conservation Ordinance. Front yard landscaping shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk iE� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, no more than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home buyers shall be offered an option to have no turf areas in their front yard through the use of desertscape materials. 68. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection by the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements. QUALITY ASSURANCE 69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 70. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 71. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 72. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 74. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 75. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 76. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 77. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the developer shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13,48 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 78. Within 24 hours of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department, a check made out to the County of Riverside for $1,314 to allow filing of a Notice of Determination for Environmental Assessment 2003-492 as required by State law. FIRE MARSHAL 79. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2- hour duration at 20 PSI. 80. For any buildings with public access i.e. recreational halls, clubhouses, etc. or buildings with a commercial use i.e. gatehouses, maintenance sheds, apartments, etc. Super fire hydrants are to be placed no closer than 25 feet and not more than 165 feet from any portion of the first floor of said building following approved travel ways around the exterior of the building. Minimum fire flow for these areas would be 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 81. The water mains shall be designed to provide a for a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given main of 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 pressure. 82. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 83. City of La auinta ordinance requires all buildings, other than single family, 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. If required, sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. Area separation walls may not be used to reduce the need for sprinklers. 84. Flag lots are not allowed by the Fire Department for safety reasons. Please check the following lots, TR 31732 lots 1, 61, 62, 164, 165 TR 31733 lots 5, 17, 21, 73, 97 is marginal, 120, 121. 85. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius. 86. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 87. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height. 88. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one- way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38- foot turning radius shall be used. 89. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 90. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 91. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department 21 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 92. Building plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. Submittals are the responsibility of the owner. MISCELLANEOUS 93. A lot line adjustment shall be completed for the north boundary of the tract prior to recordation of the first Final Map. 94. Perimeter wall designs including height, color, material, design shall approved by the Community development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the wall. 95. Proposed street names with a minimum of two alternative names per street shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Names to be approved prior to recordation of final map. 96. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2003-492 shall be met. 97. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the project. 98. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of Division 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 99. Minor lot configuration modifications required to comply with Fire Marshal requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 100. If garages back onto to the 20-foot wide "alleys" at the rear the lots, a 26-foot backup area shall be provided behind the garage. 101. Approval of production homes and common area buildings requires approval of a Site Development permit application by the Planning Commission. 22 PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2003 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 APPLICANT: MICHAEL LA MELZA ENGINEER: TERRA TECH, INC. LOCATION: NORTHHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 61 REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF 37 ACRES INTO 127 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING: RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SP NO. 218, AMENDMENT #1 SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RM / VACANT LAND OWNED BY APPLICANT SOUTH: RIVERSIDE COUNTY / DATE GROVE EAST: RIVERSIDE COUNTY / DATE GROVE WEST: RMH / TRILOGY AT LA QUINTA SITE RL AGRICULTURAL EQUESTRIAN / VACNT LAND p:\stan\ttms\tt 31733 pc rpt.wpd BACKGROUND: The vacant site, at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61, is a part of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1) which was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 15, 2000 (Attachment 1). The property was annexed into the City of La Quinta on August 13, 2002. The majority of the property within the Specific Plan is being developed by Shea Homes (as The Trilogy at La Quinta) and T.D. desert Development (as Coral Option 1). The subject property and land to the north proposed for TT 31732 have been sold to the applicant for subdivisions that are not to be a part of the larger Trilogy project. The site, which is slightly below street grade, is covered with desert shrubs and appears to have been used, at least in part, for agricultural purposes in the past. The vacant property is presently zoned and has a land use designation of Medium Density Residential (up to eight dwelling units per acre (du/ac)). The current zoning permits the Tentative Tract Map at the 4.43 du/ac proposed. The Specific Plan approved a Medium -High Density range of up to eight du/ac that is within the Medium Density zoning designation. PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 37 gross acres (34.7 net acres) into 127 residential lots (Attachment 2). Several miscellaneous lots would be created, primarily for storm water retention areas and landscaping. A portion of Lot "C" shows a clubhouse area, swimming pool, and associated parking lot for 27 cars. Plans for these facilities have not yet been submitted. The proposed density of this subdivision is 4.43 dwelling units per gross acre which is within the eight dwelling units per acre range allowed by Code, but slightly lower than that designated by the Specific Plan. The existing zoning and Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. All lots exceed this requirement with the smallest lot being 5,232 square feet and the largest 12,223 square feet. A .55 acre CVWD water well site is shown in the middle of the site, adjacent to the east property line. Access to this lot would have to be from within the project or from the date grove site to the east if an easement cannot be obtained. The project will have private internal streets with a card access security gate. The tract is laid out in a modified perimeter loop with interior cul-de-sac streets within the loop and to the north of the loop. The streets are curvilinear with landscape islands used at the cul-de-sac bulbs and several other locations. Internal streets are proposed at 32-feet wide that will allow on -street parking on one side of the street only. The main access to the project is on Monroe Street. A second emergency access is p:\stan\ttms\\tt 31733 pc rpt.doc shown near the eastern boundary on Avenue 61. The applicant proposes to eliminate a 105±-foot wide strip of land on the north boundary of the project to use as part of Tentative Tract 31732 to the north. The property to the north is also owned by this applicant and proposed for consideration at this meeting under TT 31732. This adjustment of land will need to be completed as a separate lot line adjustment prior to recordation of the final tract map. On -site storm water retention is provided in three 3-3.5 foot deep basins near the middle of the project. These areas will be landscaped for passive use. The finish grade of the project will vary from approximately even with Monroe Street along the west boundary to approximately six feet higher than the adjacent date grove property to the east. Presently, a 50-foot wide easement to CVWD for pipeline purposes exists along the length of the southern property line adjacent to Avenue 61. An agricultural pipeline exists within this easement. The applicant has stated that CVWD has indicated a willingness to allow the relocation of the easement and pipeline to an area in the Avenue 61 right-of-way. Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 13, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made, as conditioned, and contained in the attached Resolutions for the Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental p:\stan\ttms\\tt 31733 pc rpt.doc impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-493; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31733, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. TT 31733 map exhibit Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\ttms\tt 31733 pc rpt.doc 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 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 APPLICANT: MICHAEL LA MELZA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Michael La Melza for Environmental Assessment 2003-493 for Tentative Tract Map 31733 which allows subdivision of 37 acres into 127 residential lots located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-290-001 and 764-290-002 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment 2003-493 has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-493) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003- 493. P:\stan\ttms\ea 03-493 pc res tt 31733.doc J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 — MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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. 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 mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003- 493 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). P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 pc res tt 31733.doc 2 i) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 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 recommend to the City Council, certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-493 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Plan on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto (Exhibit "A"). 3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-493 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23`d day of December 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 P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 pc res tt 31733.doc 3 c Environmental Checklist Form — EA 2003-493 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31733 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Northeast corner of Avenue 61 and Monroe Street 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Michael La Melza 74900 Highway 111 Indian Wells, CA 92210 6. General plan designation: Medium Density 7. Zoning: Medium 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.) Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 37 acres into 127 single family residential lots, street lots and open space lots. The site will also include a clubhouse and pool area The open space, which is also expected to serve as the site's retention area for flood control purposes, occurs behind the residential lot pods throughout the center of the project. The lots are proposed to range from approximately 5,200 square feet to about 9,200 square feet. Primary access will be taken from Monroe, with a secondary access point on Avenue 61. Interior streets are proposed to be 32 feet wide, curb to curb. The property is part of the eastern extension of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Vacant Desert Lands South: Avenue 61, agricultural lands West: Monroe Street, single family residential development within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. East: Agriculture 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Reclamation (Lateral 123.45-2.3-1.0) P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -�- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature December 10, 2003 Date P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -2- : J 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. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -3- agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic 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 proposed project is not located on a General Plan Image Corridor. The approval of the Tract Map will not result in aesthetic impacts, or impacts from light and glare. The ultimate construction of homes on the site, which is flat and without significant physical features, will have only limited impacts on viewsheds in the area, since the City limits heights for residential structures to one and two stories. Since there are no significant physical features in the area, and urban uses are being built immediately to the west, impacts to aesthetics are expected to be less than significant. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the roject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The proposed project is not currently in agriculture, and has not been for some time. Agricultural land uses do occur to the east and south of the project site, and will remain unaffected by development of the site. The site is part of a master planned community, in a rapidly urbanizing area of the City. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property. Development of the site will not impact agricultural resources. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed tract map could result in 120 single family homes, which could generate up to 1,148 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. 1 "Trip Generation, Oh Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category. � P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -6- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 1,148 x 15 = 17,200 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 1,549.80 40,294.80 8,265.60 - 172.20 172.20 Pounds at 50 mah 3.42 88.95 18.25 - 0.38 0.38 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1,148 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75 F light duty autos catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality 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 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 The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading conditions, this could result in the generation of 1011.2 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. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -7- T 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 Avenue 61 and Monroe Street shall be installed with the first phase of development on the site. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour 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. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. IIl. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -8- ,) 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 Exhibits 6.1-6.7) 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 Exhibits 6.1-6.7) 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 Exhibits 6.1-6.7) 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 Exhibits 6.1-6.7) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan Exhibits 6.1-6.7) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, :\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -9- or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? General Plan Exhibits 6.1-6.7) IV. a)-f) The proposed project site has previously been in agriculture, but has been vacant for some time. The boundaries of the subject property have been significantly impacted by roadway improvements, particularly on the Monroe Street frontage. The site is not shown as habitat for any species of concern in the General Plan. The project is outside the boundary of the Fringe -toed Lizard Fee Area. Biological resources were previously analysed on the site under The Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218, certified by the County. Impacts of development of the site to biological resources are expected to be less than significant. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -10- ' e 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'15064.5? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM Tech, October 2003) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM Tech, October 20Q3) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment," CRM Tech, October 2003) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey..," CRM Tech, October 2003) V. a)-d) A cultural resource survey was completed for the project site as part of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR2. The survey identified and catalogued 2 sites, CA-RIV- 5211/H and CA-RIV-6115, on the project site. Although site 6115 was determined to be of no historical significance, Phase II investigations were required of site 5211/H. These have yet to be undertaken. 1. A Phase II site investigation will be undertaken and submitted to the Community Development Department for review. No earth moving permit shall be issued on this site until the Phase II report has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. "Cultural Resources Report Coral Mountain Project," prepared by CRM Tech, September 1998. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) iv) Landslides? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific X Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) 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 ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988) 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) Geotechnical analysis was conducted for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR. The site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of a strong earthquake. The City P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -12- will, however, impose Uniform Building Code standards on the project when structures are proposed. The site is located in a liquefaction hazard area. The City requires the preparation of site -specific geologic analysis with the submittal of grading and building plans. This analysis will be completed when structures are proposed for the site, and will determine whether additional construction techniques will be required. The site is not subject to landslides, and soils on the site are not expected to be expansive. Impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -13- i 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) P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -14- g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The construction of 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 through its waste provider. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -15- , Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. I1I-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? ("Hydrology Report Tentative Tract 31733," Tetra Tech, October 2003) 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? ("Hydrology Report Tentative Tract 31733," Tetra Tech, October 2003) 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? ("Hydrology Report Tentative Tract 31733," Tetra Tech, October 2003) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -16- hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Coachella Valley Water District letter dated 10/20/2003) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service for residential units and landscaping. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will 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. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and CVWD have irrigation lines in the vicinity of the proposed project. The site is bisected by Lateral No. 123.45-2.3-1.0 and by Tile Drainage System No. 2983. This line must be protected or relocated to ensure that on -site runoff does not affect the water distributed by the lines. In order to assure that water quality is no affected, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer, the CVWD and the BOR that all appropriate clearances have been secured and that the location of the irrigation lines have been protected through appropriate easement(s) or relocated if required by CVWD and/or BOR. VIII. c) & d) A hydrology study was completed for the proposed project4. 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 through the central landscaped open space areas of the project. These City requirements are expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. 3 Letter dated October 20, 2003, signed Dan Farris, CVWD Director of Engineering. 4 "Hydrology Report Tentative Tract 31733," prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., October 2003. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -17- VIII. e)-g) The CVWD indicated in a letter dated October 20, 2003 that the property is located in an area designated Flood Zone D by the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps'. This designation indicates that insufficient data exists to determine the risk associated with flooding on the property. In order to mitigate for this potential risk, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer and to CVWD that construction of the proposed homes will not place these homes in a flooding hazard, and that a Letter of Map Revision has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Letter dated October 20, 2003, signed Dan Farris, CVWD Director of Engineering. P:\STAIN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -18- 1) 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 Tract Map conforms to the General Plan and Zoning land use designations assigned to the site. The development of housing on this property represents a continuation of the urbanizing pattern experienced in this area of the City. The site is outside the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee area. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is outside the boundaries of the Resource Study Area of the California Department of Conservation, but is consistent with land within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988) 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) P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -21- XI. a)-f) A noise analysis was conducted for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR6. The study found that the proposed project site occurs in an area where noise levels are expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL at the property line. The EIR requires that projects in areas where the 65 dBA CNEL will be exceeded will be required to perform noise analyses to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The City requires such analyses as part of the application for building permits. Therefore, in order to assure that noise levels are within City standards at the time that structures are constructed on the site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval, a noise analysis demonstrating that noise levels on the project site will not exceed 65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior, to both the Building Department and the Community Development Department. Mitigation measures in that report shall be shown on all building plans. The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours. The site is relatively isolated, and does not occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Impacts associated with construction noise are therefore expected to be less than significant. The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport. "Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," prepared by Westec Services, September 1988. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -22- XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth 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 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X XII. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the property, and is in an area designated for low and medium density residential land uses. The project will not induce growth or displace an existing community. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -23- ; I Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. The project includes considerable areas for open space, a clubhouse and pool area which will offset the need for off -site recreational facilities within the City. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project includes on site landscaped open space areas, a clubhouse and pool area, which will provide recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City facilities. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -25- - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988)) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988)) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 31733) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Tentative Tract Map 31733) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Tentative Tract Map 31733) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) :\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -26- , XV. a)-g) The proposed project is consistent with the densities analysed in the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218 and the City General Plan EIR. Traffic levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at buildout of the General Plan. The applicant will be required to improve Avenue 61 and Monroe Street to City standards to ensure adequate traffic flow. Impacts associated with the buildout of the project site are expected to be less than significant. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -27- 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.) P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -28- J XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The CVWD has indicated that additional facilities may be necessary, and that the project proponent will be responsible for providing them. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chkist.doc -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has been identified as having cultural resources. However, mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. The proposed project varies from the standard subdivision often proposed in the City, and will broaden the City's housing stock. XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan designation on the property. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -30- 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. Noise impacts have been mitigated above to less than significant levels. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218 was used in this analysis. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-493 chklst.doc -31- 1 Oz ®z� zap 25 a O W F F Q A U pq �A a� U UU b o a" o o 9 d ca c, o U °'n. A a a CS oaf. CA cn V] N > bo cql 6 o O 44 O �o O c� 9 En � y co o - o :jto o o 0 a O a +� Ca a, C1 Cd. �z a. a. Q C� .-?-' bD C� a W W W "C b 'U U U U m U A W Ga 0A GG C� z 9 c M N i—i y ¢C 0 �� N F+CTS Cd oo V c o V A N O b 0 c� .�+ w �� O N 3 < � o O co,.� O H ,�, O v� �7�+ 'n U u. o coo v� Cd G as a a F Q A QA A a� U U� Q W b • O vi w U � as b cd G7 0 � U o vi 0 a a z � a� Q ri)o a0 �� Cd UQ C (n W U r-+ E+ U o 0-4 ��+ dr� N cC ax v0 U U� > F A W >+ U pq �A a� av U� Q � o �F�••yy � y � c� b1D O � U Cd w~ G7 0 0 U N F `IS En th ° 1 o ° � o a w c� rA 1:6Op En � W ' �o a U U z 0 O W O U y O U Q a P. O Q U,� d cu a U' c Ow > c�cOA� H d A W ,y� U �q �A a U U� on b .n o N �r1 O o a w� b H � cad O 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 THE SUBDIVISION OF 37 ACRES INTO 127 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31733 MICHAEL LA MELZA WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23`d day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Michael La Melza for the subdivision of 37 acres into 127 residential lots and miscellaneous lots, located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's 764-290-001 and 764-290-002 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2003-493 and has determined the project with mitigation measures will not have an adverse impact on the environment and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 31733: 1. The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan in that its lots and improvements conform with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, in terms of lot size, street widths, utilities and provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or PAstan\ttms\tt 31733 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 — LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been imposed to address those impacts. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31733 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23`d day of December, 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 p;\stan\ttms\tt 31733 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 — MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 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 Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency 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. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 2 P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permits), 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, 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 (Secondary Arterial , 88' ROW) - The standard 44 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total 88-foot ultimate developed right of way. 2) Avenue 61 (Collector, Option A, 74' ROW) — The standard 37 feet from the centerline of Avenue 61 for a total 74-foot ultimate developed right of way. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 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 to the lay out and the typical street section shown in the tentative map. Use of smooth curves instead of angular lines at property lines is recommended. Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line: 36- foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, 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 3 PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. B. CUL DE SACS 1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger, using a smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown on the tentative map Knuckle 1) The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revision as may be required by the City Engineer. 11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 14. The applicant is conditioned to have the 50-foot CVWD easement along the south boundary relinquished in its entirety prior to approval of the final map. Any pipeline relocation required by the easement adjustment shall be performed prior to issuance of the rough grading permit. 15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L to accommodate the multi -purpose trial conditioned herewith. B. Avenue 61 (Collector Street) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. t� PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 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. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 17. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street and Avenue 61 from lots with frontage along Monroe Street and Avenue 61 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 19. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 20. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster - image file of such Final Map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 21. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 6 a PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 22. 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. Q C. 0 Off -Site Street and Signing & Striping 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. On -Site Street/Drainage Plan: Vertical On -Site Rough Grading Plan Site Development Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "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. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. "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. 23. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for 6 PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 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. 24. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 25. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 26. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 27. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 28. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. 7 P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 29. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 30. 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 31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 32. 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. 8 PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the 9_ b P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 37. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher than 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. 38. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 41. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 42. 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. 101, `- P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 43. 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. 44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. Walls abutting retention basins shall be a maximum 3-foot high solid wall topped with wrought iron. The applicant shall establish provisions for the abovementioned restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 48. 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. 49. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 51. 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. 52. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. 11 P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 53. 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 54. 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. 55. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial; 88' R/W): Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan. 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 east curb face shall be located thirty two feet (32') east of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) A Multi -Use Trail. The applicant shall construct a meandering 10- foot wide multi -use trail along the Monroe Street frontage within the required 22-foot wide combined setback/parkway. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. The multi -use trail, trail signs, and the split rail fence shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 12 PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 first residence. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval. 2) Avenue 61 (Collector "A"; 74' R/W): Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the north side as specified in the General Plan. 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 twenty-six feet (26') north of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Avenue 61 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: 1) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. a) 8-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Construct 28-foot wide travel width as shown on the tentative map measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line, provided parking is prohibited on both sides and 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. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb using a smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. D. KNUCKLE 13 ' J P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. E. PARKING LOTS 1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Collector 4.0" a.c /5.0" c.a.b. Secondary Arterial 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 59. 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. 60. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: 14 PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 A. Primary Entry (Monroe Street, as shown on the tentative tract map, approximately 600 feet north of Avenue 61 measured curb return to curb return): Full turn movements are permitted. B. Secondary Entry (Avenue 61, as shown on the tentative tract map, approximately 880 feet of Monroe Street measured curb return to curb return): Full turn movements are permited. 61. 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. 62. 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 63. 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 64. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 65. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 66. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall 15 P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 67. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 68. All landscaping shall comply with the City Water Conservation Ordinance. Front yard landscaping shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, no more than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home buyers shall be offered an option to have no turf areas in their front yard through the use of desertscape materials. 69. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection by the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements QUALITY ASSURANCE 70. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 71. 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. 72. 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. 73. 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 16 PASTAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 74. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 75. 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 76. 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. 77. 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). 78. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the developer shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13,48 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 79. Within 24 hours of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department, a check made out to the County of Riverside for $1,314 to allow filing of a Notice of Determination for Environmental Assessment 2003-492 as required by State law. FIRE MARSHAL 80. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 81. For any buildings with public access i.e. recreational halls, clubhouses, etc. or buildings with a commercial use i.e. gatehouses, maintenance sheds, apartments, etc. Super fire hydrants are to be placed no closer than 25 feet and not more than 165 feet from any portion of the first floor of said building following approved travel 17 P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 ways around the exterior of the building. Minimum fire flow for these areas would be 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 82. The water mains shall be designed to provide a for a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given main of 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. 83. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 84. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all buildings, other than single family, 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. If required, sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. Area separation walls may not be used to reduce the need for sprinklers. 85. Flag lots are not allowed by the Fire Department for safety reasons. Please check the following lots, TR 31732 lots 1, 61, 62, 164, 165 TR 31733 lots 5, 17, 21, 73, 97 is marginal, 120, 121. 86. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius. 87. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 88. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height. 89. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used. 90. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 91. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 18 P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 - MICHAEL LA MELZA ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003 92. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 93. Building plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. Submittals are the responsibility of the owner. MISCELLANEOUS 94. A lot line adjustment shall be completed for the south boundary of the tract prior to recordation of the first Final Map. 95. Perimeter wall designs including height, color, material, design shall approved by the Community development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the wall. 96. Proposed street names with a minimum of two alternative names per street shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Names to be approved prior to recordation of the final map. 97. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2003-492 shall be met. 98. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the project. 99. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of Division 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 100. Minor lot configuration modifications required to comply with Fire Marshal requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 101. Approval of production homes and common area buildings requires approval of a Site Development permit application by the Planning Commission. 19 \\CLQADMFSI\PLANNING\STAN\ttm's\tt 31733 pc coa.doc CI #A MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2003 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION — COMMERCIAL LAND USE LOSS BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 2003, Commissioner Daniels requested an update as to the amount of commercial land that had been changed to residential use over the past few years. In response, staff has provided the attached table, indicating residential/commercial land use conversions, since the current General Plan was adopted in March of 2002. The tables indicate changes from commercial to residential, along with changes from residential to commercial, and includes proposals in process. The net loss or gain in each general land use category is also provided. The table only specifies those land use designations in which changes occurred. Where a change has resulted in an approved project, the number of units approved is used. Vacant lands are determined based on maximum residential density, or maximum commercial density (floor/area ratio) of the respective land use category. (A ell It z ac-, O M U O O �A W o �-+ N cn z a Wes. tz, w w w F U) En odoMC,W) U�Mr' F+ rA O a M o V1 -t V N .� d H z xx A A W o 0 0 0 uuuz W zo O rn rA all ¢u� U 4d Q;d r1l m O�QQ a UU3 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 W o000 N H 0 z U Cd UCd cd 03 U I--rn k M kn w Cd Cd CC$ QS d 1 a W 00 M N O N 0 0 N C v v VO O o ,�b1D 0 H z