Loading...
2004 02 24 PCT-iht 4 4 Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California FEBRUARY 24, 2004 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2004-004 Beginning Minute Motion 2004-005 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the meeting of February 10, 2004 B. Department Report G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 2004-758, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant.......... I.E.A. Industries, Inc. for Subway Restaurants Location........... 50-801 Washington Street Request............ Consideration of a deviation from a Sign Program to allow corporate colors for a proposed internally illuminated 15 square foot Subway Restaurant sign on the south building facade. Action .............. Minute Motion 2004- B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-798 Applicant.......... Summit Team Inc. for L.Q. Investments L.P. Location........... 50-981 Washington Street, La Quinta Village Shopping Center Request............ Consideration of architectural plans for a one story 1,192 square foot addition to the existing Dyson & Dyson Real Estate building. Action .............. Minute Motion 2004- C. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-797 Applicant.......... WG Properties Location........... West side of Caleo Bay in Lake La Quinta, north of the Omri & Boni Restaurant Request............ Consideration of development plans for the construction of a 7,430 square foot office structure. Action .............. Resolution 2004- D. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-490 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31816 Applicant.......... Mattco Construction Location........... Southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Lane Request............ Consideration of a recommendation to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and a request to subdivide ± 7.75 acres into 26 single-family lots. Action .............. Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc E. Item ................ VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-020 Applicant.......... Old Town La Quinta, LLC Location........... Southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive in Old Town La Quinta Request............ Consideration of development plans for two commercial buildings with 58,550 square foot of floor space in the Village Commercial Zone (Phase II of Specific Plan 2001-058) Action .............. Resolution 2004- F. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-793 Applicant.......... CP Development La Quinta, LLC Location........... Southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue Request............ Consideration of development plans for a 133 room hotel and 132 associated casitas units Action .............. Resolution 2004- G. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-795 Applicant.......... Brighton Properties Location........... 80-600 Avenue 52 Request............ Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three new single-family prototype residential units each with three different elevations. Action .............. Resolution 2004- H.. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-501 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-099 Applicant.......... City of La Quinta Location........... City-wide Request............ Consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and a General Plan Amendment to add a Program to the Traffic and Circulation Element to allow traffic signals within 1,060 feet of intersections. Action .............. Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc I. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-479, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-094, ZONE CHANGE 2003-115, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 Applicant.......... Madison Development, LLC Location........... 46-201 Washington Street Request............ Consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Low Density Residential; and the subdivision of 37.72 acres to allow 73 lots (72 single-family and one open space lot). Action .............. Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004- VI BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item ................ CONTINUED — PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE 9693 Appellant.......... Robert and Barbara Valdivia Location........... 54-360 Avenida Juarez Request............ Consideration of an appeal of a public nuisance determination. Action .............. Continue to March 23, 2004 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on March 9, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 10, 2004 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Attorney Dave Cosgrove, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 27, 2003. There being corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to approve the minutes as corrected. B. Department Report: None. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chairman Kirk excused himself and self the dais as he had a potential conflict of interest due to the proximity of his residence to the project. A. Sign Application 2003-750; a request of La Quinta Grill and Office Park for consideration of a Planned Sign Program for La Quinta Grill and multi - tenant office buildings located at 78-030 Calle Barcelona. 1. Vice Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the report a coy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-10-04WD.doc Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2004 2. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a construction schedule for buildings B & C. Staff stated the offices have been completed. 3. There being no further questions, and no other public comment, Vice Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to adopt Minute Motion 2004-003, approving Sign Application 2003-750, as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Kirk rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Minor Use Permit 2000-241, Amendment #1; a request of St. Francis of Assisi for consideration of a request to extend the use of the temporary parking lot for the property located at 47-225 Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk 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 Tyler recommended they be given an extension to December, 2005. 3. Commissioner Daniels also recommended the application not expire in the month of December due to the amount of Church activity that month. 4. Monsignor Tom Wallace stated he was unaware of the temporary permit and as soon as it was made know to him, they submitted their request for an extension. He then gave a progress report on the project. 5. There being no further questions of staff and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-10-04WD.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2004 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2004-004, approving Minor Use Permit 2000-241, Amendment # 1, for a two and a half year extension (August 10, 2006). Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of February 3, 2004. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on February 24, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:14 p.m., on February 10, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-10-04WD.doc 3 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2004-758, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: I.E.A. INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR SUBWAY RESTAURANT REQUEST: SIGN PROGRAM DEVIATION TO ALLOW CORPORATE COLORS FOR A PROPOSED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED 15 SQ. FT. SUBWAY RESTAURANT SIGN ON THE SOUTH BUILDING FACADE LOCATION: 50-801 WASHINGTON STREET (SUITE A), LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: L.Q. INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP, L.P. (C/O SUMMIT TEAM) GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/CN ZONING DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 (CLASS 1 1 A) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), ON - PREMISE SIGNS ARE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. BACKGROUND: Site History The Ralph's Supermarket was completed in November 1994, along with development of the adjacent shop buildings and related infrastructure improvements. Freestanding commercial buildings were completed in 1995 (Pad "C"), 1996 (Pad "B") and 2003 (Pad "D"), respectively. On June 28, 1994, the Planning Commission approved the La Quinta Village Sign Program for Plot Plan 91-456, establishing design standards and guidelines for freestanding and building mounted signs by adoption of Minute Motion 94-019. The existing Sign Program permits the Ralph's Supermarket to have corporate identification signs within the development. In -line shopping center tenants are PAGreg T\Subway Sign 2004\SRPC SubwaySign2004Final.doc allowed under -canopy internally illuminated cabinet signs measuring 18-inches wide by 10'-0" long by 12-inches deep. The program specifies that each tenant is ".. . limited to one sign only with corner tenants allowed a second sign on the second frontage." See Attachment 1. At night, only the graphic lettering is visible, as the background area is opaque. Sign copy can be single or double line format, with the tenant picking the letter color. The existing 2,500 sq. ft. Pizza Hut Restaurant was allowed to deviate from the Sign Program to increase its Washington Street exposure pursuant to the Planning Commission's approval of SA 95-311 (Amendment #1) on October 10, 1995, by adoption of Minute Motion 95-043. This decision allowed an east -facing cabinet sign of 40 square feet. On January 22, 2004, the Community Development Department approved a permanent 15 sq. ft. Subway Restaurant sign on the south side of Pad "D" (Suite A), provided the background color was changed from green to white to match other in -line tenant signs pursuant to the adopted Sign Program guidelines (Attachment 2). To date, the internally illuminated under -canopy sign has not been installed. Project Request The applicant is requesting a corporate sign for the proposed Subway Restaurant, meaning the background color of the non -illuminated sign panel would be green instead of white (Attachment 3). Primary sign colors are white ("SUB") and yellow ("WAY"), using 10.25-inch high letters. Subway® is a registered trademark of Doctor's Associates Inc. The property owner, who acquired the shopping center in 2002, supports the applicant's sign adjustment request. ANALYSIS: Over the last few years, the Planning Commission has had a number of public forum discussions concerning corporate signing requirements and their impact on shopping center sign programs. As a result of these discussions, many citywide sign programs address graphic color and size exceptions for national and regional tenants. The La Quinta Village Sign Program does not address provisions for in -line corporate tenant spaces. To date, the only in -line business tenant to request a corporate -style sign is Pizza Hut. FINDINGS: Findings per Section 9.160.090 of the Zoning Code (Planned Sign Programs) in support of the sign adjustment request are: A. Sign Program Consistency - The size of the sign meets the design specifications of the adopted Sign Program for the shopping center, including internal lighting provisions. The proposed sign graphics are properly spaced and can be easily read when the background color is changed to green, an allowable adjustment request to improve the overall appearance of the business per Item E4 of Section 9.160.090 of the Zoning Code. PAGreg T\Subway Sign 2004\SRPC SubwaySign2004Final.doc 2 B. Visual Harmony - The sign's Washington Street exposure is limited because it faces south into the private parking lot and is approximately 120 feet away from the public roadway. Painting the background of the sign panel green will make the sign visible to the general public and will not adversely affect existing sign graphics within the shopping center in that Subway is an international restaurant chain with corporate identification requirements. Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 13, 2004, and mailed to surrounding property owners and residents as required by Section 9.200.1 10 of the Zoning Code. No written correspondence has been received. CONCLUSION: A survey of existing signs in the Coachella Valley revealed most Subway businesses have internally illuminated channel letter signs instead of the cabinet sign being discussed in this application. Under the raised letter format, the Subway Corporation does not paint the building background green to accentuate the sign letters. Typically, sign adjustments are granted to business owners affected by corporate operating requirements to provide flexibility and to simulate commercial development. An option available to the Planning Commission is to require the applicant to add a one -inch wide green border around the Subway letters to increase their visibility, while retaining a white background. The Subway Corporation may deny this design modification because it does not conform to the company's trademark requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2004-_, approving SA 2004-758 (Amendment #1), subject to the findings indicated herein. Attachments: 1 . Sign Program Excerpt 2. SA 2004-758 Exhibit 3. Proposed Sign Graphics and Supporting Documentation Prepared by: Greg Trousd ll,%Associate Planner PAGreg T\Subway Sign 2004\SRPC SubwaySign2004Final.doc 3 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 -41777! �• spa, 'p .;`'���..:�::•`;:..:: •. •'�.. - 1 • •' "ITT ""-',•i, • ... :... ... - '. "sat . '.-.low ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 February 2, 2004 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampicd La Quinta. CA 02253 Dear Sir. Please find enclosed our applications for a sign program amendment along with proof that the Subway Corporate registered logo for a cabinet sign has a green background. The city of La Qunita approved our sign except for the green background. This amendment. if' passed should allow the sign color to now be approved. Thank you. Field Representative RB,reg ,•'ICE INC'. Iv�EC(��R-�, r IEA Signs & Service q44o Pvrite St. Riverside. CA 42.roc) (4oa) R61-222o Fax (c)o4) .q61-2224 ,Jar•2E• 200a 10:20Ai�i . (714)d31-MF` Nc,-732� N. i, I SL � M i T TEAM, Ih1C 0 r rSU-M---M--1TMMRAM, IIVC. SHOPPING CENTER MAN"UMUNT AND LEASING "Th r n to tha Neat Leirel" January 28, 2004 Ray Bush IEA Signs and Service Inc. 3940 Pyrite Street Riverside, CA 92509 Re: 50801 Washington St. #rfA La Qulnta, CA Dear Ray, Please accept this letter as the landlord's approval to institute an amendment to the sign program for the shopping center to allow a variety of colors to accommodate national tenants such as Subway. Cordially, ,1::: ��� . David B. Israelsky Vice President Summit Team Inc.. oC POvu 2004 L' Y CITY of LAOUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 17165 Newbope St. • Suite H • Fountain Va11ep, CA 92708 • (714) 241-1650 • Paz (714) 241-1551 e-s>a wl: SummitToa.M@SummitTeam.com I 16 0 W F- Z 060 0 J WO U OW W((99 ZQ om Y to U= QF m U� � O W H Z a «s o 1--0 WO Z U- I0 ca _ ZQ 00 � U0 F 0 O U Z w ci W W x p� O zQ�a Q m 0 aQ pSO0� aUVO} �0� O Qw�(p ZZO- U d W Z ZU z W m W wo 3o x� o�oo WWU mOHa ~-� W o «sWmCD m m �O 10 F- W?QZ D0 -0 w((!)x Lu C-6 z Omw� J F ZZ J 9 <J OU to U Z Ir zwww �ggz N T) c c O S p p C U p 03oQo w 2 m -) cn CD uj r� E x 2004 CITY pP LAQUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �I 1N3vvcj J) =JJl130 AA,1WN00 ' VLN: i3OVl JO A110 1 ; y- X M Tom- 7 �.• L .�.� i .y y LisM. c C '.ai ^ y `� "-• S i - C � C •` ^ w _ 3, c CE ram'• V - � cam, x 3 •3 •J Cc OULS W.-ONNF.VM i z 4 � h � � z � 1\ U 133y1S 3WONN.M3 133815 NO1 iNiHSVM N c"n p C � Q p � U U ?� Q O Q _ -0 CO O :3 Q -)V)LOtN J BACKGROUND: Site History The City approved the La Quinta Village Shopping Center in 1991 under Plot Plan 91-456. In 1992, the size of the shopping center was reduced in size from 11.8 ± acres to 9.25 acres thereby lowering the center's projected size to 85,645 square feet from 116,000 square feet. Amendment #2 of Plot Plan 91-456 in 1994 reduced the size of the center to 79,333 square feet (Attachment 1). The Ralph's Supermarket was completed in November 1994, along with development of the adjacent shop buildings using a Spanish architectural design motif. Building heights within the shopping center typically range from 20 feet to 30 feet high, excluding tower elements that are up to 42 feet high. Perimeter freestanding pad buildings were built in 1995 (Pad "C"), 1996 (Pad "B") and 2003 (Pad "D"), respectively. On June 28, 1994, the Planning Commission approved the La Quinta Village Sign Program establishing design standards and guidelines for freestanding and building mounted signs. Project Proposal The applicant is requesting to enlarge the 3,575 sq. ft. Dyson & Dyson real estate office building by approximately 1,192 square feet (Attachment 2). This building (Pad "B"), located on the southeast corner of the shopping complex, was constructed in 1996 and initially housed the Sesame Restaurant pursuant to Plot Plan 94-543. The current tenant has been in the building since 1999. The proposed request involves enclosing the existing outdoor patio areas to the south of the building to accommodate six offices, storage areas and a hallway, while incorporating the architectural style and materials (e.g., wainscot stone veneer, stucco exterior walls, window shutters, etc.) of the existing building. The overall height of the flat roof addition is 17 feet. Office suites range in size from 82 square feet to 140 square feet and typically have one exterior rectangular window. In order to construct the new improvements, an arbor, ornamental metal fencing, hardscape and Bougainvillea shrubs will be removed. The existing water feature and palm trees on the south side of the building's patio will not be changed to accommodate this proposed project. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed this request at its meeting of February 4, 2004, and on a 3-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2004-007 recommending approval of the proposed project (Attachment 3). GASDP798 DysonRem2004\SRPCSDP798 Dyson 2004 Exempt.doc 2 Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 13, 2004, and mailed to all affected property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site as required by Section 9.200.110 of the Zoning Code. To date, no correspondence has been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments on January 30, 2004. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met. CONCLUSION: The request complies with the City's Zoning Code provisions and is consistent with the design elements of Plot Plans 91-456 and 94-543. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving Site Development Permit 2004-798, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1 . Plot Plan 91-456 (Amendment #2) Site Plan 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. ALRC Minutes of Feb. 4, 2004 (Excerpt) 4. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission only) Ptlepared by: i ,Greg -Yrousd44l, Associate Planner GASDP798 DysonRem2004NSRPCSDP798 Dyson 2004 Exempt.doc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURE PLANS TO EXPAND THE EXISTING DYSON & DYSON REAL ESTATE OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 50-981 WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-798 APPLICANT: SUMMIT TEAM, INC. FOR L.Q. INVESTMENTS L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 241h day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request to expand the existing one story Dyson & Dyson real estate office building at 50-981 Washington Street by approximately 1,192 square feet for property in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone District, more particularly described as: Assessor's Parcel Number: 770-020-020; Parcel #6 of Parcel Map No. 27984 Portion of the SE 1 /4 of the NW 1 /4 of Section 6, T6S, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, did on 24th day of February, 2004, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the architectural plans for Site Development Permit 04-798 by adoption of Minute Motion 2004-007 on a 3-0 vote; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code: 1 . Consistency with General Plan. The existing 3,575 sq. ft. office building is in a Neighborhood Commercial designated area that encourages retail and office uses in close proximity to arterial thoroughfares and residential neighborhoods. This expansion request, as designed, complies with the shopping center's overall development concept per Plot Plan 91-456 Amendment #2 (i.e., freestanding Pad "B") and with the City's General Plan Land Use guidelines. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. With development of this project, the shopping center's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) will increase to 0.18 where 0.25 is authorized. The expansion of the existing office building is consistent with the development standards of the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District with regard to setbacks, building height, and parking requirements based on Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Site Development Permit 2004-798, Dyson & Dyson February 24, 2004 the proposed Conditions of Approval. The proposed 17-foot high building is consistent in design with the existing building structure and other on -site commercial buildings. 3. Architectural Design. The proposed architectural design of the one story addition reflects the design guidelines for the La Quinta Village Shopping Center through the use of smooth stucco and other architectural elements (e.g., canters stone veneer, horizontal decorative moulding, metal window shutters, etc.), and will match the existing structure. 4. Site Design. The existing shopping center has adequate parking facilities for the proposed addition with an on -site ratio of 6.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. Freestanding commercial buildings within the shopping complex are allowed design deviations provided the architectural changes receive Planning Commission approval. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the existing design features of the shopping center as conceived under Plot Plan 91-456, and implemented via Plot Plan 94-543 by the construction of the Sesame Restaurant in 1996. 5. Landscape Design. Minor landscape improvement changes are being requested which will not impact the existing design of the shopping center. 6. Sign Program. On July 13, 1999, the Planning Commission approved 30 sq. ft. internally illuminated cabinet signs for the Dyson & Dyson Real Estate office building by adoption of Minute Motion 99-014 for Sign Application 99- 468. No new signs are proposed under this request. 7. Lighting Design. Carriage -style lantern fixtures are currently being used to provide nighttime lighting for building facades and pedestrian walkways. New exterior building lights, if installed, will match the existing building as required by Section 9.100.150 of the Zoning Code. Therefore, no impacts will occur because the developer will comply with City requirements during plan check. 8. Infrastructure. There are adequate existing provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities to ensure that the proposed building expansion will not be detrimental to the general public. No known safety hazards are present at the site that would adversely affect surrounding properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: GASDP798 DysonRem2004\ResoPC Sdp798 Dyson04 Exempt.doc 11#, Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Site Development Permit 2004-798, Dyson & Dyson February 24, 2004 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (Class 1(el )) because the addition is smaller than 2,500 square feet, and furthermore in compliance with the provisions and conditions of Plot Plan 91-456 Amendment #2 and Environmental Assessment 91-187 as designed; 3. That public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property owners and residents by the Community Development Department on February 3, 2004, and posted in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 13, 2004, as required by Section 9.200.1 10 of the Zoning Code; and 4. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2004-798 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 City Planning Commission, held on the 241h day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California GASDP739 Summit2002\ResoPC Sdp739Summit.wpd t . I PLANING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-798 (DYSON & DYSON) SUMMIT TEAM INC. FOR L.Q. INVESTMENTS L.P. FEBRUARY 24, 2004 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Building and Safety Department • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. GASDP798 DysonRem2004\condSDP798Dyson 04.doc C Planning Commission No. 2004-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-798 Summit Team Inc. for L.Q. Inv. L.P. February 24, 2004 Page 2 PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, as may be required by the City Engineer or affected public utility company during plan check. 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. 6. 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. 7. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A. Site Development/Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal "Site Development/Precise Grading Plan" shall normally include all surface improvements, including but not limited to: parking lot improvements, finish grades, curbs and gutters, ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets shall be shown on the Site Development Permit plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. 8. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. t; Planning Commission No. 2004-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-798 Summit Team Inc. for L.Q. Inv. L.P. February 24, 2004 Page 3 9. 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. 10. 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 11. 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. 12. 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 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 14. 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. 9 e Planning Commission No. 2004-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-798 Summit Team Inc. for L.Q. Inv. L.P. February 24, 2004 Page 4 15. 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, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control) of the LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 16. 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. DRAINAGE 17. Stormwater handling shall conform to the approved hydrology and drainage report prepared specifically for Plot Plan 91-456. UTILITIES 18. 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. 19. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. Planning Commission No. 2004-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-798 Summit Team Inc. for L.Q. Inv. L.P. February 24, 2004 Page 5 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 20. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to existing improvements for the shopping center. QUALITY ASSURANCE 21. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 22. 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. 23. 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. MAINTENANCE 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 25. 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 26. 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. Planning Commission No. 2004-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-798 Summit Team Inc. for L.Q. Inv. L.P. February 24, 2004 Page 6 27. 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). ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT TOTAL ALLOWABLE CENTER DEVELOPMENT AREA 79,333 S.F. CURRENT DEVELOPED AREA ....... ........................... 72,533 S.F. REMAINING DEVELOPABLE SPACE . ...... ..... .. ................ 6,800 S.F. CURRENT PROJECT: A— of new construction ....... .............. 1,050 Arstp of..extstii eyvered into new wnsti�hon ...................................... 142 0. TOTAL ADDED SPACE...........................1, 192 0. REMAINING DEVELOPABLE SPACE ......... .. ................... -5,608 S.F. ATTACHMENT #3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 4, 2004 E. Village Use Permit 2004-020; a request of Old Town La Quinte, LLC for review of development plans for Phase II of Old Town La Quinta, consisting of 58,550 gross square feet of floor space in two buildings located southwest of the intersection of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy o, which is on file in the Community Development Department,,4` Staff introduced Steve Nieto, designer for the project, wh, gave a presentation on the project. 't 2. Committee Member Thorns noted the people spaces and complimented the applicant on the architecture, but still believes the site layout c9bld have been better. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked about the entrance details and window4. Mr. Neito explained the material and look to be used. f�f 4. There being no '.further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded,by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt MinuA6 Motion 2004-006 recommending approval of Village Us� Permit 2004-020, as recommended by staff and amendectle! a. ,,)Recommendation: The applicant should provide an improvement plan for the open space (plaza area). A landscape architect should be hired to design the area. }Jnanimously approved F. Site Development Permit 2004-798; a request of Summit Team Inc., for L.Q. Investments L.P. for review of architectural plans for a one story, + 1,192 square foot expansion to the existing Dyson & Dyson Real Estate office building located at 50-981 Washington Street, within La Quinta Village Shopping Center. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced John Stanford and David Israelsky, who gave a presentation on the project. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.doc 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 4, 2004 2. Committee Members unanimously approved the design of the project. 3. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2004-007 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-798, as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved G. Nte Development Permit 2004-799; a request of RJT Homes, Co orniz LLC for review of architectural plans for four prototype single famil units and landscape palette located at the southeast corner of Jeffers�t►,i Street and Avenue 52. 1. Plann4Rg Manager Oscar Orci presented the information contain in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Communit Development Department. Staff introduced Forrest Haag and Chiqd Myers who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt noted the change in land use for this site and the amount of traffic that will be generated. The architecture is nothing outstanding, but meets the need. He asked if the landscape would be maintained by a contractor. Mr. Haag stated yes. \\ 3. Committee Member Thom complimented the pool area design. 4. Committee Member Cunningham noted parking drives density. This type of project is a good project for the City and the developer has proven to develop excellent products. 5. There being no further questions`�Df the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2004-008 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-799, as`,,ecommended by staff and amended: a. Landscaping plans are to be resubmitted for approval by the ALRC. Unanimously approved G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.doc 7 PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-797 APPLICANT: WG PROPERTIES REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ± 7,430 S.F. OFFICE STRUCTURE LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF CALEO BAY IN LAKE LA QUINTA, NORTH OF OMRI & BONI RESTAURANT (ATTACHMENT 1) ARCHITECT: BUNCH ARCHITECTS, INC. GENERAL PLAN: CC - (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC - (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-056 ON JUNE 18, 2002. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS OR NEW INFORMATION PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. BACKGROUND: This proposed building is part of an approved Specific Plan (SP 2002-056) referred to as Lake La Quinta Plaza, featuring two office buildings totaling 16,042 square feet. The first building (Phase 1) consisting of 8,700 square feet is complete and serves as offices to Werner Family Medical and Windermere Real Estate. The remaining vacant commercial pad site in the development is approved under the Specific Plan for a 6,500 square -foot building. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting development approval to construct a 7,430 square foot office building. This building will be located on the southern portion of the Specific P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\perptsdp797WG.doc Plan site (Attachment 2). To the north and east of the building are paved parking areas, landscaping, and the Phase I building, completed in mid-2003. The proposed building lies within 150 feet of Washington Street, which is designated a Major Arterial and Primary Image Corridor in the La Quinta General Plan. The proposed building is architecturally compatible with the existing structure, relative to roof design, pitch lines and materials (Attachment 3). The overall height of the main roof is 20 feet, with a tower feature at the northwest building corner. This tower has a hip -gable design, with a peak height of 26 feet. The building architecture utilizes smooth texture plaster walls and columns, solar bronze glass with darkened aluminum mouldings and rough -sawn outriggers — all similar to the design character of the existing building. Minor infill landscape improvements surrounding the building and associated walks and planters will be installed. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed this request at its meeting of February 4, 2004, and on a 3-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2004- 004, recommending approval of the proposed project (Attachment 4). The ALRC did recommend that the following measures be included in the approval of the project: 1. The colors used for the building shall incorporate more earth -tone hues in its materials than those of the existing structure. 2. The planter landscaping between the north walkway and parking area, shall incorporate a cobblestone or similar suitable material, which can accommodate potential foot traffic that may cut across this area. Public Notice This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 14, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the 'project site. To date, no correspondence has been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\perptsdp797WG.doc CONCLUSION: The project, as designed, complies with the City's Zoning Code provisions and the Specific Plan as approved. The existing Specific Plan approval limited the proposed building to 6,500 square feet. This is because the Phase I building was originally approved as 100% medical office space. This would require 49 parking stalls for the Phase I building. However, the current tenant split is 4,600 square feet as general office, with medical space of 4,100 square feet. Overall, the parking required for the existing building is now 42 stalls. The existing parking area, which is complete, has a total of 72 spaces. The new building, at 7,430 square feet, requires 30 stalls for general office use. As the total medical and general office spaces require 72 stalls, with 72 in place, the additional floor area allowance is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. However, this building is proposed to be limited, by condition, to office use only for any changes in tenancy. Changes to any tenants within the Specific Plan area which will increase parking demand over approved uses will be reviewed at the time such a change is requested, as with all commercial developments. Regarding the height of the proposed building, the Zoning Code requires that buildings within 150 feet of an Image Corridor be limited to 22 feet/one story in height. While this building is affected by that stipulation, the Zoning Code does allow commercial architectural roof projections, such as towers, gables and spires, to extend up to 15 feet above a maximum height limitation. This is permissible if the projection is approved as part of a Site Development Permit, and as long as the square footage of the projection does not exceed 10% of the overall building area. This projection has an area under 500 square feet, while the building area is just over 7,400 square feet. As such, the projection is permissible at only 26 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- _, approving Site Development Permit 2004-797, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Proposed Building Elevations 4. ALRC Minutes of Feb. 4, 2004 (Excerpt) 5. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission only) Prepared by: r Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner L; J P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\perptsdp797WG.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A ± 7,430 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-797 APPLICANT: WG PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 241h day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request to approve Site Development Permit 2004-797, development plans for a ± 7,430 square -foot commercial/office building within a 1.51 acre site, located ± 200 feet north of the intersection of Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL 6 OF PM 27892, PM 182/063 OF MAPS WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, on 24th day of February, 2004, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the architectural plans by adoption of Minute Motion 2004-004 on a 3-0 vote; and WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Director has determined this request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2002-448, prepared for Specific Plan 2002-056, for which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was certified by the City Council on June 18, 2002, and that no changed circumstances, conditions or new information has been provided that would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The proposed 7,430 square foot office building is in a Community Commercial designated area that encourages retail and office uses in close proximity to arterial thoroughfares and residential neighborhoods. This office use, as designed, complies with the overall PAWally\Casedocs\Current\resopcsdp797WG.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2004-707 WG Properties Adopted: February 24, 2004 development concept of the approved Specific Plan and the City's General Plan Land Use guidelines. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed office building is consistent with the development standards of the Community Commercial Zoning District with regard to setbacks, building height, and parking requirements based on the proposed Conditions of Approval. The proposed building is consistent in design with the existing building and other nearby commercial buildings. 3. Architectural Design. The proposed architectural design of the one-story building reflects the design guidelines for Specific Plan 2002-056, through the use of smooth stucco and other architectural elements and will match the existing structure. 4. Site Design. As conditioned, the proposed project will not be contrary to the existing design features established under Specific Plan 2002-056. 5. Landscape Design. Minor landscape improvements around the proposed building pad are being requested which will not impact the existing completed parking and landscaping improvements. 7. Infrastructure. There are adequate existing provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities to ensure that the proposed building will not be detrimental to public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the project is in compliance with the provisions and conditions of Specific Plan 2002-056 and Environmental Assessment 2002-448; 3. That public hearing notices were mailed to adjacent property owners by the Community Development Department and posted in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 14, 2004, as required by Zoning Ordinance provisions; and iocs\Current\resopcsdp797W G.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2004-707 WG Properties Adopted: February 24, 2004 4. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2004-797 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\resopcsdp797WG.doc PLANING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-797 WG PROPERTIES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Building and Safety Department • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp797.doc Planning Commission No. 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-797 WG Properties February 24, 2004 Page 2 PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall offer for dedication public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 6. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) — Additional right of way shall be acquired and dedicated to provide the standard sixty six-foot right or way from the centerline of Washington Street as required by the General Plan. The six-foot strip across the entire Washington Street boundary of SDP 2002-731 may be in the form of an easement from the Commercial Properties Owners Association to the City of La Quinta if the applicant is unable to acquire the additional right of way. 2) Caleo Bay — No additional right of way is required. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 7. 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. Planning Commission No. 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-797 WG Properties February 24, 2004 Page 3 8. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City: A. "Site Development Plans" shall normally include all surface improvements, including but not limited to: parking lot improvements or revision to existing parking lot layouts, finish grades, curbs & gutters, ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets, adjacent buildings and existing handicap parking shall be shown on the Site Development Plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. Site Development Plan: V = 30' Horizontal Off Site Street 1" = 40' Horizontal; 1" = 4' Vertical Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 9. 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. 10. 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 AGREEMENT 11. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of the development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. Planning Commission No. 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-797 WG Properties February 24, 2004 Page 4 GRADING 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. The certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. 16. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. DRAINAGE 17. Stormwater shall be directed to the approved drainage system for Tract 24230/Tract 26152 (Lake La Quinta) and SDP 2002-731. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in the existing dry well located in the landscaping adjacent to the Washington Street. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity in the existing systems to accept the design run off from the proposed project. If the existing system is not capable to carry any or all of the developed run off from this development, the applicant shall retain the incremental difference on site. 18. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped set back lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. Planning Commission No. 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-797 WG Properties February 24, 2004 Page 5 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. UTILITIES 19. 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. 20. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 21. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements as required by the City Engineer. A. OFF -SITE STREETS Washington Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W ): No additional street improvements are required except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit) b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Primary Entry of 60 feet from the centerline and 100 feet long plus a variable transition of an additional 50 feet if a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer requires a right turn only/deceleration lane per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. Ji Planning Commission No. 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-797 WG Properties February 24, 2004 Page 6 ii. Caleo Bay (Local Road; 60' R/W ): The applicant shall contribute fair share cost to re -stripe portions of Caleo Bay to accommodate the left turn lanes at the driveways. 22. The applicant may be required to configure existing parking facilities to conform to requirements of the LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking) and ADA requirements aforementioned in GRADING. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 23. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets are limited to the access locations approved in Site Development Permit 2002-731. A. Washington Street — Right turn in and out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movements are restricted. B. Caleo Bay — No turning restrictions. CONSTRUCTION 24. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 25. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 26. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise Planning Commission No. 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-797 WG Properties February 24, 2004 Page 7 with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 27. 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. 28. 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 29. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. 30. The building area as approved under Site Development Permit 2004-797 shall be limited to general commercial office uses in order to maintain adequate parking. LANDSCAPING 31. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, common lots, and park areas. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. , J Planning Commission No. 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-797 WG Properties February 24, 2004 Page 8 32. The planter landscaping between the north walkway and parking area, shall incorporate a cobblestone or similar suitable material, which can accommodate potential foot traffic that may cut across this area. FEES AND DEPOSITS 33. 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. 34. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). BUILDING DESIGN 35. The colors used for the building shall incorporate more earth -tone hues in its materials than those of the existing structure approved under SDP 02-731. ,.31 29 28 N NO SCAL-r VICINITY MAP i ATTACHMENT 1 mum°mm. n_. ..• wwe �,a. rmm+m LCbE{L1 f�3!) 33-71 �� l Ei. �- V g P k.13ee"F, tl7 Ytwil7 tl 1 ZI VS viNino b� - Bads =� - 1 a eve as rater -X w ` aeos-ers 03 � �3iiS NOI-'N SVM asz tv NOl 1NIH5t1M - - - - - {-- -- BMM V7 tEM MIS Dd >� VlUV3�0 es1 a4l YA 1IVA IL 'IV H its 3I I I I IX N u ono FlGe m °mm n G oQ uo ; z a W Y w �O is u mmu�uWW o d o qu =z [Wog U L PFC; Ya;m myY N t N WO u U �O� Om W �Ou., mm <mh fs W> tw m< Q ii`E K W 9 W 0 t <E 60�w Jim u Y i?O 919, ;RY wmNO mu diwwo o�u o�aoo mmfp g 1°w w��ow I ATTACHMENT 2 m� �,�a �w� tsv�lu �rI 3iai � � r• � � � p d3 V1IVfl0 V1 - iHHH1S b Q f LBbEr-E18 (89& Xd� � ®08-ElB 16981 381 IiirllS PDL`.NII+S7M �P (C NOiSNIHSV'M LG __ 83*fM liVn ILI 6 I N O l� o m o- , 19 f� -- W p z 0�6 i U (L-J— > z i m wo Q o U Lu J W a O w LL a _ ? O_ F zN ¢ /\ W N /� Q � i V j1 -I 6 Iw IN Y N• r % I �l X I_1 N ¢ 3 i o to / LL o Ww U _ ¢ ILL Nil w W O' (yI:2 i� LLI O o 3; 3'I`oa3 o q'U o oa�o�Ip�1j q I' -T w' w :I At !�I< X a W �luU,ll`Isl$ u r J. t} L ATTACHMENT 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 4, 2004 B. Site Development Permit 2003-795; a request of Brighton Properties for review of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototype units with three elevations for each unit for Tract 30138 located at 80-600 Avenue 52. 1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Marie Sanchez and Larry Hughes who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated hii review of a project is for that which is within public view, unless there is deviation from the direction of the City. He approves of the project as designed, but recommends again, the.,use of the full mudded tile roof. 3. Committee Member Thorns conl'mended the applicant on the design. He agrees with the use of the full mudded tile. There is a lot of imagination in the deign. 4. Committee Member Bob itt agreed with the design and the landscaping plan. He ; would recommend using a composite material for the edging` as the aluminum edging will deteriorate rapidly. 5. There being no fgr"ther questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to adopt Minute,Motion 2004-003 recommending approval of Site Development° Permit 2003-795, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: the applicant shall use a full mudded t ,Mile roof. b. i Condition added: a different edging shall be used on the landscaping. { /Unanimously approved. ATTACHMENT 4 Y C. Site Development Permit 2004-797; a request of WG Properties for • review of architectural plans for a + 7,430 square foot one story office building at 47-350 Washington Street, Lake La Quinta Plaza for the property located on Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 27892, on the west G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 4, 2004 side of Caleo Bay in Lake La Quinta, north of Omri and Boni Restaurant. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Tim Bunch, architect, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns stated he was serving on this Committee when the first phase was approved, and he is disappointed with the outcome. Architecturally the building is fine, but he would recommend the colors be changed on this building to a more earth tone. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that the planting beds not be placed next to the parking stalls. Mr. Bunch explained there was no room as there is a slope and the ramp is required. 4. Committee Member Thorns suggested the hardscape material be included in the planting beds, maybe cobbled in. 5. Mr. Chuck Truck, contractor for the project, stated he may have problems with ADA requirements due to the grade. Following discussion, it was recommended loose stone be used. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2004-004 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-797, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: A different color shall be used on the building. Recommendation of earth tone hues compatible with the building next door. b. Condition added: There shall be landscaping provisions for rockscape in the planter area on the north side of the building in front of the parking area. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.doc 4 PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-490 TENTATIVE TRACT 31816 APPLICANT/ OWNER: MATTCO CONSTRUCTION REQUEST: 1. RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2003-490), AND; 2. TENTATIVE TRACT 31816, A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF ±7.75 ACRES INTO 26 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE AND ROADRUNNER LANE (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-490, FOR TT 31816. BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT, WHILE THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT APPROVAL. ACCORDINGLY, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL — UP TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING: RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) BACKGROUND: Site Background The site of Tentative Tract 31816 consists of rolling sand accumulations and scrub brush, typical of vacant desert land. The majority of the project site has been significantly disturbed by off -road activity and illegal dumping. An area of disturbed desert saltbush scrub totaling approximately one half acre occurs at the south boundary of the project site. The terrain of the site slopes slightly lower to the south. The south boundary wall of the new Indian Springs Golf Course area lies directly to the north across Westward Ho Drive. Residential low density uses exist to the south and east of the site; to the southwest is the Vista Dunes Mobile Park. Roadrunner Lane, a local residential street, flanks the site's east boundary. Along the north site boundary is Westward Ho Drive, designated as a Collector street in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The north side of Westward Ho is being widened by the Indian Springs development, within the City of Indio. No prior development applications have been filed on this site, until now. Project Background The applicant is requesting approval of a single family detached home subdivision with 26 lots (Attachment 2). The lots will range in area from 10,087 to 14,560 square feet. The only street within the project will be a northern extension of the existing Roudel Lane, which will be brought through the site to connect with Westward Ho. It is proposed as a 60 foot right -of way design, incorporating a 36- foot roadbed flanked by two 8-foot wide sidewalks within 10-foot wide parkways. Roadrunner Lane will be improved at a half -width consistent with Roudel Lane (i.e. 8-foot sidewalk). A small detention basin (Lot A) is shown in the southwest corner of the site. Public Notice This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 4, 2004. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required. To date, no responses to this notice have been received. Any such correspondence received prior to the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible and concerned public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, where necessary and appropriate. Historic Preservation Commission On January 15, 2004, the City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the property owner's Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group (Attachment 3). The assessment found that although the site had not previously been studied, 15 cultural resource sites have been identified within one half mile of the site. The site was surveyed for cultural resources, and none were identified. The study recommends, however, that mitigation measures be implemented, because of the potential for buried resources, and the imported fill which has been placed on the project site which could obscure these resources. The HPC concurred with the report recommendation to monitor the site, and staff has incorporated those measures recommended by the HPC into the Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF ISSUES Access - There are no required access restrictions for Roudel Lane or Roadrunner Lane, as they pertain to connection with Westward Ho Drive. Both access points are within limits for intersection proximity, which is a minimum of 300 feet for Collector streets. No lots in the proposed subdivision have been designed to access Westward Ho Drive, and will be restricted from such access. Perimeter wall - There are no requirements for perimeter walls in the General Plan or Zoning Code. Generally, walls are installed by a developer to meet sound level attenuation requirements, and/or as a privacy and security measure. In this case, it is at the builder's discretion to install a wall along Westward Ho, as no acoustical study was deemed necessary or required under the General Plan. However, individual lot owners with frontage on this street may also elect to build a block wall as part of home construction, should the developer choose to market these lots without such an improvement. For consistency and appearance, a uniform wall built by the developer would be the most appropriate situation, and staff has recommended that a plan for an integrated block wall along the north side of Lots 1, 18 and 19 be provided for review and approval prior to any building permits for those lots. Lot grades - There are some significant grade differentials between the project site and adjacent properties along the western edge of the property, behind Lots 20 - 26. In order to transition the new grades with the existing condition, a combination wall design (i.e., a combination of retaining and garden planter wall) is required. Staff has been working with the applicant to achieve an acceptable design, and it is recommended that the conditions set forth the parameters of the final design, and that it be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of this proposal can be found in the attached Resolution to be adopted for this case. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004 - , recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-490, subject to findings, and; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004 - , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 31816, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. LJ Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed TT 31816 3. Minutes of HPC meeting of 1 /15/04 Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-490, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31816 CASE NO. EA 2003-490 APPLICANT: MATTCO CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2003-490, prepared for Tentative Tract 31816, located on the southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Lane, more particularly described as: PORTION OF THE NE A OF SECTION 29, T5S, R7E - S.B.M., AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT #2001-104102 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2003-490) and has determined that the proposed Tentative Tract 31816 could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed Tentative Tract 31816 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 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. U 1 ) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004- Environmental Assessment 2003-490 February 24, 2004 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 Tentative Tract 31816 will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract 31816 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 Tentative Tract 31816 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 2003-490 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 relating to this project is the Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. 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 constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004- Environmental Assessment 2003-490 February 24, 2004 2. That is does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2003- 490 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 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California t } 1 2 3 0 5 0 Environmental Checklist Form EA 2003-490 for Tentative Tract 31816 Project title: Lead agency name and address Contact person and phone number: Tentative Tract Map 31816 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Wally Nesbit 760-777-7125 Project location: Southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Lane, (between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson St.) APN: 649-040-007 Project sponsor's name and address: Mattco Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 2502 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 General plan designation: Medium Density 7. Zoning: Medium Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Tentative Tract Map proposes to subdivide 7.75 acres into 26 residential lots, lettered lots for retention and streets, and associated improvements. The north -south trending street through the subdivision will be an extension of the existing Roudel Lane which currently ends south of the site. The lots will range from 10,087 to 14,560 square feet. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Indian Springs Country Club (City of Indio) South: Single Family Residential West: Vacant lands, Medium Density Residential East: Single Family Residential 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date -2- 6J 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). Z) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVH, 'Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -3- 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic 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 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. The ultimate construction of single family homes on the site will result in a slight increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels, and impacts will not be significant. Impacts to aesthetics overall are expected to be less than significant. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -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 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) H. a)-c) The proposed project is not currently in agriculture, nor are there agricultural lands within several miles. The property is within an older part of the City which has been urbanized for some time. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property. Development of the site will not impact agricultural resources. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.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 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) M. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed tract map could result in 26 single family homes, which could generate up to 248 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 7 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. "Trip Generation, 6"' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category. 1 3 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -6- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (hounds Der dav) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 248 x 7 = 1,736 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 45 mph 173.60 3,871.28 694.40 - 17.36 17.36 Pounds at 45 mph 0.38 8.55 1.53 - 0.04 0.04 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 248 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 PM10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include the following control measures. CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading conditions, this could result in the generation of 204.6 pounds per day, for a limited period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -7- 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, tarped during transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseeded on the affected portion of the site. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 19. 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. III. 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:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 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? (Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January 2004) 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? (Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January 2004) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January 2004) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January 2004) P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -9- e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January 2004) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January 2004) IV. a)-f) A biological resource study was completed for the proposed project site 2. The study found that the majority of the project site has been significantly disturbed by off -road activity and illegal dumping. An area of disturbed desert saltbush scrub totaling approximately one half acre occurs at the south boundary of the project site. Although this area could be appropriate habitat for Palm Springs pocket mouse and Palm Springs ground squirrel, neither species was identified on the site. The habitat disturbance, combined with the isolated nature of the site, makes it unlikely that good quality habitat occurs on the site. Impacts to species of concern is therefore expected to be less than significant. The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is it a wildlife corridor. The site is within the boundaries of the fee area of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at the time that building permits are secured. 2 "General Biological Assessment Results..." letter report, prepared by Cadre Environmental, January 13, 2004. i !' P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -10- 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? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group, November 2003) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group, November 2003) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group, November 2003) V. a)-d) A Phase I cultural resource study was completed for the project site 3. The study found that although the site had not previously been studied, 15 cultural resource sites have been identified within one half mile of the site. The site was surveyed for cultural resources, and none were identified. The study recommends, however, that mitigation measures be implemented, because of the potential for buried resources, and the imported fill which has been placed on the project site which could obscure resources. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on -site during all grubbing, trenching and grading activities associated with the project site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities, should resources be uncovered. A report of any findings, as well as appropriate curation of materials, shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of completion of earthmoving activities. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. "Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for TTM 31816...," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, 18 November 2003. A- P: Mall y\C as ed ocs\Cu rrent\TT31 81 6\EA490 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? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, December 2003) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, December 2003) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, December 2003) iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Investiga- X tion..." Sladden Engineering, December 2003) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical Investiga- tion..." Sladden Engineering, December 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 Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, December 2003) 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) 1� P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -12- VI. a)-e) A geotechnical analysis was completed for the proposed project site 4. The study found that soils on the site are a combination of imported fill and native sands which are considered to have a low potential for expansion. Soils are considered appropriate for single family home construction, with the implementation of standard building and grading practices, which will be required by the City Engineer. Seismic activity on the site, and in the City in general, will cause significant ground acceleration. The City implements Uniform Building Code standards for the construction of any structure. These standards ensure that the construction of homes on the project site will occur in a safe and earthquake resistant manner. The project site is located in an area of very severe blow sand potential. The mitigation measures included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level. The site is not subject to either liquefaction or landslides. 4 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Approximately 7.7-Acre Residential Development...," prepared by Sladden Engineering, December 10, 2003. 4w V P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (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) ram, P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 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:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -15- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VE I. 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 X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Preliminary Drainage Report" Hacker Engineering, November 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? (Preliminary Drainage Report" Hacker Engineering, November 2003) P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -16- e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Preliminary Drainage Report" Hacker Engineering, November 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 delineation map? (Preliminary Drainage Report" Hacker Engineering, November 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 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 hydrology analysis prepared for the proposed projects demonstrates how the proposed project can retain its 100 year flood flows on site, through the use of a retention basin (shown as Lot A on the Tract Map). The City Engineer will review and approve the drainage analysis for the site, prior to the issuance of any permits. These City requirements are expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. r, "Preliminary Drainage Report," prepared by Hacker Engineering, November, 3, 2003. 2_ 4 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The proposed Tract Map conforms to the General Plan land use and Zoning designations of Medium Density Residential, as 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 within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee area, and the project proponent will be required to pay the fees in place at the time of building permits. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR p. III- 144 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III- 144 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The proposed project site is located on Westward Ho, which is not a major street in the City, and therefore does not generate significant traffic. Since traffic is the primary source of noise in the City, existing and future noise levels in this area are not expected to exceed City standards of 65 dBA CNEL exterior. r; P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -20- The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours. In order to minimize the potential impacts to adjacent residential units during construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Construction activities shall occur only during those hours allowed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler systems. 3. All stationary equipment storage shall occur along the western property line, and as far away from existing dwelling units as possible. The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport. r`; t IL, P:\Wally\Casecocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -21- 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) Y.H. 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. n� P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -22- 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. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -23- 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 construction of 26 residential units will not significantly impact the need for parks in the City. The City's parkland dedication ordinance requires that an in -lieu fee be paid for the 0.22 acres required for this site. The site is also located within one mile of an existing City park -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 31816) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Tentative Tract Map 31816) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Tentative Tract Map 31816) 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 less intense than the densities analysed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Traffic levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at buildout of the General Plan. The project proponent will be required to provide on -site parking in the form of garages for each unit. The site n rj PAWal ly\ Cased ocs\Cu rrent\TT3 181 6\ EA490 Chklst.doc -25- �� transit routes. Impacts associated with the buildout of the project site are expected to be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? (General Plan 1v1EA, p. 58 ff.) 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan WA, p. 58 ff.) 33 -26- XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. r 4 V -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has been identified as having the potential for 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. XVII. c) The construction of 26 residential units is less than could potentially occur on this site, and will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan designation on the property. 3 :) -28- 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 PM 10, 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. XVUI. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 110 -29- b A x v 3 0 o � M I o U 3 0 00 0 N O L40) N o z � O a U � � rA C Cd A W ��a",C�d o� dawa�d 00 M 0 O U O N r+ Cd l >, U. O U 0 w E~ oN ®z O zV A U W d H d A U pq �A a U W uU 0 a caC4 U 0 v v O ai O W 'd p a a�i o a U a] , o � r E' EnaV A G�, iG C� C � Cn N G� ° o o 0 0 w U U U U t- on V bA 1 0 C) 0 0 o a a cu, a a a. a on A A A A a a a rA i a o. A aCd ap o A '' A Qj A A Q bo EP U U U m UA PQ z O O 00 1 Cd � Mo o A W aai a�i 0 Ln o dcn n, O ~ b�A cn O O O bA Q a U) a q a •0 UV o� -, ¢ U `�� ►, O `" � � � � s � •� S W •� a ci cis c�i" F d A W� �A a� U W OV o 0 U U 0 bQ A a Zz pp Cd A z ew � 0 Ln to W O d a �R � •ob a � O on H d A U pq �A a� U W OV 0 0 0 U a�i 43 0 a a .5 a ar 0 0 0 U U U A A A a o� w 40 CZ a aCd �0 A A A b � � A 0 o W a :o RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 31816, DIVIDING 7.75 ACRES INTO 26 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS CASE NO. TT 31816 APPLICANT: MATTCO CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract 31816, a request to subdivide ± 7.75 acres into 26 single-family residential lots and several lettered lots, located an the southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Lane, more particularly described as: PORTION OF THE NE '/4 OF SECTION 29, T5S, R7E — S.B.M., AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT #2001-104102 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 findings to justify their recommendation on Tentative Tract 31816: The La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2003-490. 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. 2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 31816 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 Density Residential land use designation of Up to 8 dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan. 3. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map 31816 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 February 24, 2004 4. As conditioned, the design of Tentative Tract 31816 and type of improvements, acquired for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision will not conflict with such easements. 5. The design of Tentative Tract 31816 and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2003-490, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. 6. The site for Tentative Tract 31816 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; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures specified by Environmental Assessment 2003-490, prepared for Tentative Tract Map 31816; 3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31816 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 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 February 24, 2004 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 4i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- EXHIBIT „A„ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31816 MATTCO CONSTRUCTION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.ia-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 improvement plan approval is required, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs 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"). 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. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 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) Westward Ho Drive (Collector, 74' ROW) — The standard 37 feet from the centerline of Westward Ho Drive for a total 74-foot ultimate developed right of way. 2) Roadrunner Lane (Local Street, 60' ROW) — No additional right of way is required 3) Roudel Lane (Local Street, 60' ROW) — The total 60-foot ultimate developed right of way as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. 8. 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. 9. 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. 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. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 11. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways listed below: A. Westward Ho Drive (Collector) - 10-foot from the ROW-P/L. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where wall designs and improvements are approved/required. 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. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped setback lot has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top of curb exceeding 5 feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate, the maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering sidewalk requirements by either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as needed, or 2) installing retaining walls between the sidewalk and the back of the landscaped area as needed. 12. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement 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 Westward Ho Drive 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. 14. Prior to recording Tract No. 31816, the applicant shall acquire access routes across property located within the subject tract. The access routes shall conform to the geometric lay -out shown on Tentative Tract Map 31816. 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 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. 17. 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 IJ Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 18. 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. 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 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. B. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical C. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal D. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site 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 "Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building and Safety Director and the City Engineer. 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 22. 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 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 monumentation. 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 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. 25. 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 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. 26. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 28. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 29. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 30. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land so as 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. 31. 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) feet of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 32. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 33. 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. 34. 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. �; 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 35. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations), LQMC. If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met. 36. There is a significant grade differential along the western edge of the property, behind Lots 20 — 26; therefore a retaining wall shall be designed by a licensed structural engineer and/or geotechnical engineer. Options available to the designer are a retaining wall with garden wall design or a terraced retaining wall utilizing stacked blocks with geotechnical fabric design. The wall design shall incorporate landscaped planters on the west side of the wall and shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer DRAINAGE 37. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basins to comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100-year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 41. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 45. 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. 46. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 47. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 48. The applicant shall obtain approval of the City Engineer for 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 practical and aesthetic placement. 49. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. 50. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 51. 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 52. 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), LO.MC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 53. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses): A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Westward Ho Drive (Collector; 74' R/W): No additional street improvements. Other required improvements in the Westward Ho Drive right of way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. 2) Roadrunner Lane (Local Road; 60' R/W): No additional street improvements. r � Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 Other required improvements in the Roadrunner Lane right of way area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) 8-foot wide sidewalk with landscaping provided between the curb and the sidewalk as approved by the Community Development and the Public Works Departments. 3) Roudel Lane (Local Road; 60' R/W): Widen the street from the existing Roudel Lane to Westward Ho Drive through the Tentative Map to its ultimate local road width as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The road width shall be 36 feet measured flow line to flow line per La Quinta Standard Plan 151. 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). 54. 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), or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Secondary Arterial 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. 55. Improvements shall include traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians, if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 56. 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. 57. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. FIRE MARSHAL 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius. 61. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. Fire Department plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. CONSTRUCTION 65. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 66. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. All landscape plans shall comply with the Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter 8.13, pertaining to Water Efficient Landscaping. 67. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, and common lot areas. Landscaped planters shall be incorporated along the Westward Ho Drive perimeter walls to be consistent with the design along the wall design along the westerly property line. 68. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 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. 69. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department, pursuant to Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. Specific landscape requirements for the project are: A. No more than 50% of any front yard area shall be devoted to turf. Front yard landscaping shall consist of at least two trees, each with a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting, ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is a minimum six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two-inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. Bubblers and emitters shall be used to irrigate shrubs and trees. Homebuyers shall be offered a 100% desert landscape option. B. Parkway shade trees shall be provided in the perimeter landscape improvement plans for Westward Ho Drive, to be 24-inch or larger box with a minimum two-inch caliper. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 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 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 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 to include all perimeter, planter and retention basin landscaping, on site retention basin and perimeter walls and planters by establishing a maintenance association of all property owners. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 76. 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 meeting Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 the general criteria above, but involving a change of no more than 5% of the total lot count of the Tentative Map as approved. Any revisions that would 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. 77. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on -site during all grubbing, trenching and grading activities associated with the project site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities, should resources be uncovered. A report of any findings, as well as appropriate curation of materials, shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of completion of earthmoving activities. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 78. Any collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. 79. The applicant shall prepare a plan for an integrated block wall along the north side of Lots 1, 18 and 19, for review and approval as part of the landscaping plans for the Westward Ho parkway and landscaped setback areas. Wall design shall integrate the requirements for slope design as set forth in Condition 11 . FEES AND DEPOSITS 80. The applicant shall comply with 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. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect upon application for plan check and permits. 81. Provisions shall be made to comply with terms and requirements of the City's Art in Public Places program, as in effect at the time of building Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 31816 — Recommended February 24, 2004 permit issuance. 82. 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). 83. Prior to completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of such reapportionment. 84. The applicant/developer shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, as in effect at the time of issuance of any grading or other land disturbance permit. NO SCALE PRoJEcr SITE WESTWARD, HD DRIVE HIGHWAY 111 A. Cv) U I 1\1 I A VICINITY MAP THOMAS GUIDE COORDINATES PAGE 849, J--2 ATTACHMENT .1 1101�W pap prod sew lisp DI "$$ lei Z aC",• ie S id ° $v g _ , lea lea ? .1 g $ a a a g ' as 15I lip as �y_ p 6$ a pp �fibq ley e6 � gill l{pp{t ^^xx }d1` t6i td1 !�5{ 3f 5 1S{g4 B L$w§ 3 aft E$Ei O �E Q k Q u a`€ Y11$ Sl° E$a Sg d9$ E8 0 I I 4 90-,00, k g -L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --WdG OH OF�t/MLS3M g Q t0 _ T -- — — ��----- d� � —L I a wont y4 �j(1 k JYLL M� � I 1 bs 1 I ease zo-4 r• e I �rici � a .nxl W cNq @ v I 4 to I I tea- I I Q I Ibl — — — — -- I I kl I i I �o W I I ICI g� 4 0 �cp QdQt/ 3 m 3QHS3StJOH - I k 6 I a z�a oo � W o\ I I L I Q I I � — — — — — - �-I I i a R I I -- - - - - - -- - - - - - I p—ric E I -- I Vo- I 2 0 I I l o l — — — — — I k e 8 �_—_--1 I i c) ------ I I i I d1S3ld N, ATTACHMENT 2 . � JL� MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 15, 2004 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Archie Sharp at 3:04 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Puente, Sharp, Wilbur, and Wright Absent: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Wilbur to excuse Chairperson Mouriquand. Unanimously approved. Staff Present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Wright to approve the Minutes of November 20, 2003 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Report on Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract Map 31816, located on the southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Drive. Applicant: Mattco Construction, Inc. Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock) P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-15-04.doc Last printed 1129/04 9:29 AM ATTACHMENT 3 ('�2 Historic Preservation Commission January 15, 2004 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Wright stated there appeared to be an unusual amount of fill and asked if there were any regulatory actions which would prompt an applicant to contact the City regarding fill. Staff replied the applicant should have obtained a "stockpiling" permit. Staff had inquired of the Public Works Department if a permit had been issued, but had not received a reply as of this meeting. 3. Commissioner Wright asked if a Notice of a Filling Permit would be presented to the Commission, especially if it is in a sensitive area. Staff replied this was the first time this situation had occurred and currently there is no formal procedure. A procedure needs to be established whereby the Community Development Department would be contacted when a fill permit is requested. Staff would then decide if the property is in a sensitive area and requires surveying or monitoring. Commissioner Wright was concerned about filling being done in sensitive areas. Staff would look into implementing a standard policy. 4. Commissioner Wilbur asked if this project was in a sensitive area. Staff replied it was. 5. Commissioner Wright stated previously this had not been a problem because these sites had been capped, but information needs to be recorded that the property was surveyed prior to the fill being added. In the future, the information would be available. He stated some type of assessment should be done. 6. Commissioner Sharp asked for a definition of "fill". Staff replied "fill" means dirt has been brought on to the property from off - site and used to build up the grade. 7. Commissioner Wright said he brought the subject up because the area across the street is quite a bit lower. When that property is filled in it will take 40 or 50 feet of fill. He commented there should be some type of permit before any machinery is allowed on the property. Staff replied a permit to Historic Preservation Commission January 15, 2004 fill the site would be needed. Commissioner Wright commented once a permit is given for any type of grubbing or filling it should come before the Commission. 8. Commissioners Sharp and Puente agreed. 9. Commissioner Wilbur asked about implementing a policy. Staff replied they would look into it and report back to the Commission. If formal action is needed, the Commission will be informed. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2004-001 accepting the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 31816 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Wright asked that the filling information be brought up at the next meeting. B. Commissioner Puente asked if there was further information on the Historic Preservation Conference. Staff advised they would bring information back as soon as it was available. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Wilbur to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on February 19, 2004. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:17 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Carolyn Walker Secretary PH #E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-020 APPLICANT: OLD TOWN LA QUINTA, LLC (WELLS MARVIN) ARCHITECT: SOUTHWEST CONCEPTS LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH 58,550 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR SPACE IN THE VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) ZONE (PHASE II OF SPECIFIC PLAN 02-058) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-450, PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-058, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON JUNE 4, 2002. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. ZONING: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: VC / COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VACANT LAND SOUTH: VC / COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VACANT LAND THAT IS PART OF OLD TOWN LA QUINTA EAST: VC / VACANT LAND P:\stan\old town\vup 2004-020 pc rpt.doc WEST: VC / COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE PART OF OLD TOWN LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: This project is a part of Specific Plan 2002-058 that was approved by the City Council on June 4, 2002, and consists of nine buildings with approximately 127,517 square feet of floor space spread out around new interior private streets. Tenants are anticipated to consist of retail, restaurant and office uses The entire project will consist of approximately 127,500 square feet of gross leaseable floor space on six acres in the Village area of the City. The site is bounded by Calle Tampico on the north, Avenida Bermudas on the west, Desert Club Drive on the east, and Avenida La Fonda on the south. Phase I, consisting of approximately 60,000 square feet of floor space in three buildings is nearing completion on the west half of the site. Most of the private streets within the project boundaries have been installed. Immediately to the west of this phase a future building pad has been grassed and landscaped for use as an event lawn. PROJECT REQUEST: General: Proposed is the second phase of the three phase project consisting of buildings "F, G, H and I", with 58,550 square feet of floor area. Buildings F and G are being combined into one building with buildings H and I combined into a second building. The buildings are located near the intersection of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive (Attachment 1). Site Design/Circulation The proposed buildings will front on Main Street. The specific building footprints have been altered slightly from that shown in the Specific Plan, but are conceptually the same (Attachment 2). A small plaza area is shown at the northwest corner of the northern building. Architectural Design Pursuant to the Specific Plan, the proposed project will use an architectural theme derived from California Mission Revival (Santa Barbara or Monterey) architecture and the La Quinta Resort. Building forms combine sloped clay the roofs with parapet walls with extensive use of covered pedestrian areas and patios. Several towers, rotundas and chimneys are used for accent. The architecture of these buildings will be slightly different from Phase I to provide a feeling that they were not constructed at the same time. p \stan\sp 2002-745 marvin pc rpt.wpd Plaster walls will have a smooth texture and rounded corners. Tile eyebrow awnings are provided on several windows. Most windows are inset from the exterior walls. The plaster color is swiss coffee with cantera stone trim and a three tone two piece red mission the roof material. Blue-green will be used for exterior doors and painted wood frames. Wood will be stained a dark color. Glazed decorative Mexican hand painted tiles will be used for accent designs throughout the project. Decorative metal will be used for railings and wall accents. Outdoor stone and clay pavers will be used throughout the sidewalk areas. Heights for the two story buildings vary with a maximum 32 feet height. Exterior lighting will match that used in Phase I with the existing sign program used for these tenants. Landscape and Hardscape Design The landscape design is similar to that used in Phase I and compliments the architectural theme. Mexican fan palms will line most street frontages, with canopy trees used for accent and shade pedestrian and parking areas. Perimeter streets will include shrub and ground cover planting areas next to the buildings while interior streets use tree and shrub planting next to the curb. Vine pockets will be used on arcade and covered walkway supports. Shrubs consist primarily of native and desert - type plants. Many of the plants used in the recent Avenida La Fonda improvements are proposed to be used. Decorative paving will be used through the sidewalk areas of the site, anchored by the Main Street plaza area. Several fountains will be provided spread out around the site. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of February 4, 2004, and by adoption of Minute Motion 2004-006, recommended approval of the plans, subject to conditions (Attachment 3). PUBLIC NOTICE This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 13, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW The request was sent out for comment and any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. p \stan\sp 2002-745 marvin pc rpt.wpd STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS The findings necessary to approve the Village Use Permit can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-^, approving Village Use Permit 2004-020, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee minutes for the meeting of February 4, 2004 Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p \stan\sp 2002-745 marvin pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN OLD TOWN LA QUINTA CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-020 APPLICANT: OLD TOWN LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24T" day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request of Old Town La Quinta, LLC to approve the development plans for two commercial buildings in Old Town La Quinta, located at the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF APN: 770-121-001, 770-121-002, and 770-121-003 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on February 4, 2004, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2004-006, recommending approval of the development plans for the new buildings, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting of June 4, 2002, adopted Resolution 2002-83, approving Specific Plan 2002-058, of which this Village Use Permit is a part; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Village Use Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Village Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the commercial designation of the property. 2. The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code and Specific Plan requirements, including but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and signs. 3 The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2002-450, prepared for Specific Plan 2002-058, which was certified on June 4, 2002. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new p:\stan\wells old town Iq\vup 2004-020 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2002-079 Site Development Permit 2002-745 Adopted: July 23, 2002 information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review. 4. The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The building is a well designed with articulation on the front and rear elevations. The project uses architectural features, colors, and materials specified in the Specific Plan. 5. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. 6. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. 7. The previously approved sign program that will be used for this project is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code program, and will be in harmony and visually related to the buildings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve Village Use Permit 2004-020 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 241h day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: p:\stan\wells old town Iq\vup 2004-020 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-020 Adopted: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\wells old town Iq\vup 2004-020 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2004-020 Old Town La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development 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. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances 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, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ and the approved SWPPP for Tract 30850 if in effect when project construction commences. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Village Use Permit 2004-020 Old Town La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 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. PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/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 the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 5. 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 shown on the Site Development Permit. \stan\wells old town\vup 2004-020 pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Village Use Permit 2004-020 Old Town La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Village Use Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on -site and off -site improvements for this Village Use Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 8. 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. 9. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Site Development Plan 1" = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, sidewalks, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements for the parking lot and access to the building; and showing the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of adjacent existing streets including ADA accessibility route to surrounding buildings, parking facilities and public streets.' 10. The City maintains standard plans, details 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. P:\stan\wells old town\vup 2004-020 pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 3 of Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Village Use Permit 2004-020 Old Town La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 11. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, 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 which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 12. 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. 13. 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. Approved Best Management Plan that includes storm water pollution prevention and erosion control plans prepared by a qualified engineer. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 14. 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. 'Astan\wells old town\vup 2004-020 pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2004-020 Old Town La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 15. 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. DRAINAGE 16. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Parcel Map 30850. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. UTILITIES 17. 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. 18. 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. PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS DRIVEWAYS 19. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking) and the latest ADA standards and policies. A. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets are restricted to the access locations approved in Tract No. 30850. QUALITY ASSURANCE 20. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 21. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such of 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. 22. 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. PAstan\wells old town\vup 2004-020 pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 5 of E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Village Use Permit 2004-020 Old Town La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 23. 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS 24. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). MISCELLANEOUS 25. Street lights on Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 26. Bicycle racks shall be provided throughout the project. Landscaping and/or hardscape plans shall show location, design, etc. for racks. 27. A preliminary landscaping plan, including trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape shall be submitted for approval by Staff. 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. 28. 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. 29. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 30. Submit landscaping plan for open space (plaza area) prepared by Landscape Architect. FIRE MARSHAL 31. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. 32. 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. \stan\wells old town\vup 2004-020 pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Village Use Permit 2004-020 Old Town La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 33. Fire Department connections shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the street side of the buildings. And shall be located at the main street access to the building. 34. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500 gpm for a 4-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. 35. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. Streets shall be a minimum 20-feet wide clear and unobstructed, with 13foot 6 inch vertical clearance and all turns shall have a 38-foot outside turning radius. 39. Any commercial operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.) 40. 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. 41. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial suite. (Contact the fire department for an application) 42. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. \stan\wells old town\vup 2004-020 pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT #1 CASE MAP �& CASE No. NORTH VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-020 SCALE: OLD TOWN LA QUINTA, LLC NTS ATTACHMENT #3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 4, 2004 E. Village Use Permit 2004-020; a request of Old Town La Quinta, LLC for review of development plans for Phase II of Old Town La Quinta, consisting of 58,550 gross square feet of floor space in two buildings located southwest of the intersection of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Steve Nieto, designer for the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns noted the people spaces and complimented the applicant on the architecture, but still believes the site layout could have been better. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked about the entrance details and windows. Mr. Neito explained the material and look to be used. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2004-006 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2004-020, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Recommendation: The applicant should provide an improvement plan for the open space (plaza area). A landscape architect should be hired to design the area. Unanimously approved F. Si velo ment Permit 2004-798; a request of Summit Team Inc., for L.Q. In ents L.P. for review of architectural plans for a one story, ± 1,192 squ foot expansion to the existing Dyson & Dyson Real Estate office buil i located at 50-981 Washington Street, within La Quinta Village Shoppin nter. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell pr ted the information contained in the staff report, a copy of whi s on file in the Community Development Department. Staff intr ced John Stanford and David Israelsky, who gave a presentation the project. G:\WPDO'CS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.dac 6 PH #F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-793 APPLICANT: CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC ARCHITECT: WATKINS/BAILS AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HERMANN AND ASSOCIATES LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 133 ROOM HOTEL AND 132 CASITAS UNITS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #1, THAT WAS CERTIFIED ON JUNE 3, 2003. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 SINCE THIS PROJECT IMPLEMENTS SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #1. ZONING: CT (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) P:\stan\centre pointe\sdp 2003-793 pc rpt.doc SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL / NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: CO / VACANT LAND IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH COACHELLA VALLEY STORM CHANNEL BEYOND EAST: MDR / VACANT LAND IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH NEW PARK SITE BEYOND WEST: VACANT LAND IN THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS BACKGROUND The 14.9 acre project site is a part of the 50 acre Centre Pointe project originally approved by the City Council on February 5, 2002, and amended on June 3, 2003. This project is part of the Specific Plan that includes a hotel and casitas units, as well as 67 residential units, two restaurants, a neighborhood park, a medical office/surgical facility and a development containing 26 sanctuary villas. PROJECT PROPOSAL General This first phase is to be located adjacent to the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue (Attachment 1). Proposed is a 133 unit Hilton Homewood Suites and 132 casitas units that can be rented as a part of the hotel operation (Attachment 2). The three story hotel is somewhat "C" shaped with a common area and swimming pool in the central courtyard. The casitas units will be provided in 19 detached structures around the hotel. The units will be sold to second home or vacation purchasers who, when not using them, can place them in the hotel rental pool. Site Design The hotel will front on Washington Street with the casitas units to the north and east of the hotel. The majority of the proposed parking is in front of the hotel adjacent to Washington Street. A loop drive with parking on both sides extends around the north side of the hotel and divides a portion of the casitas area. The main portion of the hotel is setback approximately 210 feet from the Washington Street right-of-way line which exceed the 20 foot required setback. A porte cochere attached to the hotel by a flat roof is provided over the hotel entry at a setback of approximately 133 feet from Washington Street. The casitas units vary in setback from Miles Avenue with the minimum setback of 30 feet from the Miles Avenue right-of-way. The closest casitas' to Washington Street will be setback approximately 172 feet. P:\stan\centre pointe\sdp 2003-793 pc rpt.doc The two restaurants are not a part of this request, but their pad locations at the corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue and at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Seeley Drive are designated on the site plan. Circulation/ Parking The main access to the project site will be from Washington Street in front of the hotel entry. This entry will be provided with a center median planted with palm trees and accent paving. Vehicular access will also be provided on Miles Avenue and on Seeley Drive. A new street, that is an extension of Seeley Drive on the north side of Miles Avenue, will meander through the site and connect to Washington Street and delineate the south boundary of the project area. The entire street will be constructed as a part of this project. As noted earlier, most of the parking is located in front of the hotel. A loop drive aisle provides access and convenient parking for the casitas units to the east and north. Parking spaces have been provided as follows: Hotel - 1 space per room Casitas - 1.6 per unit Restaurants - 1 per 115 square feet 133 required — 134 provided 212 required — 220 provided 134 required — 139 provided Total: 479 required 493 provided The restaurant parking requirements are included in the calculations because they will share the parking lot area with this project. The parking requirements are based on the approved Specific Plan standards. Those requirements are: Hotel — 1.5 spaces per room Casitas — 1.5 spaces per room Restaurants — 1 space per 75 square feet The Zoning Code requires bicycle racks be provided. In a tourist -related use, this feature is necessary. A condition has been recommended to ensure they are provided. Architectural Design - Hotel The hotel consists of 95,137 square feet of floor area and provides four different size rooms varying from 423 square feet to 912 square feet. The majority of the rooms are either 423 or 469 square feet. The rooms consist of studio to two bedroom units with each having a small kitchenette. Other facilities include a two story lobby, exercise rooms, outdoor swimming pool, spa and sports court. No on -site restaurant facilities are proposed. P:\stan\ccntrc points\sdp 2003-793 pc rpt.doc The three-story hotel is designed in a Monterey/Spanish/Mediterranean style of architecture and utilizes a medium tan smooth trowel plaster finish with beige plaster trim. A three -color (red to brown) barrel the will be used for the roof. Architectural features include first floor trellis cover, railed balconies, inset and bay style windows with plaster trim, and a round and square tower. The building is provided with popout features on all sides to break up the mass of the building. A tile roof porte cochere with arched openings is provided over the hotel entry area. The height of the main roof structure of the hotel is approximately 35-feet with the maximum height approximately 42'-1 " for the tower element on the front of the building. The porte cochere is at its highest point approximately 27.5-feet high. Roof equipment will be installed in the wells on top of the hotel structure. Architectural Design — Casitas Units These 132 casitas units will each contain 1,243 square feet of floor space and contain two bedrooms with a kitchen and two baths. A bedroom and a bath can be locked off from the remaining part of the unit to be used as a hotel room. Five one-story and 14 two story structures will be provided. The one story structures will have four units, while the two story structures will have eight units. Maximum height of the one story units is 16-feet with the two story units 25'-1 1 " in height. The one story units will be adjacent to Miles Avenue to comply with the maximum 22-foot height limit within 60-feet of Miles Avenue. The exterior stairways of one two story casitas encroach into the 60-foot area, but are less than 22-feet high at that point which complies with the Code requirements. Four outdoor areas each containing a sports court and swimming pool will be spread out through the casitas area. The main outdoor area southeast of the hotel will have a larger pool as well as a spa. The architecture of the casitas units will also be Mediterranean and use the same colors, materials and design features that are the same or similar to those used in the hotel. Trash enclosures will be provided in the parking lot areas near the casitas units for use as needed. The applicant indicates that a sign application request will be submitted separately showing both monument and building signs. Landscape Design A conceptual landscaping plan for the project area has been submitted using the plant palette approved out in the Specific Plan. Both shade trees and palm trees PAstan\centre pointc\sdp 2003-793 pc rpt.doc are used. Date palm trees are primarily used along the center median of the new Seeley Drive and bordering the Washington Street entry. A semi -circular row of Date palms are shown along the walk connecting the two restaurants to the hotel entry. Shade trees are shown extensively in the parking lot and common areas. Walkways are shown connecting the casitas areas with the hotel, parking lots and pool areas. Along Miles Avenue adjacent to the casitas area, a six-foot high plastered wall is shown. Short perpendicular widths of metal picket fence will be used through this area to break up the expanse of this wall. The balance of the screening around the property will be from the grading, berming and planting. Parking lot lighting is proposed to consist of Mission Bell style shielded fixtures with additional lighting provided on the landscaping for ambient, walkway and accent lighting. They also intend to use some building flood lights on the front of the hotel and monument sign. Grading A preliminary grading plan has been submitted that includes the entire 50 acre Centre Pointe project area. The Specific Plan requires that the grading plan be approved with the first Site Development Permit. The plan shows pad heights for all residential lots and non-residential building pads as well as streets and parking areas. The proposed residential and commercial building pads are lower or even with the adjacent existing single-family lots to the east and south. The proposed hotel pad will be higher than those existing lots to the east because of the grades of Washington Street and Miles Avenue adjacent to the project. The grade difference between the hotel and nearest residence to the east will be approximately 10-12 feet higher. The grading plan indicates that along the southern 2/3 of the Washington Street frontage a retaining wall will be needed between the inside edge of the 20-foot street landscape lot and adjacent parking lot surface. This is because Washington Street drops as it goes south and the site finish grade adjacent to the street will need to be higher than the street. This retaining wall will need to be approximately three feet high near the north end of the hotel area to 11 feet high near the storm channel at the south end. In front of the hotel this wall may need to be approximately ten -feet high. Park Proposal The applicant has submitted a conceptual site/landscaping plan for the 2.68 acre park approved for the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Seeley Drive. The Development Agreement between the developer and City requires that the park be developed with specific improvements prior to final inspection of the first .) P:\stan\centre pointe\sdp 2003-793 pc rpt.doc residential unit which are not a part of this request. However, the Specific Plan notes it to be part of Phase I. The plan will need to be reviewed as more detailed plans are developed to ensure that all requirements are being met. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed this request at its meeting of February 4, 2004 (Attachment 3) and adopted Minute Motion 2004-005, recommending approval subject to Jacaranda and Evergreen Ash trees not being used. PUBLIC NOTICE This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 13, 2004. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. FINDINGS The findings, as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, can be made as noted in the attached Resolution provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed. The current Zoning Code requires buildings within 150 feet of Washington Street to have a roof not more than 22 feet in height. This Code provision was enacted in 1996 to insure low profile buildings adjoining Image Corridors and Major/Primary Arterial thoroughfares. However, the Code permits a 15 foot high encroachment for projections if the architectural feature does not contain usable floor space, such as chimneys, towers, gables and spires and does not exceed 10% of the ground floor area of the structure, if approved as part of a site development or other permit. The porte cochere will need to be revised to comply with this provision. Additionally, the roof structure at the front of the building will need to be reduced to a maximum 40-feet. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 2004- , approving Site Development Permit 2003-793, subject to the attached conditions. P:\stan\centre pointe\sdp 2003-793 pc rpt.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Minutes of the February 4, 2004 ALRC meeting Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL AND CASITAS PROJECT CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-793 APPLICANT: CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request of CP Development, LLC to approve the development plans for a three story hotel with casitas units in the Tourist Commercial zoning district, located on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: Portions of APN's 604-040-012, -013, -023, and -037 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee did on the 4th day of February, 2004, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2004- 005, recommending approval of the development plans for the project, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Tourist Commercial. The proposed hotel/casitas project is consistent with this land use designation and will provide facilities to serve the tourist trade visiting the City. 2. The proposed buildings are designed to comply with the Zoning Code and Specific Plan requirements, including, but not limited to, design, parking, setbacks and land use. 3. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this Site Development Permit has been assessed in conjunction with an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-436 prepared for Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #1, which was certified on June 3, 2003. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166 since this project implements Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #1. R\stan\centre pointe\sdp 2003-793 pc reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development, LLC Adopted: 3. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city and in compliance with the architectural standards in the Specific Plan. 4. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with future and existing surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Project landscaping, including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials conforms to those designated in the Specific Plan and has been designed so as to provide relief, compliment buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and compliment the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. 6. The monument and building signs will have to comply and be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-793 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: P:\STAN\centre pointe\sdp 2003-793 pc reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development, LLC Adopted: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta,'California P:\STAN\centre pointe\sdp 2003-793 pc reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). 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. �. I. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: 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). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. , 4 sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 2 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — No additional right of way is required except for additional variable right of way dedication for Tentative Parcel Map 31116 presently under review by the City. 2) Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial, Option A, 110' ROW) — No additional right of way is required except for additional variable right of way dedication for Tentative Parcel Map 31116 presently under review by the City. 3) Seeley Drive (Pursuant to Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment No. 1, 80' ROW) — Full right of way dedication of 80 feet to be required of Tentative Parcel Map 31116 presently under review by the City. 9. 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. 10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways as follows: A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial, Option A) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 3 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 12. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street from is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site Development Permit Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 13. Direct vehicular access to Miles Avenue is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site Development Permit Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 14. Direct vehicular access to Seeley Drive is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site Development Permit Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 15. 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. 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 Site Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT_ PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 18. 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. On -Site Street Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal, V = 4' Verticall B. On -Site Rough Grading/Drainage Plans 1" = 40' Horizontal _ ' � Date: sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 4 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quints, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: C. Site Development Plan 1" = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. "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. 19. 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. 20. 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. ;dp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 5 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 21. 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 22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 23. 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. 24. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. 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. 25. 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. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 6 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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 30. 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. 31. 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. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 7 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: 32. 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. 33. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 37. 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. 38. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 40. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 41. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. -, 1` sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 8 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: 42. 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 43. 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. 44. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W): No additional street widening and/or street improvements are required except at locations where additional street width and/or street improvements are needed to accommodate conditions of Tentative Parcel Map 31116 presently under City review. The required street improvements shall be constructed by CP Development La Quinta. 2) Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial; Option A - 110' R/W): No additional street widening and/or street improvements are required except at locations where additional street width and/or street improvements are needed to accommodate conditions of Tentative Parcel Map 31116 presently under City review. The required street improvements shall be constructed by CP Development La Quinta. 3) Seeley Drive - Pursuant to Specific Plan 2001-055, 80' ROW Full street widening of 56 feet including a 12-foot raised landscaped median as conditioned of Tentative Parcel Map 31116 presently under City review. The required street improvements shall be constructed by CP Development La Quinta. � a sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 9 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La auinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: Other required improvements of Tentative Parcel Pap 31116 in the public street right of way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk c) A County of Riverside benchmark in the Washington Street right of way established by a licensed surveyor. All improvements conditioned of Tentative Parcel Map 31116 shall be constructed and in place prior to the issuance of grading permits for this Site Development Permit. 45. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Facilities 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 46. 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. 47. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Seeley Drive (Washington Street): Right turn in and out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movements are prohibited. B. Primary Entry (Washington Street): Right turn in and out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movements are prohibited. C. Secondary Entry (Seeley Street): Full turn movements are permitted. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 10 of H Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La auinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: D. Secondary Entry (Miles Avenue): Right turn in and out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movements are prohibited. 48. 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. 49. 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 and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 50. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 51. 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. CONSTRUCTION 52. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 11 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La auinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: LANDSCAPING 53. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 54. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 55. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 56. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 57. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 58. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 60. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 61. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 12 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La O,uinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: 62. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 64. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 66. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 67. Bicycle racks shall be provided in a minimum of three areas around the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 68. Pedestrian walkways (sidewalks) shall be installed to provide convenient access from the project site to the surrounding streets as required in the specific Plan. 69. Pursuant to Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #1 public art shall be provided in Land use area I (project site) with fees generated by this development. 70. Noise mitigation studies and measures shall be provided as required in Environmental Assessment 2001-436, Amendment #1 adopted by the City Council under Resolution 2002-007. S sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 13 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 71. The park improvements shall conform to Exhibit "D" contained in the approved and recorded Development Agreement by and between City of LA Quinta and CP Development La Quinta, LLC. 72. Unless determined not to be needed by the Community Development Department due to grading or other factors, screening of parking lots shall be provided as required in Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment V. Screening shall be included along Seeley Drive. 73. A sign program for all monument, building and miscellaneous exterior signs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to final inspection of hotel or casitas units, whichever occurs first. 74. An exterior lighting plan (parking, walkway, building, landscaping) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of first building permit for project. A photometrics study for the parking lot shall be included with the lighting plan complying with Zoning Code Section 9.100.150. 75. Preliminary plans for all landscaping and walls, including retaining walls shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of first building permit. All walls shall be decorative and be no higher than needed. 76. The porte cochere shall be revised to not exceed 22 feet high within 150 of the Washington Street right-of-way, except for permitted architectural projections. 77. The roof structure at the front (west side) of the hotel shall be reduced in height to a maximum of 40-feet high. 78. All applicable requirements of Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #1 and the recorded Development Agreement between the applicant and City of La Quinta shall be met as stipulated. 79. Review and implement, where practicable, Department as noted in their letter dated Community Development Department. the comments of the La Quinta Police November 30, 2003, on file in the Date: sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 14 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La auinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: FIRE MARSHAL 80. 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. 81. 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. 82. Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the front street side of the buildings. FDC's and PIV's may not be located at the rear of buildings. Note also that FDC's must be at least 25 feet from the building and may not be blocked by landscaping, parking stalls or anything that may restrict immediate access. 83. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 84. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 85. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 86. 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. 87. 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 1 3'/2 feet clear. Turning radiuses shall be no less than 45 feet outside. 88. Any commercial operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.) 89. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 15 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-793 CP Development La Quinta, LLC February 24, 2004 Date: 90. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building. (Contact the fire department for an application) 91. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 92. Any submissions to the Fire Department are the responsibility of the applicant. sdp 2003-793 pc coa pc coa.doc Printed February 20, 2004 Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENT #1 e r _ I `� ... ^`Fip��^'� •� gyp" / -f < •"� i # { x.Q�i' MILES AVENUE as "M � A 4'§"�,'ssa r;'s., � �, a , r a , fi �. �''' �if� • � � ,. � n, ,' g , r . 'a . Y r«S�w a+ki� .m.e �,.sSeY ®, �•A k�2 .. N. a� � x 1'a x. ., + . ar w' f k 1, CASE MAP CASE No. SDP 2003-793 CP DEVELOPMENT LQ, LLC NORTH SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT #; Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 4, 2004 ---w =- D. Site Development Permit 2003-793; a request of CP Development La Quinta, LLC, for review of development plans for a 133 unit hotel and 132 detached casitas rentals located southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Dick Oliphant, Frances Wong, Greg Watkins, architect for the project, and Chris Hermann, landscape architect, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated that as one of the main entrances to the City, it is an excellent job. The sensitivity to the residences to the east is good. There is a lot of open space and the taller units are closer to the Washington Street Corridor. He likes the idea that it blends with the residential units and does not make a commercial statement. It will be a great addition to the City. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees with the architectural design. He likes the plainness of the landscape plan with very little shrubbery; however, the plant palette selected shows a lot of shrubbery. He would prefer the clean look. Mr. Chris Hermann, landscape architect, stated they will have a problem with CVWD on the clean look because the drawings illustrate too much grass. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that the date palms proposed to be used in pedestrian traffic area be selected by the landscape architect to ensure they are structurally sound. On the tree selection he would like to delete the jacaranda, mesquite, and Ash trees. Mr. Herman stated they were required to use the Ash trees by the Specific Plan. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2004-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2003-793, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Delete the use of the jacaranda and Ash trees. Unanimously approved. GAWPD0CS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.doc 5 PH #G STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-795 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: BRIGHTON PROPERTIES REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH THREE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS. LOCATION: 80-600 AVENUE 52 ARCHITECT: SOUTH COAST ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RAY LOPEZ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 2003-67 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30138. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS, OR NEW INFORMATION, WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) BACKGROUND: Tract 30138 is located on the north side of Avenue 52, southeast of the All American Canal, and south of Rancho Polo Estates (Attachment 1). The City Council approved the tract on August 5, 2003, which consists of 47 single-family residential lots ranging between ± 9,000 and 15,000 square feet in size (Attachment 2). PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes three new single-family prototype residential units with three different architectural elevations for each prototype (Attachment 3). A new model home complex, sales office, and parking lot are also proposed on lots closest to Avenue 52. The project mixes different but compatible architectural styles to create an eclectic street scene. The homes are proposed to be single -story between 16 and 19 feet in height maximum. Three different architectural styles are proposed including Spanish Colonial, Early California and Tuscan with three floor plans including the following: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Square Feet 2,650 2,850 3,010 No. of Bedrooms 2 w/casita 3 w/casita 3 w/casita No. of Bathrooms 3.5 4.5 4.5 Garage Parking 2-front, plus 1 golf cart 2-front/1-side loaded 2-front, plus one golf cart MATERIALS AND COLORS: A variety of materials are proposed to be used including painted plaster/stucco, desert tone colors, plastered exterior walls, exposed wood beams, decorative wrought iron, tile roofs, and raised planters. LANDSCAPING: The landscaping plan consists of a wide variety of specimen trees, shrubs, vines and ground covers. The plant materials proposed are consistent with development in the City, drought tolerant, and appropriate for the desert climate (Attachment 4). ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this project at their meeting of February 4, 2004 (Attachment 5) and adopted Minute Motion 2004-003 unanimously recommending approval of the prototype units with one recommendation, the units have mudded roof tiles. Public Notice This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 13, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. 1 i � STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving Site Development Permit 2003-795, subject to findings and conditions contained in the attached Resolution. Prepared by: iy Martin Magana,® Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Tentative Tract Map 30138 3. Proposed Models Plan Set 4. Conceptual Landscape Plan 5. February 4, 2004, Architecture minutes and Landscape Review Committee meeting PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, EACH WITH THREE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS WITHIN TRACT 30138, LOCATED AT 80-600 AVENUE 52. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-795 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of February, 2004 hold a Public Hearing to consider a request by Brighton Properties for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for three new single-family prototype residential units with three different architectural designs for each prototype within Tract 30138, located at 80-600 Avenue 52, more particularly described as follows: APNs: Tract Map No. 30138 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 4th day of February, 2004, hold a public meeting to review architecture and landscaping plans for three new single-family prototype residential units with three different architectural elevations for each prototype within Tract 30138 and recommend approval by adoption of Minute Motion 2004-003; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment was certified by the City Council under Resolution No. 2003-67 for Tentative Tract Map 30138. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information, which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The project, as proposed, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that single-family homes are allowed and compatible with the established land use for the site. PCRESO SDP 03-795 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2003-795-Brighton Properties Adopted: February 24, 2004 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code, in terms of architecture, building heights, building mass, parking, and landscaping. 3. Architectural Design: The proposed project complies with the architectural design standards established by the Site Development Permit and implements the development standards and design guidelines of that permit. 4. Site Design: The proposed project complies with the development standards established by the Site Development Permit, with regard to lot layout and site design in terms of project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. 5. Landscape Design: The proposed project is consistent with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the Zoning Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit. 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-795, subject to conditions, 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 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California t+t) PCRESO SDP 03-795 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2003-795-Brighton Properties Adopted: February 24, 2004 ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PCRESO SDP 03-795 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-795 BRIGHTON PROPERTIES CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 C;FNFRAI 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2003-795 unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 3. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 (D). 4. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this 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. 5. The applicant shall post a $1000.00 deposit for each unit that is used as a sales office. After the sales office(s) is/are converted back to a residence, the Community Development Department shall inspect the site(s) for compliance before releasing the deposit back to the applicant. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2003-795-Brighton Properties Conditions of Approval -Recommended February 24, 2004 6. The three residential units approved for the lots within the subdivision shall have Spanish Colonial, Early California and Tuscan architectural styles with three floor plans including the following: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Square Feet 2,650 2,850 3,010 No. of Bedrooms 2 w/casita 3 w/casita 3 w/casita No. of Bathrooms 3.5 4.5 4.5 Garage Parking 2-front, plus 1 golf cart 2-front/1-side loaded 2-front, plus one golf cart 7. Any front, side, or rear walls shall be of masonry or other non -wood construction and conform to development regulations of the Zoning Code. 8. Landscaping plans for the units shall comply the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for this project, and as approved by the Planning Commission. Said landscaping plans shall include a complete irrigation system showing location and size of water lines, valves, clock timer, type of sprinkler, etc. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscape plans shall also be approved by Coachella Valley Water District before final approval by the Community Development Department. M ATTACHMENT i TO PALM DESERT HWY III AVE 48 AVE 52 :ITY OF LA QUINTA VICINITY MAP NO SCALE TO I NDIO Oml SITE see �aa 1 Cr lilt 110 e� 1 fit a �kb ys� � n b N alb l Y y�� � i m R � ATTACHMENT i 111i° ee e ���F�aa:.�aasrra6r�r�rrrrratlntltlrtltltl�r�asaaasas_s.«4.i.. ac_saas sa s a aoss. rpss a s pss:=::: ggqqqqqqtlqqqqqqqqqqqqpqqqqqpqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq A 111110 p p peesep pp. pep epepesepaeees pea Ce=m��i6��&&&&tl&tl�YbarC�6&6GCti&Ctlra=aicn�ennf�a6itBkhBaBb�irkr is RRRRIfRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRkRRRRRRRRRRR ATTACHMENT #5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 4, 2004 B. Site Development Permit 2003-795; a request of Brighton Properties for review of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototype units with three elevations for each unit for Tract 30138 located at 80-600 Avenue 52. 1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Marie Sanchez and Larry Hughes who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated his review of a project is for that which is within public view, unless there is deviation from the direction of the City. He approves of the project as designed, but recommends again, the use of the full mudded tile roof. 3. Committee Member Thorns commended the applicant on the design. He agrees with the use of the full mudded tile. There is a lot of imagination in the design. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed with the design and the landscaping plan. He would recommend using a composite material for the edging as the aluminum edging will deteriorate rapidly. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2004-003 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2003-795, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: tile roof. b. Condition added: landscaping. Unanimously approved. the applicant shall use a full mudded a different edging shall be used on the C. Sil"evelopment Permit 2004-797; a request of WG Properties for review 6f--architectural plans for a + 7,430 square foot one story office building 6t,47-350 Washington Street, Lake La Quinta Plaza for the property located oft- Forcel 6 of Parcel Map 27892, on the west GAMDOMALM24-04 WD.doc 3 PH #H STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-501 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-099 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD A PROGRAM TO THE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO ALLOW TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN 1,060 FEET OF INTERSECTIONS. LOCATION: CITY WIDE ENGINEER: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004- 501; BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE BACKGROUND: As the City develops, staff has been reviewing projects to ensure that safe traffic circulation movements are maximized wherever possible. In reviewing development projects along Washington Street there have been opportunities to correct problems with existing traffic circulation patterns. PC Stf Rpt GPA 04 099 (City) Currently, a General Plan program establishes a minimum signalized intersection spacing distance of 1,060 feet between intersections on Major Arterials in commercial areas. Program 2.3 of the General Plan Circulation Element currently reads as follows: "On Major Arterials, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 2,600 feet in residential areas, and may be 1,060 feet for commercial frontage. Intersection spacing may be reduced to 500 feet at the Whitewater Channel and La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The design speed shall be 60 miles per hour (mph). Left turn median cuts may be authorized if turn pocket does not interfere with other existing or planned left turn pockets. Right in/right out access driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): -- more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; -- more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; -- more than 250 feet between driveways. All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval." Under this program, any future traffic improvements along Washington Street are restricted because of the minimum spacing of 1,060 feet. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Staff is requesting a General Plan Amendment to add a program to the Traffic and Circulation Element to allow for signalized intersections at a lesser distance than is currently permitted on Major Arterials for Augmented Arterials. The segment of roadway that is designated as an Augmented Major Arterial is Washington Street between the Whitewater Channel and Avenue 48. The new Program would read as follows: "Program 2.3.A: On Augmented Major Arterials, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 2,600 feet in residential areas, and may be 1,060 feet for commercial frontage, provided pre -incorporation intersections are accommodated first. The design speed shall be 60 miles per hour (mph). Left turn median cuts may be authorized if the turn pocket does not interfere with other existing or planned left turn pockets. Right in/right out access driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): -- more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; -- more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; -- more than 250 feet between driveways. PC Stf Rpt GPA 04 099 (City) r All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval." The program is being considered as a result of future developments along Washington Street between Highway 111 and Avenue 48. Approval of this General Plan Amendment would allow signals at intersections along Washington Street between the Highway 111 and Avenue 48, at the discretion of the City Engineer, based on site -specific analysis. Any future developments along this stretch of Washington Street would be reviewed under this new program. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 14, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site, and all residents in the Highland Palms neighborhood. To date, three letters have been received from an adjacent property owner (Attachment 2). Any additional written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-501 and approval of General Plan Amendment 2004-099 can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following actions: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ recommending to the City Council certification of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004- 501. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2004-099. Attachments: 1. Street map 2. Letters from a property owner. PC Stf Rpt GPA 04 099 (City) 11; a Prepared by: Martin Magana Associate Planner PC Stf Rpt GPA 04 099 (City) i.i � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-099. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-501 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24'h day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2004-501 for a General Plan Amendment to add a program to the Traffic and Circulation Element to establish a circulation program for Augmented Major Arterials within the City. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental Assessment 2004-501, and has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and therefore, a Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for certification; 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 recommend to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant adverse impacts on the site. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory in that the installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already developed areas, and would not impact biological and cultural resources. PC RESO EA 04 501 ; <) Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-501 City of La Quinta February 24, 2004 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed General Plan Amendment will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any wildlife resources on the site. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, in that the General Plan Amendment will potentially provide a safer traffic flow on the City's streets. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the General Plan Amendment in that vehicular trips will not be increased or exceed the impacts identified in the General Plan. 6. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that additional environmental reviews will be required for individual projects to assess the impacts associated with specific sites. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the proposed General Plan Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004- 501 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. PC RESO EA 04 501 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-501 City of La Quinta February 24, 2004 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-501 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 241h day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RESO EA 04 501 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2004-501 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana 760-777-7125 4. Project location: City-wide (text amendments to General Plan) 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed General Plan Amendment will add a program to allow for signalized intersections at a lesser distance than is currently permitted on Major Arterials for Augmented Major Arterials listed in the General Plan. The segment of roadway that is designated as an Augmented Major Arterial is Washington Street between the Whitewater Channel and Avenue 48. The new Program would read as follows: "Program 2.3A: On Augmented Major Arterials, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 2,600 feet in residential areas, and may be 1,060 feet for commercial frontage. Intersection spacing may be reduced to 500 on Washington Street between the Whitewater Channel and Avenue 48. The design speed shall be 50 miles per hour (mph). Left turn median cuts may be authorized if turn pocket does not interfere with other existing or planned left turn pockets. Right in/right out access driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): -- more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; -- more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; -- more than 250 feet between driveways. All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval, based on site -specific analysis." The change is being considered as a result of future developments along Washington Street between the Whitewater Channel and Avenue 48. -1- 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Not applicable. The General Plan Amendment would apply City-wide on Augmented Major Arterials. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature `Zi 4 � % Date -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the proj ect. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 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? (Project description) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Project description) I. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment will not impact aesthetics, scenic vistas or light and glare in and of themselves. The proposed Amendment will only affect the distance between signalized intersections on Augmented Major Arterials. Individual project proposals will still require review under the site development and conditional use permit processes to assure that they are compatible. No impacts associated with aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan Amendment. -6- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Project description) H. a)-c) Augmented Major Arterials in the General Plan consist of Washington Street and Highway 111. No agricultural lands occur in proximity to these streets, nor are there any Williamson Act contracts on lands in this area. -7- 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description) III. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment will not impact air quality. Modification of the City General Plan standard will not increase trips on City roadways, and may actually improve vehicular emission levels, due to a more orderly and smooth -flowing traffic system. No construction will be required beyond the installation of traffic signals, so no impacts to PM10 are expected to result. The proposed Amendment will not impact air quality in the City or region. -8- I 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 Biological Resources Element) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan Biological Resources Element) IV. a)-O The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on biological resources. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would not impact habitat. -10- A `0 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 Section 15064.5? (General Plan Cultural Resources Element) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? General Plan Biological Resources Element.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? General Plan Biological Resources Element) V. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on cultural or paleontological resources. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would not impact resources. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on geology and soils. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, where soils have been adequately compacted. Construction would meet City seismic standards, and would therefore be sized to withstand significant groundshaking. -12- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No 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? (Project description) 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? (Project description) 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? (Project description) 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? (Project description) 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? (Project description) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Project description) -13- 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? (Project description) VH. a)-h) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on Hazardous Materials. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and will not increase the number or types of trips generated on these roadways. The addition of traffic signals may have a traffic calming effect, which would represent a beneficial impact in its potential to reduce the potential for accidents and accidental spills. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan Environmental Hazards Element) d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? General Plan Environmental Hazards Element) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan Environmental Hazards Element) 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) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on Hydrology or Water Resources. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and will not require water. -16- J Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Project description) 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 General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on land use or planning. The amendment modifies only the standard requiring specific linear separation between traffic signals. The potential area affected is very limited, since Augmented Major Arterials are only designated on portions of Washington Street and Highway 111. The Public Works Department will have discretion in granting individual project requests based solely on site specific analysis, which will include the compatibility of a signal with surrounding development and conditions. -17- 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 General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on mineral resources. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would not impact potentially productive lands. r.. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE B Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Project description) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Project description) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan land use map) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment will have no impact on noise levels in and of itself. The ultimate development of any given site will be reviewed separately under CEQA, and analyzed for both impacts associated with the proposed project on adjacent development; and the impacts of adjacent development on the proposed project. The City will impose mitigation measures should these impacts be potentially significant. The additional review under CEQA will ensure that impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. -19- 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.) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on population and housing. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would not impact development patterns or land use designations. r, 1 'L E -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on public resources. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would not impact the provision of municipal services. -21- 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? (Project description) 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? (Project description) XIV. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on recreation. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would not impact City parks. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 f.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Project description) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment will not significantly impact transportation or traffic. The amendment modifies only the standard requiring specific linear separation between traffic signals on Augmented Major Arterials. The potential area affected is very limited, since Augmented Major Arterials are only designated on portions of Washington Street and Highway 111. The City Engineer will have discretion in granting individual project requests based solely on site specific analysis, which will include the potential impacts on levels of service and traffic safety. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on utility providers. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would not impact their facilities or ability to service. rl -24- 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 General Plan Amendment will have no impact on biological resources. The addition of signals will occur in areas which are already developed, and where no habitat occurs. XVII.b) The proposed General Plan Amendment has the potential to achieve both short term and long term goals, by potentially providing a safer traffic flow on the City's streets. XVII. c) The General Plan Amendment will not exceed those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, and will not increase vehicular trips. XVII. d) The General Plan Amendment will not have any direct environmental effects on human beings. Additional environmental review will be required for individual projects to assess the impacts associated with specific sites. These reviews will assure that potential impacts are adequately mitigated. -25- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD A PROGRAM TO THE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO ALLOW CERTAIN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS ON AUGMENTED MAJOR ARTERIALS WITHIN THE CITY CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-099 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment to add a program to the Traffic and Circulation Element to allow certain circulation improvements on Augmented Major Arterials within the City; WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 2004-099 has complied with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental Assessment 2004-501 was prepared and determined that there are no significant adverse impacts, therefore, a Negative Declaration 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 to recommend to the City Council approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. General Plan Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the Amendment will not exceed the impacts identified in the General Plan. 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed Amendment would improve circulation. 3. General Plan Compatibility: The proposed General Plan Amendment will be compatible with existing and surrounding land uses in that the Amendment will potentially improve circulation as indicated in the General Plan. PC RESO GPA 04 099 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2004-099 City of La Quinta February 24, 2004 4. Property Suitability: The proposed General Plan Amendment will be suitable and appropriate in that the Amendment will facilitate signal placement as determined on a project -by -project basis. 5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the proposed Amendment is warranted because the development situation and the general conditions of the City have substantially changed since the existing General Plan was imposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission; and 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2004-099, as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RESO GPA 04 099 EXHIBIT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-099 CITY OF LA QUINTA-RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 New Program to the Traffic and Circulation Element: "Program 2.3.A: On Augmented Major Arterials, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 2,600 feet in residential areas, and may be 1,060 feet for commercial frontage, provided pre -incorporation intersections are accommodated first. The design speed shall be 60 miles per hour (mph). Left turn median cuts may be authorized if turn pocket does not interfere with other existing or planned left turn pockets. Right in/right out access driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): -- more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; -- more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; -- more than 250 feet between driveways. All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval." PC GPA 04 099 Exhibit A ATTACHMENT ^� } Z A c C A - 'G A o z Z o ✓ FL G M s 9C 3 W L6 e e Q x L € - - - I, 4.'a i ATTACHMENT 2/16/04 ROBERT D. MORINMAMES H. CARPENTER 78-550 SINGING PALMS DRIVE LA QUINTA, CA 92253 ITY OF LA QUINTA OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3-495 CALLE TAMPICO A QUINTA, CA 92253-1504 .E.: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT TO MODIFY POLICY #2, PROGRAM 2.3 f THE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO ALLOW TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN 1060 FEET OF ITERSECTIONS. 0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, S PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, HELD AT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, I THE BEGINNING OF FEBUARY 2004, REGARDING ACCESS IN AND OUT OF PROPOSED PROJECT, HE ESTATES AT POINT HAPPY: HE ONLY OPTION THAT MAKES ANY SENSE TO THE RESIDENTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO AVE A LIGHT INSTALLED AT SINGING PALMS DRIVE AND SIMON DRIVE, CLOSING OFF THE IASHINGTON STREET FRONTAGE ROAD AND SINGING PALMS DRIVE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. ALSO, TO HAVE THE EXISTING DEAD END AT HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE AND THE PROPOSED ROJECT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. I ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK, MADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO AQUIRE IY HOME, LOCATED AT 78-550 SINGING PALMS DRIVE, AND MY NEIGHBORS HOME LOCATED IRECTLY TO THE EAST SIDE OF MY PROPERTY, BORDERING THE WASHINGTON STREET RONTAGE ROAD. IADISON. DEVELOPMENT HAS TRIED TO AQUIRE OUR HOME IN AN INAPPROPRIATE MANNER, RYING TO STRONGARM US, AND OUR NEIGHBOR, MR. HUERTA INTO MAKING A POOR DECISION D FORFIET OUR PROPERTIES WITHOUT BEING COMPENSATED IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER. IADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN DECEIPTFUL FROM THE START. FIRST VERBALLY LEADING AMES CARPENTER TO BELIEVE THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO EXCHANGE OUR CURRENT ROPERTY FOR A HOME IN THEIR NEW DEVELOPMENT, OUR CHOICE OF FLOORPLAN, AND DCATION, ECT. WHEN SEVERAL ISSUES REGARDING CUSTOM UPGRADES, WHICH WE HAVE IN Y CURRENT HOME, AND WOULD EXPECT IN THE NEW HOME, WERE DISCUSSED, MR. WILKERSON IDICATED, "WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE KINDS OF THINGS." A NEIGHBOR, OF MINE WAS RESENT AT THAT MEETING AND CAN TESTIFY TO THEIR REMARKS. AT A LATER DATE MADISON EVELOPMENT TOOK THAT OFFER AWAY, OFFERING US, ONLY THEIR UNACCEPTABLE LOWBALL PPRAISAL OF OUR PROPERTY, TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF ONE OF THEIR HOMES. ALL THE IME, NEVER COMMUNICATING WITH US DIRECTLY, OPTING TO LET THEIR SECRETARY THREATEN S WITH THE ISSUES OF CONDEMNING OUR HOME, OR THREATING TO HAVE THE CITY PURCHASE UR HOME UNDER EMINENT DOMAINE. CLEARLY THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL ISSUE AND NEITHER ONDEMNENATION OR EMINENT DOMAINE APPLY. S INDICATED TO US BY MR. MARTIN MAGANA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, CITY OF LA QUINTA, THE ITY HAS NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO DECLARE EMINENT DOMAINS AND PURCHASING OUR OME FOR THE BENEFIT OF MADISON DEVELOPMENT. Y DOMESTIC PARTNER AND I ARE LONG TERM SURVIVORS OF A.I.D.S, AND FIND MADISON EVELOPMENTS UNETHICAL AND HARASSING WAY OF DOING BUSINESS AS AN UNNECESSARY TRAIN ON OUR HEALTH AND WELL BEING. . ..i X THIS POINT, BECAUSE OF THE EVENTS THAT HAVE TRANSPIRED BETWEEN US AND MADISON ►EVELOPMENT, WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER ACCEPTING ANY OFFER TO LIVE IN MADISON ►EVELOPMENTS PROPOSED PROJECT, THE ESTATES AT POINT HAPPY. WE MUST BE IONETARILY COMPENSATED IN WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE AN APPROPRIATE MANNER, BY IADISON DEVELOPMENT, FOR THE INCONVENIENCE THEY HAVE CREATED FOR US. 4 OUR VIEW, DEVELOPERS THAT TRY DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, IN AN INETHICAL AND INAPPROPRIATE MANNER, SHOULD BE REPREMANDED BY THE CITY AND NOT ,LLOWED TO OPERATE IN OUR COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE. J THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WE REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA NOT ALLOW IADISON DEVELOPMENT ANY FURTHER OPTIONS REGARDING ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY, HAT ENCROACH ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND CURRENT STANDARD OF LIVING, AND SHOULD ERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF PLACING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT SIMON RIVE AND SINGING PALMS DRIVE. THIS WOULD INCONVENIENCE THE RESIDENTS, VISITORS, .ND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. PERHAPS MADISON DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMITED ACCESS ISSUES TO POINT HAPPY RANCH BEFORE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. r-SINCERELY '! /;�!?'/ ✓;�� ,� Gam---� t G , ROBERT D. MORIN JAMES H. CARPENTER t 2/20/04 ROBERT D. MOR1N/JAMES H. CARPENTER 78-550 SINGING PALM DRIVE LA QUINTA, CA 92253 ITY OF LA QUINTA DMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT "95 CALLE TAMPICO k QUINTA, CA 92253 E: CONTINUATION OF OUR LETTER, DATED 2/16/04, ADDRESSED TO: TY OF LA QUINTA DMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, I THE EVENT, THE CITY OF LA QUINTA APPROVES A TRAFFIC LIGHT TO BE INSTALLED AT SINGING PALMS RIVE AND SIMON DRIVE, BEFORE MADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS AQUIRED OUR HOME, IN A MANNER 3CEPTABLE TO US, THE CITY OF LA QUINTA WILL BE HELD LIABLE, AND SERVED TO APPEAR IN COURT. THE TY OF LA QUINTA, MADISON DEVELOPMENT, OR ANY PERSON OR ENTITY REPRESENTING MADISON EVELOPMENT OR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA WILL HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR SAYSO REGARDING OUR ELOCATION. 3 OF THIS DAY 2/20/04, BECAUSE MADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO RESPOND TO OUR NAL OFFER, DATED 1/28/04, WE HEREBY WITHDRAW THIS FINAL OFFER PRESENTED TO MADISON EVELOPMENT AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, DATED1/28/04. SINCERELY, ROBERT D. MORIN/JAMES H. CARPENTER SUBSCRIBED, AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THI �,Z�!DAY OF. 'NOTARY PUBLIC GINA M. REWS / Commission # 1452278 Notary Public - Co Momia Riverside County iqp,MVCwm. bpkw Nov 21, 200 Final Offer 1128104 Robert D. Morin 78-660 Songing Palms Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 ttention: Mr. Edward Alderson and Richard Wilkerson ladison Development 1-361 San Gargonio rancho Mirage, CA 92270 year Mr. Alderson and Mr. Wilkerson, fter reviewing your Driveby Appraisal, consulting my attorney, and speaking with Don Adolpf, Mayor,City of La luinta, I find your requests to be totally unacceptable. The City of La Quinta absolutly has no intentions of urchasing my home to benefit Madison Development. They require your obtaining my house and my neighbors efore approving the light you want. I find your threats regarding Condemnation and Eminent Domaine to be Aally unfounded. Your so -Balled negotiating skills are totally substandard and unacceptable. Therefore, you, or any agent representing Madison Development may contact either myself or my domestic partner, James arpenter, by phone or in person. All communication must be in writing. le are totally content residing at our present home located at 78-550 Singing Palms Drive, and would not onsider moving unless you present me with a cashiers check in the amount of $500,000. If your are unable to feet the above purchase price condition, I expect Madison Development to build a wall around the back of my roperty, and any properties you might aquire on the east or west sides of my home in the future. The wall must e six feet tall and finished on both sides. If I incur property damage from the wall being built, Madison evelopment will be held liable, and you will need to make all necessary property repairs. If the powerlines , djacent to the backside of my property are going to be placed underground, I require it be taken care of in such a canner as to not disturb my existing garden or backyard. Once again, if any property damage is incurred by me .garding the above mentioned projects, Madison Development will be held directly liable and will need to make II necessary repairs. Any of the above mentioned projects are required to be completed to my satisfaction efore Madison Development begins construction on your project behind my home. If above conditions are nonnegotiable. In other words, "there is no room for negotiation!" Do not attempt to intact us, unless you have a Cashiers Check made out to me for 500,000.00, (five hundred thousand dollars). Fe would require you to write up a contract to be presented to us by review of our attorney. The contract would eed to include that you are buying our property as is, excluding our furniture, personal belongings, and any lantings we wish to remove from our yard. When the contract is approved and we have a cashiers check in our and, we would be willing to vacate our property within thirty days. Sincerely, Robert D. Morin PH #I STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-479 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-094 ZONE CHANGE 2003-1 15 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ENGINEER: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; AND 3) APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 TO SUBDIVIDE 37.72 ACRES TO ALLOW 73 LOTS (72 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT) 46-201 WASHINGTON STREET (APNS: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002). MORSE-DOKICH-SCHULTZ (MDS) CONSULTING THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003- 479; BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT; HOWEVER, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. PC Stf Rpt 3 TTM 31348 GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: SURROUNDING LAND USES: BACKGROUND: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR); MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); OPEN SPACE -HILLSIDE OVERLAY (OS)/ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL); MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM); OPEN SPACE (OS) NORTH: PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT EAST: LA QUINTA COURT SHOPPING CENTER WEST: OPEN SPACE/SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT This project was presented to the Planning Commission at their October 28, 2003 meeting. The project site is an irregularly shaped property consisting of approximately ± 37.72 acres of which 16.62 acres are steep, mountain terrain. The site is located between the City limits to the west, retail commercial to the east, single-family residential uses to the south, and Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center to the north (Attachment 1). At the October 28, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council, but expressed concerns regarding the project's main entrance on Washington Street. At the November 18, 2003, the City Council reviewed the project and continued the public hearing requesting the applicant work with staff to develop circulation alternatives to the project entrance on Washington Street for their consideration at a future date. At their December 16, 2003 City Council meeting, staff presented four circulation alternatives including the original proposal (Attachment 2). These are described below. Option 1 — This option includes the original proposal, which was an access driveway into the tract centered along the tract frontage on Washington Street with a 100-foot long southbound deceleration lane. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would have full access for residents and emergency vehicles. PC Stf Rpt 3 TTM 31348 Option 2 — This option generally proposes an access driveway into the tract from a newly reconfigured intersection at Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street with a 200-foot long southbound deceleration lane into the project and a traffic signal. This option would require the acquisition of two private residences on Singing Palms Drive, the installation of a roadway west of the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive, and installation of a traffic signal at the same intersection. The intersection would be configured to accommodate full turning movements. The new roadway would provide direct access to a proposed development (TTM 31348) and to the existing neighborhood south of the site. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only, therefore reducing traffic on Highland Palms Drive. This option has three different configurations (A, B, & C) into the Highland Palms neighborhood (See descriptions to Attachment 2). Option 3 — This option would allow a right -in only access driveway into the tract from the reconfigured frontage road alignment near the southerly portion of the tract on Washington Street with a 200-foot long southbound deceleration lane. This option would require no acquisition of private property, a deceleration lane for the proposed project, the installation of an entry driveway on the west side of Washington Street with restricted turning movements (rig ht-in/right-out), and no traffic signal. Also, a dedicated one-way lane for the residents to the south would remain as is currently provided. This would also provide a way for the residents exiting the proposed development to access the signalized intersection at Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive via the frontage road. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only, therefore reducing traffic on Highland Palms Drive. Option 4 — This option would allow an access driveway into the tract from a reconfigured/combined access that would also serve the Plaza La Quinta shopping center, with a 150-foot long southbound deceleration lane. Under this option, the existing access to the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center on Washington Street would be removed. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only, therefore reducing traffic on Highland Palms Drive. After discussing the options the City Council continued the public hearing and requested staff conduct a neighborhood meeting to obtain input regarding the alternatives from residents immediately south of the project site. The neighborhood meeting was held on February 2, 2004 at City Hall. Out of the ninety residents in the neighborhood, thirty-four attended the meeting. The residents indicated preferences for the following options: PC Stf Rpt 3 TTM 31348 Option Favor Option 1: 0 Option 2A: 4 Option 213: 4 Option 2C: 25 Option 3: 1 Option 4: 0 Total 34 The majority of residents preferred Option 2C. Should Option 2C not be the recommended alternative by the Planning Commission, staff recommends Option 3 be the recommended alternative. Since the Planning Commission has not had the opportunity to review the various options presented to the City Council, staff is presenting them for your consideration and recommendation. The Planning Commission's recommendation will then be taken to the City Council for consideration. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (Attachment 3) and Zone Change (Attachment 4) to change land use and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Low Density Residential, and a Tentative Tract Map (Attachment 5). The following table shows the gains and losses of land uses and acres as a result of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the proposed project. Existing General Plan/Zoning Designation Existing Acres Proposed General Plan/Zoning Designation Proposed Acres Difference CC/CC 05.56 CC/CC 0 - 05.56 MDR/RM 06.67 MDR/RM 0 - 06.67 LDR/RL 08.87 LDR/RL 21.10 + 12.23 OS-HO/OS-HO 16.62 OS-HO/OS-HO 1 16.62 00.00 Totals 37.72 37.72 00.00 CC = Community Commercial MDR = Medium Density Residential RM = Medium Density Residential OS-HO = Open Space -Hillside Overlay LDR = Low Density Residential (up to 4 dwelling units per acre) RL = Low Density Residential (up to 8 dwelling units per acre) PC Stf Rpt 3 TTM 31348 The Tentative Tract Map 31348 would subdivide the property into 72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot. The residential lots would range in size from 8,133 to 16,409 square feet with pad elevations ranging between 70 to 78 feet above sea level. Based on the proposed residential acreage of 21.1 acres, the maximum number of lots allowed would be 84. With 72 lots proposed, the project falls within the density allowed under the Low -Density Residential Land Use designation of up to four dwelling units per acre. The 16.62-acre open space (hillside) lot is shown as Lot 73 and will remain in its natural state. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 14, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site, and all residents in the Highland Palms neighborhood. To date, three letters have been received from a property owner (Attachment 6). Any additional written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2003- 479 and approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-094, Zone Change 2003-115 and Tentative Tract Map 31348, can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the following actions: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2003- 479. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-094. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2003-1 15, and 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31348, subject to conditions. PC SO Rpt 3 TTM 31348 ', Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Traffic Circulation Options 3. Existing and Proposed General Plan Amendment 4. Existing and Proposed Zone Change 5. Tentative Tract Map 31348 6. Letters from a property owner Prepared by: A ... , Martin Magana Associate Planner PC Stf Rpt 3 TTM 31348 l s ? PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-494, ZONE CHANGE 2003-115 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-479 APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of September, 281h day of October, 2003, and the 241h day of February, 2004, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ± 37.72 acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot), generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental Assessment 2003-479, and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. PC RES02 EA 03 479 (1 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2003-479 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory in that the project site has been conditioned to mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant levels. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any wildlife resources on the site. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than significant levels as identified in the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project in that the site will be developed with less intensity than the current land use designations under the General Plan. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which wouM affect human health, risk potential, or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003- 479 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. PC RES02 EA 03 479 �; } Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2003-479 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-479 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-479 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24' day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California PC RES02 EA 03 479 ( ' Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2003-479 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RES02 EA 03 479 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003-094, Zone Change 2003-115, Tentative Tract Map 31348 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana 760-777-7125 4. Project location: West side of Washington Street, immediately south of the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center, and north of Crestview Drive APN: 604-050-009, -010, 643-170-001, -002 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Madison Development, LLC 71361 San Gorgonio Rd. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential, Medium Current: Low Density Residential, Density Residential, Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential, Open Space Community Commercial and Open Proposed: Low Density Residential and Open Space Space Proposed: Low Density Residential and Open Space 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.) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the land use designations on 37.72 acres from Community Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential and Open Space to Low Density Residential and Open Space. The Open Space designation occurs on the western half of the property. The Community Commercial designation occurs on the northeasterly portion of the property, and represents approximately one eighth of the acreage. The Medium Density Residential designation occurs on the northcentral portion of the property, and represents approximately one quarter of the property. The balance of the site, along the eastern section of the property, is designated Low Density Residential. The proposed change would result in Low Density Residential designations on all lands currently designated Community Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential. The Open Space designation, which occurs immediately west of the toe of slope, will remain as currently designated. Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of 37.72 acres into 72 single family lots. Access to the project will be provided from both Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive. An area of approximately 0.4 acres will be dedicated to on -site retention. The residential lots would a EA.03.479 -1- ' range in size from 8,133 to 16,409 square feet. After the project's initial review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the latter directed the consideration and review of several options for circulation into and out of the site. The concerns of the City Council included traffic safety issues such as accelerating and decelerating vehicles at the project entrances, as well as turning movements associated with the project entrance. Four options were developed, and are described below. Option 1 — This option includes the original proposal, which was an access driveway into the tract centered along the tract frontage on Washington Street with a 100-foot long southbound deceleration lane. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would full access for residents and emergency vehicles. Option 2 — This option proposes an access driveway into the tract from a newly reconfigured intersection at Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street with a 200-foot long southbound deceleration lane into the project and a traffic signal. This option would require the acquisition of two private residences on Singing Palms Drive, the installation of a roadway west of the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive, and installation of a traffic signal at the same intersection. The intersection would be configured to accommodate full turning movements. The new roadway would provide direct access to a proposed development (TTM 31348) and to the existing neighborhood south of the site. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only, therefore reducing traffic on Highland Palms Drive. Option 3 — This option would allow a right -in only access driveway into the tract from the reconfigured frontage road alignment near the southerly portion of the tract on Washington Street with a 200-foot long southbound deceleration lane. This option would require no acquisition of private property, a deceleration lane for the proposed project, the installation of an entry driveway on the west side of Washington Street with restricted turning movements (right-in/right-out), and no traffic signal. Also, a dedicated one-way lane for the residents to the south would remain as is currently provided. This would also provide a way for the residents exiting the proposed development to access the signalized intersection at Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive via the frontage road. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only, therefore reducing traffic on Highland Palms Drive. Option 4 — This option would allow an access driveway into the tract from a reconfigured/combined access that would also serve the Plaza La Quinta shopping center, with a 150-foot long southbound deceleration lane. Under this option, the existing access to the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center on Washington Street would be removed. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only, therefore reducing traffic on Highland Palms Drive. Upon further consideration, Option 2C.was selected as technically responding to both the applicant's needs and the City's requirements. A General Plan Amendment (No. 2004-099) to address the changes required in City Policy has been prepared and reviewed under CEQA through the preparation of Environmental Assessment 2004-501. The approval of the General Plan Amendment is required to allow the proposed project to proceed under Option 2C. This Environmental Checklist has prepared to review the potential environmental impacts a EA.03.479 -2- associated with Option 2 on the proposed Tentative Tract Map (please see the discussion under Noise, Section XI, and Traffic and Circulation, Section XV.) All other components of the original analysis remain as originally prepared, and have not been changed because the impacts associated with the proposal have not changed. A draft and final EIR were previously prepared for a commercial project on the site. This document, although not certified by the City, provides important technical background data on the project site, and has been used in preparation of this environmental document. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Existing commercial retail shopping center (Plaza La Quinta) South: Existing single family residential development West: Vacant, Open Space lands East: Washington Street, existing commercial retail shopping center (La Quinta Court) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District EA.03.479 -3- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Air Quality Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 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. L-iA ,. Signature 241 Dat EA.03.479 -4- 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 agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 4 EA.03.479 -5- 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)-c) The proposed project site has previously been a residential and agricultural site. An orchard is still present on the project site, as are some small structures. The proposed project will consist of single family residential dwelling units, one story in height. The proposed change in land use designation will result in a lowering of potential impacts associated with scenic resources, since the structures can be expected to be smaller than those which would be constructed for a commercial project or a medium density residential project, both in bulk and height. The property is immediately adjacent to the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, the construction of single family homes will not represent a significant obstruction to the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Overall impacts to aesthetic resources are expected to be less than significant. I. d) The project site will generate light from residential outdoor lighting, on a property which currently does not generate light. All lighting on the site will be regulated by the City's Dark Sky Ordinance, which ensures that lighting levels do not spill over onto other properties. This standard, combined with the low lighting levels generated by residential land uses, will ensure that impacts from light and glare are less than significant. EA.03.479 -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. I11-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Project description, site photos.) H. a)-c) The proposed project site is still planted with date palms and fruit trees, and is at least partially in production. The site is not, however, considered to be prime agricultural land either in the City's General Plan, or in regional and state documents. The site is an isolated parcel now surrounded by urban development, and has limited potential for continued agricultural use. The significance of the site as an agricultural concern is primarily associated with potential historic issues, which are discussed further in Section V., Cultural Resources, below. The site will be converted to residential land uses which have the potential to maintain the character of an orchard, however, through the planting or relocating of date palms. This issue is discussed further in Section V. As an isolated and low -production date farm, the site has limited value for agricultural production, and is surrounded by urban land uses, and impacts associated with the loss of this parcel to agriculture are expected to be less than significant. EA.03.479 -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) Ell. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will consist of the development of 72 single family residential units and associated improvements. The residential units will generate approximately 708 vehicular trips per day at buildout. These trips will generate the following emissions of criteria pollutants. EA.03.479 -8- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 708 x 7 = 4,956 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 446.04 11,597.04 2,378.88 - 49.56 49.56 Pounds at 50 mph 0.98 25.60 5.25 - 0.11 0.11 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 72 market rate homes , ITE categories 210. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75 F, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for criteria pollutants. Impacts associated with these pollutants are therefore expected to be less than significant. The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and as an on -going issue. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include the following control measures. CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities : Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading conditions, this could result in the generation of 995.3 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 order to mitigate the potential impacts associated with PM10 dust generation at the site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. EA.03.479 -9- 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. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street and Crestview Terrace shall be installed with the first phase of development. 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour 10. 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. EA.03.479 -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, X either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation k EA.03.479 policy or Ordinance? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) IV. a)-O The proposed project site is currently an underutilized date farm, and has been for almost 90 years. The probability of species of concern occurring on the project site are therefore extremely low. The site is designated within the critical habitat boundary for the Peninsular bighorn sheep, but those areas on the Valley floor are not appropriate for sheep habitat, and those areas above the toe of slope will be preserved as open space. Finally, the site's proximity to Highway 111, and the lack of sheep activity recorded in the hillsides north of Avenue 48 (extended), make it unlikely that sheep frequent this area. A biological field survey was conducted for the previously proposed commercial project for this site'. Although some natural communities were identified in this analysis, they were clearly highly disturbed, and have little value. The only portion of the site which is still relatively undisturbed, and which will continue to be so, is the hillside proposed for preservation as open space. As such, impacts to biological resources on this portion of the site are expected to be minimal. The study did find, however, that potential habitat for loggerhead shrike occurs on the property, particularly nesting and foraging habitat. The EIR further identified indirect impacts to bighorn sheep as being possible for this site. The development of single family residential dwellings will provide a different type of development on the project site, but will ultimately have the same potential impacts to biological resources, insofar as the site will be substantially altered from its current state. One design change proposed by the applicant is a favorable improvement to the previous proposal, and has eliminated the need for one mitigation measure. Specifically, the applicant proposes the installation of a six foot high perimeter wall on all sides of the property, including the adjacent lots to lot 73. With this design feature, the potential need for a perimeter wall to protect sheep from the project site has been eliminated, and it has not been included in the mitigation measures below. Impacts to biological resources could be significant, without the implementation of the following mitigation measures: 1. Should demolition, grubbing, earth moving or construction be planned for initiation between February 15 and September 30, a field survey shall be conducted to determine whether birds under the jurisdiction of the Migratory Bird "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pointe at Point Happy Ranch," prepared by Impact Sciences, September 2001. EA.03.479 -12- `' Act are nesting on the property. Should such nests be identified, buffer areas in conformance with the Act, but no less than 50 feet in all directions, shall be established where no construction activity is allowed, until such time as the biologist determines that the nesting birds have discontinued use of the nest. The required field survey shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for demolition, grubbing, grading or building on the site. 2. The project applicant shall provide an easement to the City, to be approved by the City prior to recordation of the final map, ensuring the preservation of lot 73 as open space in perpetuity. 3. Blasting and pile -driving, or other excessively loud construction activity, shall be prohibited from January 1 through June 30 of each year. 4. All lighting on the project site shall be directed away from the hillsides. The project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners. 5. Plants toxic to bighorn sheep shall be prohibited on the site. The project proponent shall secure a clearance letter from a qualified biologist, certifying the suitability of the plant palette for the project site. The project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners. 6. The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs from running loose in the project site. 7. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a provision prohibiting access by either persons or animals to the adjacent hillsides. 8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the site, during both construction and operations, are not harmful to wildlife. The plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. EA.03.479 -13- 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 Section 15064.5? ("A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. Al., March, 2001.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. al., March, 2001.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. al., March, 2001.) V. a), b) & d) A cultural resource study was completed for the previous project proposed for this site2, and revised at the direction of the Historic Preservation Committee. The study found that the site is a potentially important historical resource, insofar as it has been in operation since the early 1920s. Potential resources on the site include residential and farm structures, orchards and roads. All these were studied for the report, and recommendations made as to their significance and disposition. The study found that the site is subject to important potential oral history for the City and region. The study further found that the structures on the site had limited or no historic value, primarily due to significant alterations. The study did not, however, provide criteria for qualification as a National Register structure. Finally, the study found that buried cultural deposits could occur, and that site monitoring is warranted during earth moving activities. The development of the residential project will have fewer impacts than that previously proposed, however, the impacts to cultural resources will be similar, and must therefore be mitigated, as described below: Prior to issuance of any grubbing or grading permit for the site, the project proponent shall submit an Oral History to the Community Development "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," prepared by McKenna et. al., March, 2001, updated October 2003. r 'l EA.03.479 -14- Department and La Quinta Historical Society. The oral history shall be prepared in accordance with the City's and the Society's standards for such documents. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report regarding the regional significance of the site in terms of its historical context, including but not limited to, its relationship to the Bradshaw Trail, the stage coach line, water wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails. The Phase I Cultural Resources Report shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and be considered independently by the Historic Preservation Committee at a future date. 3. The applicant shall prepare a technical report on the eligibility criteria for National Register. 4. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. A final mitigation monitoring report shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first production home for the project. 5. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property. Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. V. c) The proposed site occurs outside the boundaries of ancient lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not expected to contain any paleontologic resources. EA.03.479 -15- `` ' 4 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a) i), iii), iv), b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it subject to liquefaction. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic hazards. VI. a) ii) The project site is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The City and project site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of significant seismic activity. The City Building Department has implemented California Building Codes which, are EA.03.479 -16- intended to lower the potential impacts associated with groundshaking to less than significant levels. In addition, no critical facilities will be built at the site, rather single family residences are the only structures planned. These structures will be required to implement the most recent building codes in place at the time of construction. Impacts associated with groundshaking are expected to be less than significant. VI. a) ii) The site has the potential to be susceptible to rockfall due to its proximity to the slopes of the Santa Rosa mountains. The City Engineer requires the preparation of on -site geotechnical studies prior to the issuance of grading permits. However, this analysis generally does not include rockfall susceptibility. In order to assure that the homes proposed for the site are not subject to these potential impacts, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. As part of the site -specific geotechnical analysis required for the project with submittal of building plans, the project geologist shall include an analysis of the surrounding steep hillsides, and shall make recommendations about the stability of these hillsides in his/her report, including slope modifications required to assure that roackfall will not impact project residences. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. EA.03.479 -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Impact Significant w/ Mitigation Significant Impact 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) 0 For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) EA.03.479 -18- t ' h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The proposed project will result in the construction of 72 single family residences. No concentration of hazardous materials is expected in these homes. The City implements household hazardous waste programs through its solid waste franchisee. The site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, nor is it subject to wildland fires. EA.03.479 -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIU. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 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? ("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 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? ("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2003) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood EA.03.479 -20- Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VI11. a) & b) The construction of 72 homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor will it violate water or wastewater requirements. The project proponent will 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 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) A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project 3. The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on- and off -site flows. Because of the site's adjacency to the Santa Rosa Mountains, flows from the slopes must be accommodated within the project. The hydrology design includes a combination of surface drains and underground pipes, leading either to an on -site retention basin, or to a City drainage pipe which, occurs under Washington Street. These improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer to ensure that the City's standards for on -site retention of 100 year storm events are adhered to. Conformance with these standards will ensure potential impacts are lowered to a less than significant level. VIII. e)-g) The construction of 72 homes 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. "The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, July, 2003. EA.03.479 -21- " 11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The project site occurs adjacent to existing single family development on its southern boundary. The proposed project will continue this type of development by constructing single family homes. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will extend an area of Low Density Residential further to the north. The site is located adjacent to neighborhood commercial development, thereby facilitating easy access to the services required by residents. The change in General Plan and Zoning designations will lower overall impacts on the site, and provide an added opportunity for the provision of a variety of housing types in the City. Impacts of the change in land use designations is expected to be insignificant. EA.03.479 -22- L Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. EA.03.479 -23- ` 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE B Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Project description) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Project description) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan land use map) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a), c) & d) The proposed project is in an area of the City where ambient noise levels are high, and are currently estimated at 76.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline of Washington Street, north of Highland Palms Drive. Further analysis performed for the previous project on this site indicated that 2020 noise levels will reach 77.3 dBA CNEL4. Noise levels on lots closest to Washington Street are not expected to exceed City standards, due to their distance from the roadway, and intervening structures. 4 Analysis performed by Impact Sciences for "Draft EIR for the Point Happy Ranch, September 2001. EA.03.479 -24- There are two potential noise impacts associated with project development — noise generated by the project and impacting surrounding development; and noise generated by other sources and impacting the project site. These are discussed individually below. The proposed project will result in the construction of 72 single family dwellings on 37.72 acres. Residential land uses are not significant noise generators, and are not expected to significantly impact the noise environment in this area. Noise generated during the construction process, however, has the potential to impact the residential land uses to the south of the proposed project site, both along Washington Street and along Crestview Terrace. Although noise impacts associated with construction will be periodic and of short duration, it can be an annoyance and irritant to adjacent residents. In order to reduce potential impacts associated with construction activities as they relate to these residences, mitigation measures have been included below. Noise at New Residences The proposed residential development is considered a sensitive receptor, and noise levels in the outdoor areas of the homes, including back yards, may not exceed 65 dBA CNEL, in order to meet General Plan standards. The half -width of Washington Street at buildout is expected to be 66 feet (Augmented Major Arterial Roadway Classification in the General Plan). The project proposes a landscaped setback of 20 feet. This will result in backyards at a distance of 86 feet from the centerline. Without mitigation, noise levels in the back yards of lots 8 through 12 will be over 77 dBA CNEL at buildout, and over 76 dBA at construction. The project proponent has included a proposed perimeter wall in the project plan. Noise levels can be attenuated from 10 to 20 dBA by the construction of a 6 foot wall. Added attenuation can also be achieved through the construction of walls on berms, because the berms absorb noise impacts. It is important to note, however, that the effectiveness of the noise barrier is directly related to its structure. A wall with any type of break, including decorative fencing, entry gate, etc., has almost no effect. It can be inferred that the noise barrier proposed will attenuate noise to 57 to 67 dBA at a height of 6 feet. In order to assure that the attenuation meets the City's noise standard, a mitigation measure has been added which also requires the addition of a 1 to 2 foot berm. Because of the entry gates adjacent to lots 7 and 8, additional mitigation measures are required to ensure that noise levels remain at City standards in their side yard areas, since the gates will represent a break in the sound wall. This has also been provided below. Noise Relating to Access Option 2C The access point proposed under Option 2C would be off -site of the proposed project, in an area currently constructed for access only to the existing residences south of the project site. The proposed access modification would eliminate the southbound access to Singing Palms Drive as it currently exists, and would replace it with a fully signalized intersection. The western extension of Simon Drive would extend northwesterly into the project site of the proposed Tract Map. The relocation of this access point will cause a break in the perimeter wall, which is currently mitigating the noise levels for residents west of the wall. The break in the wall will result in a potential for noise levels in excess of City standard, particularly for the two homes on the south side of Singing Palms Drive, EA.03.479 -25- `' • ) east of Cameo Palms, and the two lots on the frontage drive, south of Singing Palms Drive, if not mitigated. At the least, the wall which currently occurs south of the proposed project site must be extended northwesterly along the north side of the extension of Simon Drive, and westerly along Singing Palms Drive. The location and height of this wall extension should be analysed specifically for application to this Option 2C, should it be implemented. In order to assure that this Option does not result in any significant impact for existing residents, mitigation measures are provided below to require the preparation of site -specific noise analysis and recommendations for the relocated access drive. 1. All internal combustion equipment operating on the site shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located in the southwestern quarter of the site, as far away from existing homes and the surrounding hillsides as possible. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 4. A six foot wall shall be constructed on all sides of the property, except the frontage on Washington Street. 5. If Access Option 1 is implemented, a six foot wall, constructed on top of a varying berm of 1 to 2 feet in height, shall be constructed on the frontage on Washington Street. The wall shall be entirely of solid construction, with no breaks or "daylight" openings. The wall and berm shall be continued to the front yard setback line on the north boundary of lot 11 and the south boundary of lot 12. There shall be no breaks in the wall, from the front setback line to the connection with the wall on Washington Street. 6. If Access Option 2C is implemented, a six foot wall, constructed on top of a varying berm of 1 to 2 feet in height, shall be constructed on the frontage on Washington Street. The wall shall be entirely of solid construction, with no breaks or "daylight" openings. The wall and berm shall be continued to the front yard setback line of lot 8 (amended map layout), surrounding the retention basin. There shall be no breaks in the wall, from the front setback line to the connection with the wall on Washington Street. 7. If Access Option 2C is implemented, prior to the issuance of building permits for any portion of the site, a noise analysis shall be conducted to specifically recommend wall location and height for the homes on Singing Palms Drive, east of Cameo Palms. The project proponent shall receive approval for construction of any wall from the affected property owner, and shall submit all required building plans on behalf of said property owner. The project proponent shall cause the recommended walls to be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy on the proposed project. 8. Only single story homes shall be permitted on all lots. 9. The pad elevations on lots 8 through 12 shall be as close to 72 feet or less, so as to limit exposure on Washington Street. These mitigations measures will reduce noise levels at the street -side lots to City standards. EA.03.479 -26- XI. b), e)-O Residential land use will not generate ground borne vibrations. The project is not located in the vicinity of either an airport of airstrip. EA.03.479 -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The proposed project will result in 72 housing units, which are likely to generate about f173 residents. This increase in population is not significant, and is consistent with projected growth in the City. No impacts are expected to population and housing. EA.03.479 -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIH. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XHI. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax, which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. Impacts to parks will be limited, given the buildout population of t173 for the site. EA.03.479 -29- 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) Some private open space will be provided within the project site, in the form of retention areas and public open space. The proposed residential lots will be of sufficient size to allow on -site recreational facilities. The proposed project will also be included in the City's planning for new parks once constructed. EA.03.479 -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Project description) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) Traffic analyses have been completed for the project site for both the previously proposed commercial project, and the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR5. In addition, a review of the traffic analysis was conducted for the currently proposed project6. The first "The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, March, 2001; General Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta, March, 2002. Letter Report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, signed Weston Pringle, P.E., March 18, 2003. Ls EA.03.479 -31- two analyses focused on the land uses currently allowed on the property, including Community Commercial, Medium and Low Density residential. The last analysis, performed for the proposed project, focused on analysis of the proposed project. The previously completed analysis, for the commercial proposal, resulted in a daily trip generation of 5,715 ADT. The currently proposed project results in daily trips totaling 795 ADT, or a reduction in overall trips of 4,920 ADT. The intersection of Highway 11 and Washington Street is expected to operate at Level of Service D at General Plan buildout. Although this level of service is acceptable, the proposed project will relieve traffic pressures at this critical intersection, and must therefore be considered a beneficial impact on the region's traffic and circulation. Access Option 1 The access to the site on Washington Street will be restricted to right turn only. Access on Crestview Terrace will also be restricted. U-turns will be available for those wishing to change direction at both Highland Palms Drive and Highway 111, which are both signalized intersections with left turn phasing. This Option would also result in an increase in daily trips on Highland Palms Drive, which would be used by residents wishing to exit the site and proceed northerly. The increase in trips would not, however, be significant, insofar as it would total 160 ADT7. The internal design of the site calls for entry gates at both entry points. The entry gates on Washington Street will provide a stacking distance of over 90 feet, which exceeds the City's standards for stacking distances. Access Option 2C Access Option 2C reconfigures the intersection of Simon Drive and Washington Street to a full intersection, and allows the proposed project to access from Simon Drive (extended), into the southeastern corner of the project. This option also allows existing residents to enter and leave their subdivision at a signalized intersection. Analysis completed for this Option$ found that it would eliminate the need for U-turns on Washington Street, and provide signalized access to the commercial land uses east of Washington Street. In addition, this alternative eliminates the need for vehicular access on Highland Palms (except for emergency access), thereby eliminating the potential impacts on a local street. This alternative provides a less impacting access in relation to Washington Street, which is already impacted by right turns into and out of the commercial center to the north of the proposed project. Implementation of this option will have less than significant impacts on the traffic and circulation system. Parking will be provided on -site, as required in the Municipal Code. Bus stops are provided immediately north and south of the project site, and will be available to project residents. 7 Letter Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates, dated December 9, 2003. a mid. 11 EA.03.479 -32 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.) fj Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 f) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 f) XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land use intensity will be considerably decreased by implementation of the proposed project, and impacts will therefore be less EA.03.479 -33- c1 . than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. All utilities charge a fee for connection and service, which will be paid by the developer or homeowner when the project is constructed. These fees are designed to recoup costs for the provision of services by the individual providers. No significant impacts associated with utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project. EA.03.479 -34- 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 project site is adjacent to critical habitat for the bighorn sheep, and may provide nesting habitat for birds subject to the protections of the Migratory Bird Act. Mitigation measures have been included in this document which will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. The site has potential significance from a historic perspective, and may harbor prehistoric materials. Mitigation measures have been included in this document which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVII.b) The proposed project and associated land use amendments will improve traffic conditions at a critical intersection, and will reduce land use impacts to neighboring residents by limiting development to single family residences. The project is compatible with the General Plan and increases the City's housing stock. EA.03.479 -35- XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will not exceed those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole. 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, which can cause negative health effects, Section III above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to a less than significant level. Noise impacts have been mitigated through the installation of walls and the restriction of building heights in sensitive or potentially sensitive areas. Impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. Ci ; EA.03.479 -36- O � o of0 o o U �O+ 0 q cdcn O ti a 45U °z az WO U � F �p A �a da U H � 'U cd at � Ei tV ri O N N F. ('� T O ,a GLU` goo �o N NN�N� � oz AU Wd W i W H A z� QA a� OV U y "O 0 a+ U O O W rn eef cd U o on °A � o 0 o o y .�. UV tb O F 0 y o M N a U .4 U .4 �b Rio '0 or. O O a .12. a s a o� � z.F. a a two OD � to � wa w .0 � a •v •,�s •� v U U U mz U A co GA GA CA y a� z o 0 0 �� N 0 0 � H ¢ ai 0 .� U 0 cz �w a b~ N 0 0 cqs 0 o 0= a w � A U a§ U \U 2 2 � � � 2 t# 9:6.0\\ e§ § © § ° 2'/ 2± k kgkq/ A G �0 ¢� �2�U�Ua k o t o 0 u o / § § +C4 E § § % & u u .§ 4 q q « R / 7 2 C.)2 i 3 .t [ o•\ 'c '� o rA aK ak=0 � 22 u > z 00z 7 ° ƒ % // b d d u 2 U U uo CN / 2 E R / @ e \ k U k 't k / `0 R / 2 @ 7 u to e k 2 A k 'o k k .t 2§ G a/ /% 3 / / V) \/ W d A z a� a U UU W F •o 0 b •o i ,7 c i o 11 g o ca o ce � c cd o� 06 °A 0 0 pz c 0 0 o O O V O V a a o a o A a CG7 a a a a w o O O o A A A A ►., a O UQ UQ UQ UQ zwo on U o _ `ri z H O �• aCd 0 0 O p a. W d A U� �A a� av UU U w to a a G7 � E+ Cd 0 O a a 0� W a u, OO � on W LY W U z C, o o c � W U U c Y conEn W F Q A W Q° a� U UU Q o 0 0 0 ,� 0 •N 14, •y .� •N U U W C��+3 CA v� Ln G7 0 0 0 u a a ¢, U U U bA O O O O O � � Q p p p a a a a a a O � p�q Ga CAA CA U Q Ca a� .� N •v� H 0 EnCd ,� Cd ci) o U �i O y 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N w.cd o cr U o .. U U •: cd U 0 .0 a U Cl) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-094 APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of September, 28" day of October, 2003, and the 24`h day of February, 2004, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a General Plan Amendment to change land use and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Low Density Residential for ± 37.72 acres, generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002 WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 2003-094 has complied with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental Assessment 2003-479 was prepared and determined that although the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend to the City Council approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. General Plan Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the Amendment will provide for continued single-family development adjacent to existing single-family development. 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed changes will be less intensive and consistent with existing land uses in the immediate area south of the site. PC RES02 GPA 03 094 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2003-094 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 3. General Plan Compatibility: The proposed project will be compatible with existing and surrounding land uses in that it is consistent with development in the immediate area and consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan. 4. Property Suitability: The proposed project will be suitable and appropriate for the property and adjacent properties in that it will be consistent with the permitted uses in neighboring communities and in accordance with the Zoning Code and goals, objectives and policies of the City of La Quinta General Plan. Urban services are currently accessible to the site which would allow for planned development in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the City of La Quinta General Plan. 5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the proposed project is warranted because the land has been determined to be suitable for residential development. The change in land use from commercial to residential development is also warranted because commercial uses currently exist adjacent to the site that can serve the surrounding and project areas. Also, there is additional commercial land available for future development near the site that would serve future commercial uses to support the additional residential development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission; and 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2003-094, as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PC RES02 GPA 03 094 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2003-094 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RES02 GPA 03 094 ~p � �j . co m X w 0 f 67' 3 PALM =k� ey", PLACE Ir EXISTING TRACT 2117 401-ce La PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2003-115 APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23d day of September, 28" day of October, 2003, and the 241h day of February, 2004, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a Zone Change to zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Low Density Residential for ± 37.72 acres, generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002 WHEREAS, said Zone Change 2003-115 has complied with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental Assessment 2003-479 was prepared and determined that although the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impact to less than significant levels; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend to the City Council approval of said Zone Change: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the Zone Change will provide for continued single-family development adjacent to an existing single-family development. 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed changes are less intense and consistent with existing land uses south of the site in the immediate area. PC RES02 ZC 03 115 ter,) Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Zone Change 2003-115 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 3. Land Use Compatibility: The new zoning will be compatible with existing and surrounding zoning designations in that the project will be consistent with development in the immediate area and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Property Suitability: The new zoning designation will be suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that it will be consistent with the permitted uses in the immediate area and in accordance with the Zoning Code. Urban services are currently accessible to the area which, would allow for planned development in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the Zoning Code. 5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the new zoning is warranted because the land has been determined to be suitable for residential development. The change in zoning from commercial to residential development is also warranted because commercial uses currently exist adjacent to the site that can serve the surrounding and project areas. Also, there is additional commercial land available for future development near the site that would serve future commercial uses to support the additional residential development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission; and 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2003-115, as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 241h day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: PC RES02 ZC 03 115 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Zone Change 2003-115 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California I_d43a OSCAR ORCI Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RES02 ZC 03 115 �- F l 9VW dVW IDW& 3ALLV1]a F PARCEL MAP ID023 p,K— 1211/41-4-D -------------- - - INV, 7*7 71/77 /x 777 X/A' A' I PEI T I I I I I A X1: 1: 1: 1: 1, 1, X,:, '4py j Y'Y I t I I I I t / X cf) co III II' IIII I I I I .. .......... CAWO PLACE do aAm FLOWER RLACK-faX! LQ -UL- 60 A/ PALM PLACE A 0 C51) COD EXISTING TRACT 211( X ui PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 TO SUBDIVIDE ± 37.72 ACRES INTO 73 LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of September, 28" day of October, 2003, and the 241h day of February, 2004, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ± 37.72 acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot), generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 31348 has complied with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental Assessment 2003-479 was prepared and determined that although the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend to the City Council approval of said Tentative Tract Map 31348: 1. The proposed tract map will be consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the property will be designated Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows single-family residential uses, and Open Space (OS), which allows natural open space. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that all streets and improvements in the proposed project will conform to City standards contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Access for the single-family lots will be provided from existing streets in the immediate area. The density and design for the tract will comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. PC RES02 TTM 31348 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract Map 31348 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 3. The design of the proposed subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat in that the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division and currently, development exists to the north, east, and south of the site which has reduced the amount of habitat suitable for any fish or wildlife. 4. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the applicant will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements of the City of La Quinta to provide a safe environment for the public. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that there are existing streets that will provide direct access to the site. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements for the proposed project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Tentative Tract Map; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 31348, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 241" day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: PC RES02 TTM 31348 l� 1� Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract Map 31348 Madison Development, LLC February 24, 2004 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PC RES02 TTM 31348 [{ l.' `s PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs 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"). 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 BMP shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street — (Major Augmented Arterial, 132' ROW) — Dedicate an additional 6 feet of right of way at location as necessary to achieve a consistent 66-foot wide half -street right of way width as measured from the street centerline. Dedicate right of way to accommodate a 200-foot long by 12- foot wide deceleration lane plus transition serving the westerly extension of Simon Drive. If the applicant is unable to acquire the necessary right of way for the extension of Simon Drive as detailed in dedication requirement #2 below, and if the City Council is unwilling to assist in the acquisition after requested to do so, the deceleration lane requirement noted above shall be modified in location to serve the "default" access option approved by the City Council. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 2) Westerly Extension of Simon Drive — The applicant shall acquire and dedicate right of way as needed to construct the westerly extension of Simon Drive and its associated public right of way connections as generally depicted by the Option 2 access concept pursuant to specific configuration requirements of the City Engineer that become known during project design. The public right of way for the westerly extension terminates just north and west of where the cross -connection to Singing Palms Drive connects to the Simon Drive extension. 9. The subdivider shall acquire the property owned by a third party that is need for public right of way prior to submitting the map for final approval by the City Council. If the subdivider is unable to complete the property acquisition as required through its best effort and good faith negotiation, the subdivider shall enter into a contingent reimbursement agreement with the City, prior to final map approval, to cover expenses incurred by the City as allowed per State Government Code Section 66462.5 if the City elects to commence eminent domain proceedings pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure 10. 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. 11. 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. The required right of way shall accommodate the required roadway travel width plus the approved curb and gutter design. Use of smooth curves instead of angular lines at property lines is recommended. 1) Lot B and C - Private Residential Streets measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width except at the entry drives. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 B. CUL DE SACS 1) The cul-de-sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with 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. 12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways as follows: A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 17. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street from lots with frontage along Washington Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 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. 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 r COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 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. Off -Site Street Plan: 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. Perimeter Landscape Plan: On -Site Street Plan: Vertical On -Site Rough Grading Plan On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' 1 " = 60' 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 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. 23. 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. 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 COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 �` PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 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. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 C � 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 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. 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. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 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. 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 w COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 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 (ie 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 comply with the pad elevation shown on the tentative map approved by the City Council. 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. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 39. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations), LQMC. If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95 % Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met. b : e ► TWO 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. The applicant shall discharge storm water not retained in the proposed retention basin drainage system from on -site, and off -site tributary area assigned to the development site, into the existing storm drain located in Washington Street. The applicant shall pay a prorated share of cost to design and install the storm drain. The prorated share shall be calculated on the basis on the percentage of the capacity of the existing storm drain system utilized by the development's storm water. The applicant's designer shall submit a hydrology report and calculations of the abovementioned capacity usage with the rough grading plan application. 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. Pr COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 45. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 46. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 47. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of storm drain and retention basin 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. 49. When an applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative parcel map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 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. 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 (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Augmented Arterial; 132' R/W): No additional widening on the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary is required except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 a) A deceleration/right turn only lane serving the westerly extension of Simon Drive. The west curb face shall be located sixty feet (60') west of the centerline and shall accommodate a 12-foot wide by 200-foot long deceleration lane, plus taper. Other required improvements in the Washington Street right of way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. 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). 2) Design and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive. The new signal shall be hard wire interconnected to the Washington Street signals at Highway 111 and at Highland Palms. The applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the cost to design and install the signal and associated signal coordination interconnect. 3) Construct the westerly extension of Simon Drive and a 24-foot wide emergency cross -connection road to Singing Palms Drive as generally depicted by the Option 2 access concept pursuant to specific configuration requirements of the City Engineer that become known during project design. The applicant shall also install other improvements as necessary to implement the COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Option 2 access concept including but limited to: a) sound attenuation wall along Singing Palms Drive and crossing over to the tract perimeter wall for this tentative map, b) access driveway to property on south side of Singing Palms Drive, c) access route from the emergency cross -connection road to the Washington Street frontage road including a key - controlled electrically operated access vehicle gate for emergency and waste service vehicles. d) emergency vehicle gate across the emergency cross - connection road e) pedestrian access way serving pedestrians and bicycles from Singing Palms Drive and the Washington Street frontage road. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Lot B and C - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements within a 37-foot right-of-way where the residential streets are double loaded, except at the entry drive areas. 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. GATED ENTRY DRIVES 1) Primary Entry (Washington Street) COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 a) The gated main entry on Washington Street shall provide for a minimum of three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. b) 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 back out onto the main street from the gated entry. c) Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of the gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. 2) Secondary Entry (Highland Palms Drive) a) The gated entry on Highland Palms Drive shall be for emergency vehicle access. 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. 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. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 56. 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 COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 operations until mix designs are approved. 57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Westerly Extension of Simon Drive): Full turn access at the signalized intersection. 58. 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. 59. 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 60. 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 61. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common Dots and park areas. 63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 64. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 65. 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 66. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 67. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 68. 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. 69. 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. 70. 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 COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 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 71. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 72. 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 73. 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. 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). 75. Prior to completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of such reapportionment. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 76. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site, the project proponent shall submit an Oral History to the Community Development Department and La Quinta Historical Society. The oral report shall be prepared in accordance with the City's and the Society's standards for such documents. 77. The applicant shall prepare a technical report on the eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 78. The applicant shall submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report regarding the regional significance of the site in terms of it's historical context, including but not limited to, it's relationship to the Bradshaw Trail, the stage coach line, water wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails. The Phase I Cultural Resources Report shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and be considered independently by the Historic Preservation Committee at a future date. 79. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. A final mitigation monitoring report shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first production home for the project. 80. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property. Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. 81. The applicant shall design new gates, similar to the existing gates, and incorporate the name "Point Happy Ranch" into the gates. The applicant shall place a plaque on, or near the gates, commemorating the site and it's relationship to the region. 82. The applicant shall name streets within the development after individuals historically associated with the property. 83. The applicant shall demonstrate that the gates along Washington Street are not "historic" by submitting proof that they are less than 50 years old. Should the gates not be historic, they can be removed and not preserved on site. 84. Should demolition, grubbing, earth moving or construction be planned for initiation between February 15 and September 30, a field survey shall be conducted to determine whether birds under the jurisdiction of the Migratory Bird Act are nesting on the property. Should such nests be identified, buffer areas in conformance with the Act, but no less than 50 feet in all directions, COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 shall be established where no construction activity is allowed, until such time as the biologist determines that the nesting birds have discontinued use of the nest. The required field survey shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for demolition, grubbing, grading or building on the site. 85. A three person committee shall be formed, consisting of a representative of the Homeowners' Association (HOA), a representative of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Community Development Director. The purpose of the committee shall be to assess the need for a fence/wall to keep Peninsular Bighorn Sheep from entering the project site. The committee shall monitor sheep activity through various means, including interviews with residents and visitors, and any available scientific data available and/or funded by the HOA. If bighorn sheep are seen on the project site, the committee shall require that the HOA, at its expense, construct an 8-foot fence along the property line between the project and the hillside. Gaps in the fence should be 11 centimeters or less. At the request of CDFG, temporary fencing may be required between the time that sheep are seen on the site and the time that permanent fencing is required. The committee shall exist for a period of 10 years, unless bighorn sheep are documented to no longer inhabit the Santa Rosa Mountains. At the end of ten (10) years, if any one member of the committee deems it necessary for the committee to continue, it shall do so until such time that it is dissolved by a unanimous vote of all its members. 86. The project applicant shall either provide an easement to the City, or evidence of dedication to a non-profit organization, to be approved by the City prior to recordation of the final map, ensuring that the preservation of lot 73 as open space in perpetuity." The lot shall also be a lettered lot on the Final Tract Map. 87. Blasting and pile -driving, or other excessively loud construction activity, shall be prohibited from January 1 through June 30 of each year. 88. All lighting on the project site shall be directed away from the hillsides. The project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners. 89. Plants toxic to bighorn sheep shall be prohibited on the site. The project proponent shall secure a clearance letter from a qualified biologist, certifying COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 the suitability of the plant palette for the project site. The project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners. 90. The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs from running loose in the project site. 91. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a provision prohibiting access by either persons or animals to the adjacent hillsides. 92. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the site, during both construction and operations, are not harmful to wildlife. The plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. COA TTM 31348 Rev 040220 ATTACHMENT PROJECT VICINITY • s _ S" r_ 41 rt 3 I r i I I I' I r � I I I I C I I_ � G 9 :� • �, • ��1H I I I I I I l r, �N) 1�'-y-.-e� _ _ - � � 9• , y r 1 41 Zs Mj +.-x--- —_ BNONG PAUd®" ARNE --- • Ir i 5w H�4 RIB � � ' �� , �' f{:• _ i { °z a '' CAMEO Mms + PLACE A 'E] W , 8A1O FlA1NHi � PLACE Ln U Q Q u' o u PALM WADER ZI t! g PLACE J i cRESVOW ISARACS Fir PAWCLl MAP r)0,3- Pwh. L U 4 /-47 - - c� I 'III /: a ,�. rst .17j, /Z�/� ,�'%/f• j � i ,/ ,?-�'ii/ �,, � .I i � I I I I I I / ' / ' ' /`n`r'`'` • ; 1. // '. / , �9 I III I I I I I I t / � � � � "i � / ' ' / ' / / / � /✓t . / � � le W - 1I y _ q I I I I I I I I I I I 4_1 III I' I I IIIIIIIIIIIII iI !qq � � 1Y EMI II IIi I I IIIIIIIIIIII ~ Il(,, �' /� j 8l10l10 PALt�A9'pWVE- I- I IV I-- M II II i M I I I I III' I ICI I I � II yy A QI I I I I I � I I O I I I I I' I cr;ANEoouNEs PLACE- I'I I I I I SAID FLOWSA I W O u P m`) I I , A i I II I Ii •i I III � �, �/-�,% V 0 yy E p8 4 l a C R I I PALM OARDFA v� Puri I NI O g L _ a- I _ _ 1 I � I n �.•I ry n � � g rrl,v. , .ur - - - Taft"`Ce a ATTACHMENT 2/16/04 ROBERT D. MORINMAMES H. CARPENTER 78-550 SINGING PALMS DRIVE LA QUINTA, CA 92253 ;ITY OF LA QUINTA ,OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 8-495 CALLE TAMPICO A QUINTA, CA 92253-1504 LE.: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT TO MODIFY POLICY #2, PROGRAM 2.3 1F THE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO ALLOW TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN 1060 FEET OF VTERSECTIONS. O WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, ,S PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, HELD AT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, 4 THE BEGINNING OF FEBUARY 2004, REGARDING ACCESS IN AND OUT OF PROPOSED PROJECT, HE ESTATES AT POINT HAPPY: HE ONLY OPTION THAT MAKES ANY SENSE TO THE RESIDENTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO AVE A LIGHT INSTALLED AT SINGING PALMS DRIVE AND SIMON DRIVE, CLOSING OFF THE IASHINGTON STREET FRONTAGE ROAD AND SINGING PALMS DRIVE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS iNLY. ALSO, TO HAVE THE EXISTING DEAD END AT HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE AND THE PROPOSED ROJECT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. 1 ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK, MADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO AQUIRE IY HOME, LOCATED AT 78-550 SINGING PALMS DRIVE, AND MY NEIGHBORS HOME LOCATED IRECTLY TO THE EAST SIDE OF MY PROPERTY, BORDERING THE WASHINGTON STREET RONTAGE ROAD. IADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS TRIED TO AQUIRE OUR HOME IN AN INAPPROPRIATE MANNER, RYING TO STRONGARM US, AND OUR NEIGHBOR, MR. HUERTA INTO MAKING A POOR DECISION D FORFIET OUR PROPERTIES WITHOUT BEING COMPENSATED IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER. ADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN DECEIPTFUL FROM THE START. FIRST VERBALLY LEADING 4MES CARPENTER TO BELIEVE THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO EXCHANGE OUR CURRENT ROPERTY FOR A HOME IN THEIR NEW DEVELOPMENT, OUR CHOICE OF FLOORPLAN, AND DCATION, ECT. WHEN SEVERAL ISSUES REGARDING CUSTOM UPGRADES, WHICH WE HAVE IN Y CURRENT HOME, AND WOULD EXPECT IN THE NEW HOME, WERE DISCUSSED, MR. WILKERSON IDICATED, "WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE KINDS OF THINGS." A NEIGHBOR, OF MINE WAS RESENT AT THAT MEETING AND CAN TESTIFY TO THEIR REMARKS. AT A LATER DATE MADISON EVELOPMENT TOOK THAT OFFER AWAY, OFFERING US, ONLY THEIR UNACCEPTABLE LOWBALL PPRAISAL OF OUR PROPERTY, TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF ONE OF THEIR HOMES. ALL THE ME, NEVER COMMUNICATING WITH US DIRECTLY, OPTING TO LET THEIR SECRETARY THREATEN 8 WITH THE ISSUES OF CONDEMNING OUR HOME, OR THREATING TO HAVE THE CITY PURCHASE UR HOME UNDER EMINENT DOMAINE. CLEARLY THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL ISSUE AND NEITHER DNDEMNENATION OR EMINENT DOMAINE APPLY. 5 INDICATED TO US BY MR. MARTIN MAGANA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, CITY OF LA QUINTA, THE ITY HAS NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO DECLARE EMINENT DOMAINE AND PURCHASING OUR DME FOR THE BENEFIT OF MADISON DEVELOPMENT. Y DOMESTIC PARTNER AND I ARE LONG TERM SURVIVORS OF A.I.D.S, AND FIND MADISON EVELOPMENTS UNETHICAL AND HARASSING WAY OF DOING BUSINESS AS AN UNNECESSARY tRAIN ON OUR HEALTH AND WELL BEING. �i 1T THIS POINT, BECAUSE OF THE EVENTS THAT HAVE TRANSPIRED BETWEEN US AND MADISON )EVELOPMENT, WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER ACCEPTING ANY OFFER TO LIVE IN MADISON )EVELOPMENTS PROPOSED PROJECT, THE ESTATES AT POINT HAPPY. WE MUST BE AONETARILY COMPENSATED IN WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE AN APPROPRIATE MANNER, BY AADISON DEVELOPMENT, FOR THE INCONVENIENCE THEY HAVE CREATED FOR US. N OUR VIEW, DEVELOPERS THAT TRY DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, IN AN INETHICAL AND INAPPROPRIATE MANNER, SHOULD BE REPREMANDED BY THE CITY AND NOT ►LLOWED TO OPERATE IN OUR COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE. 4 THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WE REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA NOT ALLOW IADISON DEVELOPMENT ANY FURTHER OPTIONS REGARDING ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY, 'HAT ENCROACH ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND CURRENT STANDARD OF LIVING, AND SHOULD ;ERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF PLACING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT SIMON iRIVE AND SINGING PALMS DRIVE. THIS WOULD INCONVENIENCE THE RESIDENTS, VISITORS, AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. PERHAPS MADISON DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMITED ACCESS ISSUES TO POINT HAPPY RANCH BEFORE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. i" rSINCERELY, 'G ROBERT D. MORIN JAMES H. CARPENTER 2/20/04 ROBERT D. MORINMAMES H. CARPENTER 78-550 SINGING PALM DRIVE LA QUINTA, CA 92253 TY OF LA QUINTA DMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT "95 CALLE TAMPICO QUINTA, CA 92253 _: CONTINUATION OF OUR LETTER, DATED 2/16/04, ADDRESSED TO: TY OF LA QUINTA DMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THE EVENT, THE CITY OF LA QUINTA APPROVES A TRAFFIC LIGHT TO BE INSTALLED AT SINGING PALMS RIVE AND SIMON DRIVE, BEFORE MADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS AQUIRED OUR HOME, IN A MANNER XEPTABLE TO US, THE CITY OF LA QUINTA WILL BE HELD LIABLE, AND SERVED TO APPEAR IN COURT. THE TY OF LA QUINTA, MADISON DEVELOPMENT, OR ANY PERSON OR ENTITY REPRESENTING MADISON _VELOPMENT OR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA WILL HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR SAYSO REGARDING OUR ELOCATION. > OF THIS DAY 2/20/04, BECAUSE MADISON DEVELOPMENT HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO RESPOND TO OUR NAL OFFER, DATED 1/28/04, WE HEREBY WITHDRAW THIS FINAL OFFER PRESENTED TO MADISON VELOPMENT AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, DATED1/28/04. SINCERELY, ROBERT D. MORINMAMES H. CARPENTER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THI DAY OF. .... 0L. / NOTARY PUBLI _ 61NA M. REWS Commission # 1452278 Noiay PuM - Cakfomfo _ RNerskle County My Coma_. Expires Nov 2 i , 200 BI #A i Memorandum TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: OSCAR W. ORCI, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 RE: CONTINUED APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE 9693, ROBERT AND BARBARA VALDIVIA. On November 25, 2003 and January 27, 2004 the Planning Commission reviewed this item and continued it at the request of the City's Prosecutor and applicant's counsel in order to allow both parties an opportunity to resolve certain issues. The Building and Safety Department continues to review plans for the proposed improvements. Both parties are therefore requesting this item be continued to the March 23, 2004 meeting to allow the Building and Safety Department the opportunity to review the proposed improvements and issue building permits. PA0scar`,va1divia\PN 9693 memo2.doc The Keith Companies IrKI February 24, 2004 Jack Tarr Washington 111, Ltd. 74770 Highway 111, Suite 201 Indian Wells, CA 92210 RE: WASHINGTON PARK PROJECT - Proposed Traffic Signal at Simon Drive & Washington Street This is in response to your request regarding a proposed traffic signal to be located at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive in the City of La Quinta. We have reviewed the following documents: • Washington Park Specific Plan, SP1987-011, Amendment No. 4, 12/17/02. • City of La Quinta Target Development Traffic Impact Analysis, 10/30/02. In the Specific Plan adopted by the City (Resolution 2002-167), traffic signal improvements were addressed at the following locations: Adams Street & Ave. 47; Highway 111 & Adams Street; Highway 111 & La Quinta Drive; Highway 111 & Washington Street; Washington Street & Ave 47. No traffic signal improvement requirements were indicated in the Specific Plan for the intersection of Simon Drive and Washington Street. The Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, covers Simon Dr. at Washington St. to Avenue 47, to Adams St. and to Highway 111, back to Simon Dr. The analysis considers conditions of roadway geometry and alignments as well as traffic counts at the time of the investigation, June 2002. For the intersection of Simon Dr. and Washington St., the study indicated no traffic signal requirements since, apparently, it did not meet the warrants for a traffic signal. Based on our initial review of the above documents, the Washington Park project does not require a traffic signal at this intersection. However, all new projects within the area should be responsible for preparing new traffic studies to determine if their development requires a signal or other improvements at this location in order to mitigate new traffic impacts. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us at 760-346-9844. Sincerely, The Keith Companies, Inc. Dan Ruiz, P.E. Director of Engineering, Palm Desert Division Palm Desert Division 73-733 Fred Waring Drive Suite 100 Palm Desert California 92260-2590 1760.346.9844 JN 40889.00 F: 760.346.9368 www.keithco com PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 2► Westerly Extension of Simon Drive — The applicant shall acquire and dedicate right of way as needed to construct the westerly extension of Simon Drive and its associated public right of way connections as generally depicted by the Option 2 access concept pursuant to specific configuration requirements of the City Engineer that become known during project design. The public right of way for the westerly extension terminates just north and west of where the cross -connection to Singing Palms Drive connects to the Simon Drive extension. 9. The subdivider shall acquire all property that is needed for public rights of way prior to submitting the map for final approval by the City Council. If the subdivider is unable to complete the property acquisition as required through its best effort and good faith negotiation, then prior to final map approval the subdivider shall enter into a contingent reimbursement agreement with the City in a form and content acceptable to the Community Development Director and City Attorney. The agreement shall obligate subdivider to cover all expenses incurred by the City as allowed per State Government Code Section 66462.5 if the City elects to commence eminent domain proceedings pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. Subdivider acknowledges that the City has not committed to commence eminent domain proceedings or otherwise acquire the property. 10. 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. 11. 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. The required right of way shall accommodate the required roadway travel width plus the approved curb and gutter design. Use of smooth curves instead of angular lines at property lines is recommended. 1) Lot B and C - Private Residential Streets measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width except at the entry drives. COA TTM 31348-2 Rev 040220 r Final Offer 1128104 Wilfred and Doreen P. Huerta 78-590 Singing Palms Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 ttention: Mr. Edward Alderson and Richard Wilkerson ladison Development 1-361 San Gargonlo ancho Mirage, CA 92270 ear Mr. Alderson and Mr. Wilkerson, fter reviewing your Driveby Appraisal, consulting my attorney, and speaking with Don Adoipf, Mayor,City of La uinta, I find your requests to be totally unacceptable. The City of La Quinta absolutly has no intentions of urchasing my home to benefit Madison Development. They require your obtaining my house and my neighbors afore approving the light you want. I find your threats regarding Condemnation and Eminent Domain to be itadly unfounded. Your so-called negotiating skim are totally substandard and unacceptable. Therefore, you, Dr any agent representing Madison Development may contact either myself or my wife, by phone or in person. II communication must be in writing. Fe are totally content residing at our present home located at 78-590 Singing Patens Drive, and would not insider moving unless you present me with a cashiers check in the amount of $500,000. If .your are unable to feet the above purchase price condition, I expect Madison Development to build a wall around the back of my roperty, and any properties you might aquire on the east or west sides of my home in the future. The wall must e six feet tali and finished on both sides. If 1 incur property damage from the wall being bulk, Madison evelopment will be held liable, and you will need to make all necessary property repairs. If the powerlines , djacent to the backside of my property are going to be placed underground, I require it be taken care of in such a canner as to not disturb my existing garden or backyard. Once again, if any property damage its incurred by me Marding the above mentioned projects, Madison Development will be held directly liable and will need to make li necessary repairs. Any of the above mentioned projects are required to be completed to my satisfaction afore Madison Development begins construction on your project behind my home. If above conditions are nonnegotiable. In other words, "there is no room for negotiation!" Do not attempt to intact us, unless you have a Cashiers Check made out to me for 500,000.00, (five hundred thousand dollars). Fe would require you to write up a contract to be presented to us by review of our attorney. The contract would eed to include that you are buying our property as is, excluding our furniture, personal belongings, and any lantings we wish to remove from our yard. When the contract is approved and we have a cashiers check in our and, we would be willing to vacate our property within tkiftyciftys. Sincerely, is 1 �/ ecle d Wilfred Huerta