2004 03 23 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
MARCH 23, 2004
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2004-020
Beginning Minute Motion 2004-006
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 March 9, 2004
B. Department Report
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item ................ CONTINUED - VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021
Applicant.......... Coronel Enterprises
Location........... Southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida
Navarro
Request............ Consideration of a request to construct a two-
story, 15,525 square foot office building on a .30
acre site.
Action .............. Resolution 2004-
B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-796
Applicant.......... Madison Development, LLC
Location........... 46-201 Washington Street
Request............ Consideration of architectural and landscaping
plans for five new single-family prototype
residential units with 11 different elevations within
the Estates at Point Happy Development.
Action .............. Resolution 2004-
C. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-773
Applicant.......... California Cove Communities
Location........... Northwest corner of Monroe Street and Airport
Boulevard within the Norman Course
Request............ Consideration of architectural plans for three new
single-family prototype residential units with two
different facades for each plan
Action .............. Resolution 2004-
D. Item ................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-496, AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
Applicant..........
John Megay & Associates
Location...........
West side of Monroe Street, '/4 miles north of
Avenue 58
Request............
Consideration of: 1) certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and
the subdivision of 38.85 acres into 132 single-
family residential lots.
Action ..............
Resolution 2004- and Resolution 2004-
E. Item ................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-800
Applicant..........
Jack Tarr Development
Location...........
Southeast corner of Washington Street and Simon
Drive
Request............
Consideration of a request to allow construction of
a 12,000 square foot grocery store.
Action ..............
Resolution 2004-
S:\Website Updates\Community DevelopmentTCAgenda3-23-04.doc
F. Item ................
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-022
Applicant..........
Santa Rosa Plaza, L.L.C.
Location...........
North of Calle Tampico, east of Avenida Bermudas
Request............
Consideration of development plans for a 3,678
square foot commercial office building.
Action ..............
Resolution 2004-
G. Item ................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-498,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-098, ZONE
CHANGE 2004-118, AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 32119
Applicant..........
Mayer Villa Capri and Trans West Housing (for the
Tentative Tract Map)
Location...........
Northeast of the intersection of Washington Street
and Fred Waring Drive
Request............
Consideration of: 1) certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from
Community Commercial to Neighborhood
Commercial and Low Density Residential; and the
subdivision of 15 acres into 48 single-family
residential lots.
Action ..............
Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004-
Resolution 2004- and Resolution 2004-
VI BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Item ................ CONTINUED - APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
CASE 9693
Applicant.......... Robert and Barbara Valdivia
Location........... 54-360 Avenida Juarez
Request............ Consideration of an appeal of a public nuisance
Action .............. Request to continue
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 April 13, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
S:\Website Updates\Community Deve1opment\PCAgenda3-23-04.doc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March 9, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
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: Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci,
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve
Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Martin Magaria,
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
February 24, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 1 #4, A. be
corrected to read: "There being no corrections...."; Page 2, #2
"...adopted sign program does allow a second sign on the face...."; Page
8, #F.3 "...parking spaces for the hotel.."; Page 9 #F.9 "...signal at
Seeley Drive and Miles Avenue.."; Page 12 #G.2 "...asked about the
chart in the staff report"; Page 13 #3 "...assurance from Caltrans that
the lights would be synchronized"; Page 16 add "Commissioner Tyler
asked if there were any substantive changes to the tract map other than
those directly related to the revised entry. Staff stated no."
Commissioner Abels asked that Page 16 be corrected to note he was not
in attendance. There being no further corrections, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as
corrected.
B. Department Report: Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci
reported the Request for Proposals for commercial development had been
approved by Council and distributed to potential firms.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Street Name Change 2003-015; a request of La Quinta polo Partners for
consideration of a street name change from Beth Circle to Norris Drive for
the street located west of Madison Street, south of Avenue 51
1. Staff informed the Commission the applicant had requested a
continuance of the project. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue Street Name Change
2004-015, as recommended. Unanimously approved.
B. Street Name Change 2003-016; a request of ND La Quinta Partners for
consideration of a street name change from Village Club Drive to
Hideaway Club Drive and Village Club Place to Via Mirasol located within
the Hideaway project on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of
Avenue 54.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. There
being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant
would like to address the Commissioner. The applicant stated he
was available to answer any questions.
3. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Tyler/Daniels
to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-018 approving
Street Name Change 2003-016, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
C. Environmental Assessment 2004-499 and Tentative Tract Map 321 17; a
request of Quarry Ranch L.L.C. for consideration of certification of a
Mitigated negative Declaration of environmental impact and the re -
subdivision of 6.32 acres into 13 residential lots for the property located
on the west side of Jefferson Street, south of Quarry Lane.
rn•11n1on1'%rc%or RA;-.*....\'2 0 nn%nm A- 2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if Quarry Lane had been constructed.
Staff stated it is still under construction. Commissioner Tyler
asked that Page 51, #47 should be corrected to stated "all gaps".
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Shaw, representing the applicant, stated
the road is rough graded and the curb is currently being laid. He
supported the recommended conditions.
4. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of
the hearing.
5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-019, certifying a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2004-499, as recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels//Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-020, approving
Tentative Tract Map 32117, as amended:
a. Condition #47: corrected to read: "All gaps..."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
E. Village Use Permit 2004-021; a request of Coronel Enterprises for
consideration of a request to construct a two-story, 15,525 square foot
office building on a .30 acre site located at the southwest corner of Calle
Tampico and Avenida Navarro.
r_-M1Dnnrc%or nA;. +V2 0 nMnm a.... 3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the
information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked the land uses surrounding the site.
Staff stated the adjacent land is currently vacant. Discussion
followed regarding the advantages of the zero lot line.
3. Commissioner Quill asked if there would be any change to the
structure if it was shifted five feet from the lot line. Staff stated
that the only change would the access driveway to the building. If
you move it back it increases the slope to the parking garage from
the street.
4. Chairman Kirk asked where staff was recommending the building
be setback. Staff stated this is a verbal update to the report.
Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated that if
they propose the windows on the west and south facades, they
will have to comply with the UBC requirements. Chairman Kirk
asked the height requirement in the Village district. Staff stated
40 feet. This building is 34 feet.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated he was concerned with the parking.
He asked if the ADA requirements were met. Staff stated the
Code does not specifically state how many there shall be.
Commissioner Tyler was concerned about the trash enclosure as it
will not fit through the pedestrian gates. There does not appear to
be adequate room. He asked about the depth of the underground
parking in regard to drainage. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer
stated it has to be sunken four feet into the ground with no more
than four feet above ground. You can raise the ground level and
berm it up next to the building to hide the height. If you move the
building five feet, you only have to berm up nine inches. It
depends upon how much berming is allowed next to the face of
the building to hide the height.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any concerns with the drainage
and underground parking. Staff explained the drainage plan and
stated there were no concerns if the plan was followed. Chairman
Kirk stated the concern about it being underparked. Assistant City
Engineer Steve Speer stated he is aware there is less spaces than
normal, but there is parking in close proximity. Staff stated that
r--\%A/DnllrC\Dr RA;- +-\v 0 nnlnin A- 4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
as long as there is a high point on the driveway of at least a foot
above the flow line of the street the drainage in the underground
parking is all right. The only water that will drain into their garage
will be from the drip line at the edge of the roof and there will be a
drain inlet with a pump in the garage. There should be no, or very
minimal amount of water in the underground parking lot. In regard
to the site being under parked, but this is generally an issue the
Community Development Department would handle. Interim
Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated the City is
currently studying the Village parking to identify where parking is
needed and what is available.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Zeke Coronel, the applicant, gave a presentation
on the project. He stated they are requesting the zero lot line with
no windows.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Quill asked if the windows were eliminated, would
the suites on that elevation have any windows. Mr. Coronel
stated all the suites would have windows on the front. Two suits
will have windows on both sides and the rest would be on the
front.
9. Mr. David Brudvik, 78-120 Calle Estado, Santa Rosa Development,
stated he owns the property adjacent to this site and he is
concerned with the overhangs and setbacks. His lots equal 5,200
square feet and most of the parking is already street parking in
front of his property. They would like to see a better parking plan.
10. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Brudvik to identify which lots
were his on the map. Mr. Brudvik stated he owns property on two
sides of this site and he is uncertain what he will build. He is
concerned about setbacks and what impacts this project will have
on his project. He knows he will have to have underground
parking to meet the demand.
11. Commissioner Quill asked if it was his intent to have the ability to
optimize the zero lot line. Mr. Brudvik stated they will have to, but
they want to have the same style as Old Town. He would want to
see the recessed windows on this building.
(_•\\A/DnnrC\Dr nn;—+,...\'� 0 nA%Afn a.,.. 5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
12. Mr. Lucas Coronel, representing the applicant, stated they could
add some articulation to the side of the building on the zero lot
line. The parking is an issue, but the street is for public parking
and anyone can park there. In regard to delaying their approval, he
believes this is unfair as they have gone through the process and
notified all the adjoining neighbors in a timely manner.
13. Commissioner Tyler noted the existing building was not using its
parking spaces, but using the street.
14. Commissioner Daniels stated they could control their employees
parking locations. The Planning Commission is not in the habit of
delaying a project, but they are concerned with approving a project
that is appropriate in regard to the zero lot lines. The issue is
whether or not the two buildings can match with zero lot lines or
need setbacks. The Commission is trying to have a cohesive
block.
15. Commissioner Daniels asked if they could break the issue into two
parts. First the building. He would prefer to see the treatment all
around the building. Mr. Brudvik has stated he will not be building
the same type of architecture so this is not going to match.
Which leads him to believe this builidng should have the five foot
setback.
16. Commissioner Quill noted this building could not be a zero lot line
with the plans as submitted. The roof line would extend beyond
the property line. The building as proposed is designed for a
setback. He would like to see this continued for at least two
weeks and ask the applicant to redraw the plans.
17. Commissioner Tyler asked if this body had the ability to differ from
the zero lot line or five foot setback. Assistant City Attorney
Michael Houston asked if the rafters would extend over the
property line. Commissioner Tyler stated they intrude over.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated they cannot do
this unless there is an agreement with the adjoining property
owner. Staff stated the development standards are flexible to
allow up to a zero lot line. The applicant can chose an alternative.
The Uniform Building Code requires a five foot setback. The
Commission may want to consider that if a zero lot line is agreed
upon, the applicant can provide some architecture treatment on
the blank walls.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
18. Chairman Kirk stated he would prefer to have a zero lot line, but
on two elevations create an atrium or vaulted area with windows,
or skylights coming into the suites. It should be possible to do
both the zero lot line and a treatment that would blend with the
neighboring building.
19. Commissioner Quill stated the plans submitted here do not work
on a zero lot line that cannot drain onto the adjacent property.
The whole roof plan does not work with a zero lot line. We can
suggest the five foot setback and ideas to improve the look. He
likes the underground parking and the elevations are good and in
keeping with the neighborhood.
20. Commissioner Tyler stated it is a nice building but wonders if it is
too much.
21. Chairman Kirk stated he has no issue with the parking, but the
building needs something. The tower element is appealing and
they may want to improve on this. In the parking area they may
want to create two driveways with one in and one out on different
streets. This would create less activity coming out of each. He
asked staff if access off of Calle Tampico was allowed. Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer stated it is an Arterial street; you have
to be 200 feet from the corner.
22. Mr. Steve Nieto, the architectural designer of the building, stated
the building was designed knowing their would be buildings
adjacent. When they found out they had to go to a zero lot line, it
was evident the building needed to be pushed back into the zero
lot line. The windows should have been eliminated. They are
willing to treat the wall and give it some appeal. It was his
understanding that Mr. Brudvik was going to go to the zero lot line
as well. Therefore he designed this building to merge the two
buildings. He agrees it is zero for both or setback for both.
23. Chairman Kirk asked the applicant to explain the circulation plan.
Mr. Lucas Coronel stated they initially wanted the traffic to enter
off of Calle Tampico and exit onto Avenida Navarro. Chairman
Kirk asked about the use of the patio area. Mr. Nieto stated it is
designed with interlocking concrete pavers and it has no intended
use other than public use.
24. Commissioner Quill stated it would be to their advantage to
elevate the landscape in a rendering. Mr. Neito stated the corner
n-%%A1Dnnrc%or^ ftAi-+-%'2 0 nnlnin A- 7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
treatment could be done in elevations. Discussion followed
regarding potential designs.
25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to
continue Village Use Permit 2004-021 to March 23, 2004, asking
the applicant to:
a. Work with neighbor to come to an agreement on what both
will be doing; and
b. Come back with a rendering showing some visual relief on
the two side elevations.
Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. There was no City Council report on the March 2, 2004 meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Quill/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on March 23, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:20 p.m., on March 9, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
r.• �nionnre cr ne;—+—NN o nn%nin A- 8
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 23, 2004
CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: CORONEL ENTERPRISES
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-
STORY, 15,525 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 0.30
ACRE SITE.
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND AVENIDA
NAVARRO
ARCHITECT: SOUTH WEST CONCEPTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332
(CLASS 32) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, IN THAT THIS IN -FILL PROJECT IS LESS THAN FIVE
ACRES IN SIZE AND MEETS ALL APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN
AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)/VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH:
OFFICE COMMERCIAL/SCHOOL
SOUTH:
VACANT LAND
EAST:
COMMERCIAL
WEST:
VACANT LAND/RESIDENTIAL
PC Stf Rpt2 VUP 04 021
BACKGROUND:
The vacant site is approximately 0.30 acres in size and located at the southwest
corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Navarro (Attachment 1). The site is located
within the Village Commercial Zoning District, which allows residential and
commercial uses. There are other commercial uses in the immediate area including
the Old Town La Quinta project, office space, a hotel and residential uses.
This project was continued from the March 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
At that meeting the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the
architectural style and zero lot line location of the office building. The roof of the
building, as proposed, encroached into the adjacent property and specific issues of
concern involved the windows facing both property lines. The applicant had stated
that the drawings submitted were incorrect and requested the building be at a zero
lot line.
The Planning Commission directed the applicant work out an agreement with the
adjacent owner in terms of the location of future buildings and revise the drawings
accordingly. The Planning Commission also asked that if a zero lot line was agreed
upon that the applicant provide some visual relief on the southern and western
building facades. The applicant has met with the adjacent property owner and they
have decided on a zero lot line design.
The applicant has submitted revised drawings reflecting the change in design. The
roof of the building is setback inside the parapet wall so as not to overhang into the
adjacent property. Also, the roof design will have recessed rain gutters and drain
pipes within the walls so drainage will not flow onto the adjacent property. In
addition, the applicant has provided visual relief on the southern and western
building facades by the use of six inch recessed wall details with 16 inch by 16
inch in -laid ceramic tiles, and six inch recessed panels.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Village Use Permit to construct a two-
story, 15,525 square foot office building of which, 11,446 square feet would be
leasable space (Attachment 2). The remainder square footage will be used for
pedestrian circulation, mechanical, electrical, and storage space. The building is
proposed to have eight office suites ranging between 1,313 and 1,484 square feet
in size. The building will include an elevator and two sets of stairwells for access
to the second floor. The building would allow leasable office space for uses,
including, but not limited to, accounting, real estate, and administrative purposes.
PC Stf Rpt2 VUP 04 021 2
The building theme is Santa Barbara style architecture with a proposed height of
± 34 feet. Architectural features include off-white colors, plastered exterior walls
and columns, canterra stone trim, covered arched walkways, exposed wood beams,
decorative wrought iron, and a two-piece mission tile roof. A plaza is proposed at
the southwest corner of the site with a fountain, built-in benches along low-rise
walls at 18 inches in height, concrete pavers and ceramic canterra pots.
All of the conditions that were presented before in the original project have not
changed and are included in this proposal. Staff recommends approval of the
project as revised per these plans.
Public Notice
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 28, 2004,
and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters
have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the
meeting.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request per Section 9.65.040.F of the City of La Quinta
Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-�, approving Village Use Permit
2004-021, subject to findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Plan Set
3. March 9, 2004, Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes
PC Stf Rpt2 VUP 04 021
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT
A 2-STORY, 15,525 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 0.30
ACRE SITE WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021
APPLICANT: CORONEL ENTERPRISES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 9th day and 23" day of March, 2004 hold duly noticed Public
Hearings to consider a request by Coronel Enterprises to construct a two-story,
15,525 square foot office building on a 0.30 acre site at the southwest corner of
Calle Tampico and Avenida Navarro, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 773-076-005 & 007
WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit 2004-021 is Categorically Exempt
from environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the proposed project is an
in -fill project less than five acres in size and meets all applicable General Plan and
zoning requirements and, therefore, will have no permanent effects on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to
Section 9.65.040 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Village Use Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan in that the proposed use is an allowed
use within the designated Village Commercial area.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the
Zoning Code in that the proposed use is a permitted use in the Village
Commercial District with approval of a Village Use Permit by the Planning
Commission.
3. Compliance with CEQA: The proposed use is Categorically Exempt from
environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the proposed project
is an in -fill project less than five acres in size and meets all applicable General
Plan and zoning requirements and, therefore, will have no permanent effects
on the environment; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Village Use Permit 2004-021 — Coronel Enterprises
Adopted: March 23, 2004
4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Village Use Permit will not create
conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare or be injurious to, or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in
the vicinity in that the proposed building will be compatible with existing office
uses in the immediate area.
5. Architectural Design: 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 surrounding development in that the proposed building appears similar in
nature to other structures in the immediate area and is in keeping with the
character of the Village Design Guidelines.
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 Village Use Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Village Use Permit 2004-021 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23`d day of March, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Martin\VUP 04 021 Coronet\PC Reso VUP 04 021.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Village Use Permit 2004-021 — Coronel Enterprises
Adopted: March 23, 2004
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
,A
P:\Martin\VUP 04 021 Coronet\PC Reso VUP 04 021.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 2004
GENERAL
1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits
contained in Village Use Permit 2004-021, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions.
2. This Village Use Permit allows the construction of a two-story, 15,525 square
foot office building on a 0.30-acre site. The applicant shall comply with all
building code requirements.
3. The applicant shall obtain approval of a Parcel Merger for the two lots
associated with this project prior to obtaining a building permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the City's Dark Sky ordinance. Any proposed
lighting on the building or in the parking lot shall be shielded so that light is
projected downward and not onto adjacent properties or the street.
5. Landscaping plans for the building 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 and Agricultural
Commissioner before final approval by the Community Development
Department.
6. The exterior materials and colors of the building shall match those approved by
the Planning Commission.
7. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading
by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be
given to the City prior to issuance of first trenching, earth -moving or clearing
permit, whichever occurs first.
8. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the final inspection for the project.
9. 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.
P:\Martin\VUP 04 021 CoroneWUP 04 021 COA.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 2004
Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and
records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
10. 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 Village
Use 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.
11. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the
necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies:
a Fire Marshal
a Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
Community Development Department
o Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
a Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
o California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
o 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.
12. 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").
2 � J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 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
13. 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.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 2004
14. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, parklands, and common areas shown on the Village Use
Permit.
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 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.
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 Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal
B. Village Use Permit Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 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.
"Village Use Permit" 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 parking facilities and
public streets.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
22. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 2004
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.
23. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
24. 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.
nRAINAC;F
25. 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.
26. 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. -°
I,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 2004
27. 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.
28. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
29. 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. Nuisance water shall be retained
on site.
30. 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.
31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood
boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
32. 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.
33. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
UTILITIES
34. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 2004
35. 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
36. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking)
and the latest ADA standards and policies.
37. Direct vehicular access to Calle Tampico from frontage along Calle Tampico is
restricted.
38. Direct vehicular access to Avenida Navarro from frontage along Avenida
Navarro is restricted, except for the access point identified on the VUP 2004-
021 Site Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval.
39. The high point of the access driveway to the parking lot shall be at least one
foot higher than the gutter flow line at the street.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
40. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
41. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and 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.
42. 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.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 23, 2004
43. 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
44. 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).
6
40
ATTACHMENT
VICINITY MAr wA
AV04RA
Tol
ATTACHMENT
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if Quarry Lane had been constructed.
Staff stated it is still under construction. Commissioner Tyler
asked that Page 51, #47 should be corrected to stated "all gaps".
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Shaw, representing the applicant, stated
the road is rough graded and the curb is currently being laid. He
supported the recommended conditions.
4. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of
the hearing.
5. It was moved and sonded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-019, certifying a
Mitigated Negativi Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2004-499, as recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES:/ Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
t�
6. It was rri'oved and seconded by Commissioners Abels//Daniels to
adopt, Planning Commission Resolution 2004-020, approving
Tentative Tract Map 32117, as amended:
a.. Condition #47: corrected to read: "All gaps..."
ROLL,ALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
E. Village Use Permit 2004-021; a request of Coronel Enterprises for
consideration of a request to construct a two-story, 15,525 square foot
office building on a .30 acre site located at the southwest corner of Calle
Tampico and Avenida Navarro.
r•%%A1on0rc\or 0 nnlnm a.... 3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the
information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked the land uses surrounding the site.
Staff stated the adjacent land is currently vacant. Discussion
followed regarding the advantages of the zero lot line.
3. Commissioner Quill asked if there would be any change to the
structure if it was shifted five feet from the lot line. Staff stated
that the only change would the access driveway to the building. If
you move it back it increases the slope to the parking garage from
the street.
4. Chairman Kirk asked where staff was recommending the building
be setback. Staff stated this is a verbal update to the report.
Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated that if
they propose the windows on the west and south facades, they
will have to comply with the UBC requirements. Chairman Kirk
asked the height requirement in the Village district. Staff stated
40 feet. This building is 34 feet.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated he was concerned with the parking.
He asked if the ADA requirements were met. Staff stated the
Code does not specifically state how many there shall be.
Commissioner Tyler was concerned about the trash enclosure as it
will not fit through the pedestrian gates. There does not appear to
be adequate room. He asked about the depth of the underground
parking in regard to drainage. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer
stated it has to be sunken four feet into the ground with no more
than four feet above ground. You can raise the ground level and
berm it up next to the building to hide the height. If you move the
building five feet, you only have to berm up nine inches. It
depends upon how much berming is allowed next to the face of
the building to hide the height.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any concerns with the drainage
and underground parking. Staff explained the drainage plan and
stated there were no concerns if the plan was followed. Chairman
Kirk stated the concern about it being underparked. Assistant City
Engineer Steve Speer stated he is aware there is less spaces than
normal, but there is parking in close proximity. Staff stated that
1 _
rr-1%A1Dnnrc\cr Rfi;-+....X2 0 nn%nin a.... 4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
as long as there is a high point on the driveway of at least a foot
above the flow line of the street the drainage in the underground
parking is all right. The only water that will drain into their garage
will be from the drip line at the edge of the roof and there will be a
drain inlet with a pump in the garage. There should be no, or very
minimal amount of water in the underground parking lot. In regard
to the site being under parked, but this is generally an issue the
Community Development Department would handle. Interim
Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated the City is
currently studying the Village parking to identify where parking is
needed and what is available.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Zeke Coronel, the applicant, gave a presentation
on the project. He stated they are requesting the zero lot line with
no windows.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Quill asked if the windows were eliminated, would
the suites on that elevation have any windows. Mr. Coronel
stated all the suites would have windows on the front. Two suits
will have windows on both sides and the rest would be on the
front.
9. Mr. David Brudvik, 78-120 Calle Estado, Santa Rosa Development,
stated he owns the property adjacent to this site and he is
concerned with the overhangs and setbacks. His lots equal 5,200
square feet and most of the parking is already street parking in
front of his property. They would like to see a better parking plan.
10. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Brudvik to identify which lots
were his on the map. Mr. Brudvik stated he owns property on two
sides of this site and he is uncertain what he will build. He is
concerned about setbacks and what impacts this project will have
on his project. He knows he will have to have underground
parking to meet the demand.
11. Commissioner Quill asked if it was his intent to have the ability to
optimize the zero lot line. Mr. Brudvik stated they will have to, but
they want to have the same style as Old Town. He would want to
see the recessed windows on this building.
(_•\1n/DP1OrC\Dr o nn%nirn A- 5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
12. Mr. Lucas Coronel, representing the applicant, stated they could
add some articulation to the side of the building on the zero lot
line. The parking is an issue, but the street is for public parking
and anyone can park there. In regard to delaying their approval, he
believes this is unfair as they have gone through the process and
notified all the adjoining neighbors in a timely manner.
13. Commissioner Tyler noted the existing building was not using its
parking spaces, but using the street.
14. Commissioner Daniels stated they could control their employees
parking locations. The Planning Commission is not in the habit of
delaying a project, but they are concerned with approving a project
that is appropriate in regard to the zero lot lines. The issue is
whether or not the two buildings can match with zero lot lines or
need setbacks. The Commission is trying to have a cohesive
block.
15. Commissioner Daniels asked if they could break the issue into two
parts. First the building. He would prefer to see the treatment all
around the building. Mr. Brudvik has stated he will not be building
the same type of architecture so this is not going to match.
Which leads him to believe this builidng should have the five foot
setback.
16. Commissioner Quill noted this building could not be a zero lot line
with the plans as submitted. The roof line would extend beyond
the property line. The building as proposed is designed for a
setback. He would like to see this continued for at least two
weeks and ask the applicant to redraw the plans.
17. Commissioner Tyler asked if this body had the ability to differ from
the zero lot line or five foot setback. Assistant City Attorney
Michael Houston asked if the rafters would extend over the
property line. Commissioner Tyler stated they intrude over.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated they cannot do
this unless there is an agreement with the adjoining property
owner. Staff stated the development standards are flexible to
allow up to a zero lot line. The applicant can chose an alternative.
The Uniform Building Code requires a five foot setback. The
Commission may want to consider that if a zero lot line is agreed
upon, the applicant can provide some architecture treatment on
the blank walls. J
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
18. Chairman Kirk stated he would prefer to have a zero lot line, but
on two elevations create an atrium or vaulted area with windows,
or skylights coming into the suites. It should be possible to do
both the zero lot line and a treatment that would blend with the
neighboring building.
19. Commissioner Quill stated the plans submitted here do not work
on a zero lot line that cannot drain onto the adjacent property.
The whole roof plan does not work with a zero lot line. We can
suggest the five foot setback and ideas to improve the look. He
likes the underground parking and the elevations are good and in
keeping with the neighborhood.
20. Commissioner Tyler stated it is a nice building but wonders if it is
too much.
21. Chairman Kirk stated he has no issue with the parking, but the
building needs something. The tower element is appealing and
they may want to improve on this. In the parking area they may
want to create two driveways with one in and one out on different
streets. This would create less activity coming out of each. He
asked staff if access off of Calle Tampico was allowed. Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer stated it is an Arterial street; you have
to be 200 feet from the corner.
22. Mr. Steve Nieto, the architectural designer of the building, stated
the building was designed knowing their would be buildings
adjacent. When they found out they had to go to a zero lot line, it
was evident the building needed to be pushed back into the zero
lot line. The windows should have been eliminated. They are
willing to treat the wall and give it some appeal. It was his
understanding that Mr. Brudvik was going to go to the zero lot line
as well. Therefore he designed this building to merge the two
buildings. He agrees it is zero for both or setback for both.
23. Chairman Kirk asked the applicant to explain the circulation plan.
Mr. Lucas Coronel stated they initially wanted the traffic to enter
off of Calle Tampico and exit onto Avenida Navarro. Chairman
Kirk asked about the use of the patio area. Mr. Nieto stated it is
designed with interlocking concrete pavers and it has no intended
use other than public use.
24. Commissioner Quill stated it would be to their advantage to
elevate the landscape in a rendering. Mr. Neito stated the corner
r-11A/Dr1nrC\Dr 0 nn%nin .- 7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2004
treatment could be done in elevations. Discussion followed
regarding potential designs.
25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to
continue Village Use Permit 2004-021 to March 23, 2004, asking
the applicant to:
a. Work with neighbor to come to an agreement on what both
will be doing; and
b. Come back with a rendering showing some visual relief on
the two side elevations.
Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMIS�ONER ITEMS:
A. There was no City Council report on the March 2, 2004 meeting.
IX. ADJOURNM
There being no further usiness, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Quill/Daniels to adjourn th regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Co mission to be held on March 23, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This
m meeting of the Planning Coission was adjourned at 8:20 p.m., on March 9, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secreta
City of La Quinta, California
(-'•\\A/Dnlir C\Dr KA;—.+—V4 0 nAMIn A— 8
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 23, 2004
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-796
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
FIVE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
WITH ELEVEN DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS WITHIN THE ESTATES
AT POINT HAPPY DEVELOPMENT (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
31348).
LOCATION: 46-201 WASHIGNTON STREET
ARCHITECT: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS & ROY ASARO ARCHITECT
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: RON GREGORY ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 2004-33 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348. 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)/LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RL)
BACKGROUND:
The property is approximately 37.72 acres in size and is located on the west side
of Washington Street just south of the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center
(Attachment 1). A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were approved by
the City Council on March 16, 2004, to change land use and zoning designations
from Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Low Density
Residential. In addition, a Tentative Tract Map was also approved to subdivide the
property into 73 lots (72 single-family lots and one open space lot).
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes five single-family prototype residential units with eleven
architectural facades. The model home complex is proposed on Lots 26, 27, 38
and 39 of the Tentative Tract Map and the parking lot is proposed on Lot 1
(Attachment 2).
The project mixes Spanish and Mediterranean architectural styles to create an
eclectic, but compatible street scene. The plans for each design are attached
(Attachment 3). The units range from 2,800 to 3,202 square feet in size. The
following is a breakdown of the five proposed floor plans:
Square
No. of
No. of
Garage
Feet
Bedrooms
Bathrooms
Parking
Spanish Plan Al, A2
3,167
3
2.5-3.5
3-car
w/casita
option
Spanish Plan E1, E2
3,010,
4
4
3-car
includes
casita
Mediterranean Plan 131, 132, 133
2,800
3
3.5
2-car
Mediterranean Plan D1, D2
3,136
3
3.5
2-car
Mediterranean Plan F1, F2
3,202
4
4.5
2-car
MATERIALS AND COLORS:
A variety of materials are proposed including painted plaster/stucco, two-piece
barrel the roofs, exposed beams and headers, arched entries, wood veneer garage
doors and decorative wrought iron. The heights of the homes vary between 20 and
22 feet. The color schemes are primarily variations of off-white, beige, brown and
grey stucco with accent colors.
LANDSCAPING:
The front -yard landscaping consists of a wide variety of specimen trees, shrubs,
vines and ground covers. The plant materials proposed are consistent with other
developments in the City which, are drought tolerant and appropriate for the desert
climate (Attachment 4). The applicant will be required to comply with the Water
Efficient Landscaping requirements.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC):
The ALRC reviewed this project at their January 7, 2004 meeting and determined
that the prototype units were acceptable with the following recommendations:
1. The gates, streetscape and perimeter landscaping be brought back to the
ALRC for review.
2. Varied setbacks be provided to break up the monotony of the residential
frontages.
3. That roof tiles shall be mudded with boosted ends.
4. That the "Chilean Mesquite" tree be used sparingly.
The January 7, 2004, ALRC meeting minutes are attached (Attachment 5). The
Committee unanimously recommended approval of the prototype units to the
Planning Commission by adoption of Minute Motion 2004-001.
Staff has added the above recommendations as Conditions of Approval for the
project. However, should the Planning Commission approve the design of the
gates, streetscape and perimeter landscaping, Staff recommends that the
Community Development Department process the gates and landscape plans rather
than returning back to the ALRC for additional review.
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 SDP 2003-796,
subject to findings and conditions contained in the attached Resolution.
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Tentative Tract Map
3. Proposed Models Plan Set
4. Conceptual Landscape Plans
5. January 7, 2004, Architecture and Landscape Review Committee meeting
minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FIVE
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
WITH ELEVEN DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 31348, LOCATED AT 46-201 WASHINGTON
STREET.
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-796
APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 271h day of January, 2004, and on the 23rd day of March,
2004, held duly noted Public Hearings to consider a request by Madison
Development, LLC, for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for five new
single-family prototype residential units with eleven different elevations for
Tentative Tract 31348, located at 46-201 Washington Street, more particularly
described as follows:
APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002.
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee of
the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 71h day of January, 2004, hold a public
meeting to review and recommend approval of architecture and landscape plans for
five new single-family prototype residential units with eleven different elevations for
Tentative Tract 31348; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2003-479) was
certified by the City Council for Tentative Tract Map 31348 under Resolution No.
2004-33. 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 the residential land
uses are consistent with the Low Density Residential designation.
PCRESO SDP 03-796
Planning Commission Resolution 2004 -
Site Development Permit 2003-796-Madison Development, LLC
Adopted: March 23, 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 architectural style, building heights, building mass, parking, and
landscaping.
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This
project has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2003-479) was
certified by the City Council for Tentative Tract Map 31348 under Resolution
No. 2004-33. 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.
4. Architectural Design: The proposed project complies with the Zoning Code
and is compatible with existing single-family residential development.
5. Site Design: The proposed project complies the site design in terms of
interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other site design elements such as
scale, mass, and appearance.
6. Landscape Design: The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping
standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping
and aesthetics established in the General Plan and 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 2003-796, 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 23`d day of March, 2004, by the following
vote,, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
PCRESO SDP 03-796
Planning Commission Resolution 2004 -
Site Development Permit 2003-796-Madison Development, LLC
Adopted: March 23, 2004
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PCRESO SDP 03-796
Planning Commission Resolution 2004 -
Site Development Permit 2003-796-Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
March 23, 2004
GENERAL:
1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits
contained in Site Development Permit 2004-796 unless otherwise
amended by the following conditions.
2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years
of this 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The residential units shall not exceed one-story and be a maximum
height of twenty-eight feet. Residential units within 150 feet of the
Washington Street right-of-way shall be limited to a maximum height of
twenty-two feet.
6. Any front, side, or rear walls shall be of masonry or other non -wood
construction and conform to development regulations of the Zoning
Code.
7. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit for the model home complex
to include the temporary parking lot. The applicant may be required to
submit for approval a grading plan. The parking lot design and
tj
Planning Commission Resolution 2004 -
Site Development Permit 2003-796-Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
March 23, 2004
improvements shall comply with Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the
Municipal Code.
8. A separate PM 10 and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be approved by the Public Works Department if no other PM10 or
SWPPP is in effect at the start of construction.
9. There should be minimal interference between construction and model
home traffic. Preferably, the permanent street improvements should be
installed prior to opening of the model home complex.
10. The five prototype residential units shall be as follows:
Square
No. of
No. of
Garagej
Feet
Bedrooms
Bathrooms
Parkin
Spanish Plan Al, A2
3,167
3
2.5-3.5
3-car
w/casita
option
Spanish Plan E1, E2
3,010,
4
4
3-car
includes
casita
Mediterranean Plan 131, B2, B3
2,800
3
3.5
2-car
Mediterranean Plan D 1, D2
3,136
3
3.5
2-car
Mediterranean Plan F1, F2
3,202
4
1 4.5
2-car
11. Landscaping plans for the units shall comply those plans submitted for
this project, and as approved by the Planning Commission. Said
landscaping plans shall comply with the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance and include all plant names, sizes, 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 and the Agricultural Commissioner before final approval
by the Community Development Department.
12. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Public Works Department
for the parking lot associated with the models and sales office. Said
parking lot shall conform to City standards.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004 -
Site Development Permit 2003-796-Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
March 23, 2004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
13. The applicant shall provide varied setbacks in accordance with the
Zoning Code provisions to break up the monotony of the residential
frontages.
14. That roof tiles shall be mudded with boosted ends.
15. That the "Chilean Mesquite" tree be used sparingly.
ATTACHMENT I
PROJECT
AVDW
-VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
ATTACHMENT I
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
January 7, 2004 10:00 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Lands aping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by PI Wing Manager Oscar Orci
who led the flag salute.
B. Committee Members present: Bill B bitt and David Thoms. It was
moved and seconded by Com ttee Members Bobbitt/Thorns to
excuse Committee Member CunrXngham.
C. Staff present: Planning Maer Oscar Orci, Associate Planner Martin
Magana, and Executive Se etary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDA
A. Staff asked/'asked/4 there were any changes to the Minutes of November 5,
2003. T re being no quorum to approve the minutes as Committee
Member unningham was absent and Committee Member Thoms had
to abs in, the approval of the minutes was continued to the next
meet' g.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permits 2003-796; a request of Madison/PTM La
Quinta, LLC for a review of architectural and landscaping plans for five
prototypical residential plans for the property located on the west side
of Washington Street, south of Highway 1 11 .
Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced John
Vuksic, David Prest, Carol Wilkerson, Ed Alderson, Ron Gregory,
who represented the project.
3
J.
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 7, 2004
2. Committee Member Thoms asked for an explanation of the
retention basin as it appeared to be fenced off. Why entry
gates. Mr. Gregory stated it was an effort to reuse the existing
"historical gates". They would be relocated to the path entry.
Staff clarified this was a request of the HPC to use the gates as
it was believed they were historical. Since that time it has been
determined they are not historical.
3. Committee Member Thoms questioned the south entry road.
Staff clarified that it is not proposed to be the main access
road. Committee Member Thoms asked if they would review
the gates and entry from Washington. Staff stated they are not
designed and could come back to the Committee for review.
Committee Member Thoms asked the status of the date palms.
Mr. Gregory indicated that the original intent was to preserve
them on -site. Later it was determined that only the viable
palms would be retained and relocated. Some are too tall and
in poor condition and would be eliminated. Committee Member
Thoms stated he did not see them on the plans. Mr. Gregory
stated they propose a palm on the typical front yard plan. The
palms would be dispersed throughout the project. They could
be used in the retention basin, but the desire is to have trees of
different heights. Committee Member Thoms asked if there
was a site plan showing the location of the houses. Staff
stated they do not have one as of yet. Committee Member
Thoms asked that there be some front yard variations with
setbacks especially along the south roadway. Mr. Vuksic
explained how the houses would be situated on the lots and
where they would have the opportunity to do variations.
Committee Member Thoms asked about the material of the
garage door on Elevation E. Mr. Prest stated they would be
metal with a variety of looks. Committee Member Thoms asked
if the end of the tiles would be mudded. Mr. Prest stated yes
they want the full mudded look.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that the garage doors be a
material that would last. He asked about the window
surrounds. Mr. Prest stated heavy aluminum windows with a
bull nose reveal. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned the
use of the Chilean Mesquite and would recommend it be used
very sparingly. He also asked if there would be a HOA. Mr.
G:\WPDDCS\ALRC\1-7-04 WD.doc 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 7, 2004
Alderson stated yes. Mr. Gregory stated they would delete the
tree from the front yards. Committee Member Bobbitt
commended the applicant on the design of the homes.
5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt
Minute Motion 2004-001 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2003-796, as recommended by staff and
amended:
a. Date trees shall be mixed into the front yards and retention
basins.
b. The front yards would have a variation in the setback.
c. The Chilean mesquite trees would be replaced.
Unanimously approved.
VI. \ CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. 'COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
Vill. ALQJOURNMENT:
There bei no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members B bbitt/Cunningham to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural
and Landsca ing Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on February 4,
2004. This meting was adjourned at 10:41 a.m. on January 7, 2004.
Respectfully sub)ptted,
BETTY J. SAWYER'
Executive Secretary
GAWPD0CS\ALRC\1-7-04 WD.doc 3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 23, 2004
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-773
APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES
PROPERTY
OWNER: SWC NORMAN 39, LLC
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THREE NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TWO DIFFERENT
FACADES FOR EACH PLAN WITHIN THE GREG NORMAN GOLF
COURSE DEVELOPMENT.
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD
WITHIN THE NORMAN COURSE.
ARCHITECT: BASSENIAN LAGONI ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED AND
CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 91-
100 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-015. 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 (LDR)
P:\stan\sdp 2003-773 pc rpt.doc
BACKGROUND:
Previous Review
This case was originally scheduled for review in June of 2003. Due to issues of lot
ownership, the applicant tabled the request. Those issues have been resolved and the
applicant has requested the application be processed.
General
The property is located within the Greg Norman golf course development at the
northwest corner of Monroe Street and Airport Boulevard within Tract 29347
(Attachment 1). The project consists of 26 lots (Lots 4-29 of Tract 29347) on Brown
Deer Park and Turnberry Way, between Royal St. George and Tiburon Drive currently
owned by Steven Walker Homes. Specific Plan 90-015, Amendment #2, for the
Norman Course, approved under Resolution 99-1 12, provides the Community Design
Guidelines for the residential units. Currently, all the private street infrastructure
improvements are constructed, and graded pads ready for construction.
Steven Walker Homes had originally received approval from the Planning Commission
in November, 2000, under Site Development Permit 99-665 for three prototypes to be
constructed on these and the 13 adjacent lots which make up this tract. Under that
approval, the applicant constructed 13 homes on lots 1 through 3, and 30 through
39. The originally approved homes range in size between 3,395 to 3,743 square
feet. As constructed, the homes are 3,457 to 3,829 square feet in area. The
existing units have been sold and are currently occupied.
On July 23, 2002, the Planning Commission under Site Development Permit 2002-
747, approved two prototype plans of 3,422 and 3,949 square feet for Peter Jacobs
Homes for the 26 lots in question for this application. Although permits were ready
to be issued for these homes, they did not obtain them and ownership of the lots
remained with Steven Walker Homes.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes three new one-story single-family prototype residential plans
with two different architectural facades for each prototype. A model home complex,
and parking lot is proposed on Brown Deer Park on lots 16-18 and 15, respectively.
The project proposes a Tuscan architectural design utilizing smooth trowel plaster and
concrete "S" the roofing. Architectural features include plastered eave overhangs,
window shutters, round turret entries, decorative metal accents and gates. The
heights of the homes vary between 20 and 21 feet in height. The exterior color
P:\stan\sdp 2003-773 pc rpt.doc
schemes are primarily variations of medium brown plaster with dark accent colors in
shades of gray and brown. The plans for each design are attached (Attachment 2).
The following is a breakdown of the proposed plans:
Size (sq. Ft.)
Number of
bedrooms
Number of
baths
number of
garages
Plan 1
House 3,135
Casita 575
3,710
three
3.5
two + golf
cart
Plan 2
House 3,395
Casita 493
3,888
four
4.5
2.5 + golf
cart
Plan 3
House 3,398
Casita 638
4,336
four
four
two + golf
cart
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC):
The ALRC reviewed this project at the June 4, 2003 meeting and determined that the
prototype units were acceptable as submitted (Attachment 3).
COMPATIBILITY:
Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code requires that all second stories and new
residential units that are proposed for construction within a partially developed
subdivision, are subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The residential
units, as proposed, are compatible in architectural style, colors, and overall
appearance, with the existing units.
Residential units vary from approximately 2,670 to over 4,900 square feet in area.
The request falls within this range and therefore, is permitted.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolution.
P:\stan\sdp 2003-773 pc rpt.doc
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving SDP 2003-773,
subject to findings and conditions contained in the attached Resolution.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Plan exhibits (large scale)
3. June 4, 2003, Architecture and Landscape Review Committee meeting minutes
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa
Principal Planner
P:\stan\sdp 2003-773 pc rpt.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPE UNIT
PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE NORMAN COURSE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-773
APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23rd day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of California Cove Communities, Inc. to approve architectural plans for three
new prototype residential plans for construction in Tract 29347 in the Norman Course,
more particularly described as:
Portions of Tract 29347
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has been determined to an
environmental impact report was prepared and was certified by the City Council under
Resolution No. 91-100 for Specific Plan 90-015. 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 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:
1. No new two story units are proposed as a part of this approval. Therefore, there
will be no height or mass impacts on existing residences.
2. The proposed residences are compatible and similar to the existing residences in
terms of architectural materials, style, and colors.
3. The proposed unit sizes are within the existing approved range of house sizes,
and therefore, acceptable.
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;
E
p:\stan\sdp 2003-773 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Site Development Permit 2003-773 — California Cove Communities
March 23, 2004
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-773, 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 23rd day of March, 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
pAstan\sdp 2003-773 pc res.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-773
CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
1. This approval is for the following prototype plans:
Plan 1 - 3,135 square feet + 575 square feet for casita
Plan 2 - 3,395 square feet + 493 square feet for casita
Plan 3 - 3,398 square feet + 638 square feet for casita
2. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 8.13 (Section 8.13.030 (D)(b)2), at
least one model plan shall incorporate the principles of water efficient
landscapes.
3. 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
development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have
sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. Detailed preliminary front yard and streetscape landscaping plans shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Architecture and Landscaping
Review Committee prior to issuance of any building permit for units
authorized by this approval. Compliance with Water Efficiency Ordinance
(Chapter 8.13) is required.
P:\stan\sdp 2003-773 pc coa.doc
ATTACHMENT
52nd JAVENUE
m
m
53rd AVENUE
N
O
Z
54th AVENUE
v
a �a
P" WEST s 9(TE
AIRPORT BLVD.
a p
WEISKOPF y
0 0
z m
58th AVENUE
VICWTY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
Z
ATTACHMENT
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
June 4, 2003
5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to
adopt Minute Motior) 2003-024 approving Site Development
Permit 2003-771, as recommended. Unanimously approved.
E. Site Development Permit 2003-773; a request of California Cove
Communities for review of architectural plans for three prototype
units within the Greg Norman Course located at the northwest corner
of Madison Street and Airport Boulevard.
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 Ms.
Carol Long, and Mr. Matt Mosie representing the applicant who
gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the exterior was
smooth stucco. Mr. Mosie stated yes. Committee Member
Cunningham stated in this use, the cement tile roof does work
as it is a restrained look.
3. Committee Member Thorns asked what was changed from the
previous plans. Mr. Mosie stated the courtyard space was
redesigned in conjunction with the casitas and the ceiling
heights are changed.
4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to
adopt Minute Motion 2003-025 approving Site Development
Permit 2003-773, as recommended. Unanimously approved
F. Tentative Tract M�p 29323; a request of Cornerstone Developers for
a discussion of the °Landscaping plans for the perimeter tract areas at
the northwest corner`of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street.
1. Associate Planne Wallace Nesbit presented the information
contained in the st ff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Developn\ent Department. Staff introduced Mr. Ray
Lopez, landscaper a'�d Mr. Joe Swain of Cornerstone
representing the project who gave a presentation on the
landscaping plan.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-4-03 WD.doc
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 23, 2004
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-496
TENTATIVE TRACT 31910
APPLICANT/ OWNER: JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: 1. RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (EA 2003-496), AND
2. TENTATIVE TRACT 31910, A REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF ± 38.85
ACRES INTO 132 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, '/4 MILE NORTH OF
AVENUE 58 (ATTACHMENT 1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2003-496, FOR TT 31910. 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: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - UP TO 4 UNITS PER
ACRE)
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
The Tentative Tract Map site consists of generally level terrain with no apparent
constraints to residential use. The site is currently in agricultural use. A single-
family residence in the northeastern quadrant of the property, with access on
Monroe, will remain, and is not part of the proposed Tentative Tract map.
On the north and west sides of the property is the Village at the Palms Country
Club, approved for 101 units and an existing golf course with 38 units completed
and nine under construction. To the southwest are the administrative offices and
substation facilities of the Imperial Irrigation District. To the south is vacant land,
currently approved for 97 lots on 37 acres (TT 30092). On the east side of the
property is Monroe Street, with vacant agricultural uses beyond. The area across
Monroe is not within the City limits, and is pre -zoned Low Density Residential with
Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay. There is also pre -zoning for 10 acres of
Neighborhood Commercial across Monroe, from the northeast corner of the site
(Attachment 2). No prior development applications have been filed on this site.
Project Background
The applicant is requesting approval of a single-family detached home subdivision,
on 38.85 acres, with 132 lots (Attachment 3). The lots will range in area from
8,003 to 14,016 square feet, with an average of about 8,770 square feet. The
tract takes its only access at the southwest corner of the site, from Monroe Street.
A gated entry is proposed, which leads to an internal traffic circle. From this point,
the tract is laid out in an offset grid pattern with a combination of cul-de-sacs and
loop streets. An existing private well site is to be abandoned in favor of a new
CVWD well site, to be located along Monroe Street.
Public Notice
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 2, 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 February 19, 2004, the City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed
the property owner's Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by
Archaeological Advisory Group, along with the associated Paleontological
Assessment (Attachment 4). These assessments found that no resources occurred,
and that the site's agricultural use reduced the likelihood of such resources.
However, it is likely that grading on the site will uncover paleontologic and/or
cultural resources. The study recommends, therefore, that mitigation measures be
implemented, due to 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 into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Access - As stated, the tract will take access off of Monroe Street at the
southeast corner of the site. There are no known pre -approved access points along
Monroe Street, beyond individual driveways, between Airport Boulevard (Avenue
56) and Avenue 58. The east leg of Avenue 57 exists as a two-lane paved
roadway; its intersection with Monroe Street is just under '/4 mile from the
proposed tract access. Therefore, staff has recommended that full turning
movements be permitted at the tract entry. In addition, a condition has been
recommended which would require a study to determine whether a deceleration
lane is warranted along Monroe Street into the project
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 2003-496, subject to
findings, and;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004 - , recommending to the
City Council approval of Tentative Tract 31910, subject to conditions as
recommended by staff.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Surrounding Land Uses
3. Proposed TT 31910
4. Minutes of HPC meeting of 2/19/04
Prepared by:
'�Zof
z� -
Wallace Nesbit, Assoclate Planner
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
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-496, FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
CASE NO. EA 2003-496
APPLICANT: JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23" day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2003-496, prepared for
Tentative Tract 31910, located on the west side of Monroe Street, '/4 mile north of
Avenue 58, more particularly described as:
PORTION OF THE NE '/4 OF THE S/E '/4 OF
SECTION 22, T6S, R6E - S.B.B.M
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
2003-496) and has determined that the proposed Tentative Tract 31910 does not
have potential for significant adverse effects on the environment with the incorporation
of recommended mitigation measures, 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:
1. The proposed Tentative Tract 31910 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.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2003-496
John Megay & Associates
March 23, 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. The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor
is it a wildlife corridor. The site is outside the boundaries of the fee area of the
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan., The site's agricultural land uses
lend themselves to potential habitat for the burrowing owl. However, no
burrowing owls were identified.
3. The proposed Tentative Tract 31910 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 31910 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 31910 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 2003-496
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.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2003-496
John Megay & Associates
March 23, 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case; and
2. That is does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment
2003-496 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on
file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 23`d day of March, 2004, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
t '
1.
2.
91
9
Environmental Checklist Form
Environmental Assessment 2003-496
Project title:
Lead agency name and address
Tentative Tract Map 31910
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
Project location:
West side of Monroe Street,'/a mile north of Avenue 58 - APN: 764-010-008 & 009
5. Project sponsor's name and address: John Megay & Associates
78661 Avenue 42, Suite B
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
6. General plan designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density 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 proposed Tentative Tract Map will subdivide 38.85 acres into 132 single family
residential lots, as well as lettered lots for streets and retention basins. A recreation lot and a
CVWD well site are also included in the proposed map. Streets are proposed to be private,
and the subdivision is proposed to be gated.
The site is currently in agriculture. A single family residence in the northeastern quadrant of
the property, with access on Monroe, will remain, and is not part of the proposed Tentative
Tract map.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Golf Course and Agriculture (Golf, Low Density Residential)
South: Vacant, previously cultivated, electric substation (Low Density Residential)
West: Golf Course (Golf, Low Density Residential)
East: Monroe Street, Agriculture beyond (Low Density Residential with
Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
me
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
March 11, 2004
Date
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31910\EA Chklst.doc -2- `�
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, 'Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
4
-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 site is
bordered on two sides by golf course and residential development. The ultimate
construction of homes on the site will result in single and/or two story residences of
limited height. The City restricts building heights in residential areas. The site is not
adjacent or near any significant physical features or mountain ranges. No impacts to
aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
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 does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent
property. Impacts will not be significant.
Es
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. IIl-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The proposed property, although currently in agriculture, is not under Williamson Act
contracts. The property is not within the Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay of the General
Plan. The property is in an area of the City which is urbanizing, and is surrounded on two
sides by urban development. The loss of 38 acres of agricultural land is not expected to
represent a significant impact on agricultural resources in the Valley.
Personal communication, Matt Petroni, Warner Engineering, March 11, 2004.
-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)
III. a), b) chi c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The Tentative tract map will
ultimately result in the construction of 132 single family homes, which could generate up
to 1,255 trips per day2. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10
miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6`s Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210. .�
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(hounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
1,255 x 10 = 12,550
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 1,129.50 29,367.00 6,024.00 - 125.50 125.50
Pounds at 50 mph 2.49 64.83 13.30 - 0.28 0.28
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,2.55 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. 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
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 1,025.6 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.
-7-
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
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.
5. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Monroe and the retention basins shall be
landscaped with the first phase of development on the site.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of
grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the
2002 PM10 Management Plan.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
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.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the ro'ect:
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?
("Results of Burrowing Owl Surveys..."
Kinsinger Environmental Consulting, December
2003.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
("Results of Burrowing Owl Surveys..."
Kinsinger Environmental Consulting, December
2003.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? ("Results of
Burrowing Owl Surveys..." Kinsinger
Environmental Consulting, December 2003.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? ("Results of
Burrowing Owl Surveys..." Kinsinger
Environmental Consulting, December 2003.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
-9- 1 ' )
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? ("Results of Burrowing
Owl Surveys..." Kinsinger Environmental
Consulting, December 2003.)
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
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The site has been in agriculture for a considerable period of time. As such, native species
are not expected to occur. However, the site's agricultural land uses lend themselves to
potential habitat for the burrowing owl, which often nests in holes in the banks of
planting rows. In order to determine the potential impacts to burrowing owls, a focused
biological resource study was completed for the project site 3. The consulting biologist
performed an on -site survey on one day in December, 2003. No burrowing owls were
identified on the survey date, although numerous gopher burrows were seen. However,
the CDFG protocol calls for four survey days when surveying for burrowing owls. The
site may also be occupied by the species between the time of study and the time of
construction. In order to assure that the burrowing owl does not occur on the site at the
time of construction, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. Prior to any non-agricultural ground disturbing activity on the site, and within 48
hours of the initiation of such activity, the project proponent shall cause the site to
be surveyed by a qualified biologist for burrowing owls. Should the species be
identified on site, passive relocation, in conformance with the biologist's
recommendations and protocol in place at the time, will be completed prior to the
initiation of any activity. The biologist shall submit a written report to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of any ground disturbing
permit on the project site.
The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is it a wildlife corridor. The
site is outside the boundaries of the fee area of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan.
With the implementation of the above -listed mitigation measure, the impacts to biological
resources will be reduced to a less than significant level.
3 "Results of Burrowing Owl Surveys..." prepared by Kinsinger Environmental Consulting and Eilar Associates,
December 2003. ?
_1
-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? ("Cultural Resources
Assessment...,"Archaeological Associates,
December 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Cultural
Resources Assessment...,"Archaeological
Associates, December 2003)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Pre -Construction
Paleontological Survey...," Archaeological
Associates, December 2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources
Assessment...,"Archaeological Associates,
December 2003)
V. a)-d) A Phase I cultural resource study was completed for the project site 4. The study found
that no resources occurred, and that the site's agricultural use reduced the likelihood of
resources further. In its review of the report, however, the Historic Preservation
Committee found that there should be on -site monitoring during earth moving activities,
in order to assure that buried deposits are not disturbed. Therefore, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. 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 prior to issuance of
building permits on the site.
4 "Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Tract 31910" prepared by Archaeological Associates and Eilar ;
Associates, December 2003.. 1 "
-11-
5
A paleontologic investigation was conducted for the project sites. The study found that it
is likely that grading on the site will uncover resources. The Historic Preservation
Committee also reviewed the potential for paleontologic resources on the site, and found
that the site should be monitored. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented.
1. A qualified paleontologic 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 prior to occupancy of
the first home on the site.
Implementation of these mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to
cultural and paleontologic resources are mitigated to a less than significant level.
"Pre -Construction Paleontological Survey of a 38.65 acre Parcel," prepared by Archaeological Associates and Eilar
Associated, December 2003. {
-12- 1
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The site is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone, and will experience significant
ground shaking during an earthquake. However, the City implements the most recent
updates to the Uniform Building Code relating to seismically active areas, and all homes
on the site will be constructed to these standards. Soils are considered appropriate for
single family home construction, and on -site soils analyses will be required by the
Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
I 1
-13-
The site is located in an area of high potential for liquefaction. In order to assure that the
potential impacts associated with liquefaction are mitigated to a less than significant
level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. In conjunction with the preparation of on -site soil analysis, as required by the
Building Department and City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant's geologist shall also submit a liquefaction study which demonstrates
the site's depth to groundwater, and includes mitigation measures if needed.
The project site is located in an area of moderate blow sand potential. The mitigation
measures included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts
associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
The site is not subject to landslides, nor does it have expansive soils.
" J
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
-15-
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)
VU. 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.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. II1-187 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 Study" Warner Engineering, December
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 Study" Warner
Engineering, December 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? ("Preliminary
Drainage Study" Warner Engineering, December
-17-
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
Study" Warner Engineering, December 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 project6 demonstrates how the
proposed project can retain its 100 year flood flows on site, through the use of retention
basins (shown as Lots O and P on the Tract Map). The study found that the site will
generate a need to retain 178,704 cubic feet of water in a 100 year storm, and that the
retention basins are sized to accommodate 209,425 cubic feet. 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.
6 "Preliminary Drainage Study," prepared by Warner Engineering, December, 2003.
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed Tract Map conforms to the General Plan designation and Zoning standards
assigned to the property. The development of housing on this property represents a
continuation of the urbanizing pattern experienced in this area of the City. The site is not
within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation
Plan fee area.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
e
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne 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 in the southern portion of the City, in an area which is
not now subject to significant noise levels. Further, buildout of the General Plan in this
area is not expected to generate significant noise levels, particularly since the site is
proposed to be walled and gated, which will mitigate potential noise levels. The impacts
-21- F..
associated with noise on the project's residents are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. A single
family residence will remain within the northeastern quadrant of the property, and is
considered a significant receptor for noise. In order to minimize the potential impacts to
this residential unit 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 unit as possible.
4. A 6 foot wall shall be erected around the residence prior to the initiation of any
earth moving activity on the site.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
The implementation of the above -listed mitigation measures will assure that impacts
associated with noise are reduced to less than significant levels.
1- 3
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the
property, and is in an area designated for low density residential land uses. The project
site is in agriculture, and will not induce growth or displace an existing community.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
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, as well as the costs of general government. The
project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits. The tract map will include an on -site recreational lot, which will
provide recreational facilities to project residents.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The construction of 132 residential units within the project will be supported by the
inclusion of an on -site recreational lot. In addition, the City's parkland fee will be
applied, if needed, to mitigate any additional impact to City parks.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative
Tract Map 31910)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31910)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 31910)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) Traffic levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at
buildout of the General Plan. The proposed tract map allows a density slightly lower than
the maximum allowable under the Low Density Residential designation, and will
therefore generate slightly less traffic than could have occurred. The project proponent
-26-
will be required to provide on -site parking in the form of garages for each unit. 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 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
-27- % �
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
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.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVH. 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?
-28-
XVII. a) The site has been identified as having the potential for biological cultural and
paleontologic resources. However, mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing opportunities for City residents.
XVII. c) The construction of 132 residential units is less than could potentially occur on this site,
will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan
designation on the property.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and
the site will generate PMIO, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation
measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been
mitigated above to less than significant levels.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-29-
0
d
3
a�
0
0
4.
a\
0
o00
0
�
o
�
�
00
U 0
>
A
z°@
O►.aVba
COD
a>i�
cn
z
o
G+
�aaaa�
0
rn
r,
M
a
c4
o
cqs
�
CO)
d
,a•
o
N
Z"
H
w
04
>
c4
Oo
0
ti
®z
O
�V
z
x�
A
U
W
d
W
F
d
A
z
d
04
Ox
UU
n
o
°
°
o
0
0
y
Rt
�
N
�
•N
C�
•U
U
CID
En
r
Con
cn
cn
oio
73
a
o
0
0
o
0
z
F
0
vi
O
a'
O
O
cad
U
--
O
U
O
to
O
U
U
tw
U
`� V
Gr
�a
�
A
�
Q
Q
Q
Q
o
U
.�
C.
•�
Q
C�
O F
bA
U
U
U
GG
U Q
a�
o
P 4)
F
ceS
C
0
M
o
4-
0 w
F
N
b O
c�
>' :r
N
3
o
o
�" W
W
o�y-
a
>
�
acd
d
b
d
�o
0
a
o
b
wu.�
�
d
cis
N
u
3
`�
� a
u
v� may'
�O
N
x
as
S
�b
5�.E
w
:R
a
U
21
W
F
d
A
d�
Ox
UU
O �
W
� a
O
U
cad
z
b
F
0
0
a
o�
c
wz
o
as
OnO
A
a0
a
UA
z
o
a
o
d �
G7
ai
Q+ N
ci
U o
W
F
A
dW
Ox
UU
O
o
U
z
tw
A
a
0
as
�o
zo
OO
A
a
b
z
�
v
G
d
0
►�
V 0 Gq
O CL
W
F
A
z�
a
U
UU
o
F
o
F
O
O
a
a
Wz
0
z�
Op
q
a
oa
z
0
O
d
`'
O
O
�
L�7
,o
v�
W
F
Q
A
z�
a
U
UU
F
o
0
0
0
F
o
0
0
U
U
U
to
O
Q
Q
Q
a
a
o�
cn
z z
a
Qon
Qon
Q
�
Qo
b
b
b
b
ca
ca
as
as
"Cy
N
O
u
G
cq
Cl.
F
�
W>'
Cl, >,
d
o
C
o
W
o
• o
�,
o
N.y
U
V '�
a,
P4
cv
z�
►.,
°c
N w
o�
�.
3
b
U
U
cis
c'A
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 31910,
DIVIDING 38.85 ACRES INTO 132 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
CASE NO. TT 31910
APPLICANT: JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23rd day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of a recommendation on Tentative Tract 31910, located on the west side of
Monroe Street, 1/4 mile north of Avenue 58, more particularly described as:
PORTION OF THE NE '/4 OF THE S/E 1/4 OF
SECTION 22, T6S, R6E - S.B.B.M
WHEREAS, Environmental Assessment 2003-496 has been prepared in
accordance with "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended by City Council Resolution 83-63. Based on this Assessment, it as
been determined that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures; therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be certified; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation
on Tentative Tract 31910:
1. The La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2003-496. 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 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 Low Density Residential land use designation of up
to four dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31910\peresoTT31910.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract 31910 — John Megay & Associates
March 23, 2004
3. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map 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.
4. As conditioned, the design of Tentative Tract 31910 and type of improvements,
will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
5. The design of Tentative Tract 31910 and type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in
Environmental Assessment 2003-496, in which no significant health or safety
impacts were identified for the proposed project.
6. The site for Tentative Tract 31910 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 2003-496, prepared for Tentative Tract Map
31910;
3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31910 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 23rd day of March, 2004, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
P:\Wally�Casedocs\Current\TT31910\peresoTT31910.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract 31910 — John Megay & Associates
March 23, 2004
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\TT31910\peresoTT31910.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 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 Tentative Tract Map, or any Final
Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with
the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58
(the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-
DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs 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.
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 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) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A, 1 10' ROW) — The standard
55 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total 110-foot
ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way
dedication at the primary entry of 67 feet from the centerline and a
minimum 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 50
feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
1) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line shall have a 36-
foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with
parking restricted to one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking is
prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for
ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The
CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to
recordation.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map
with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the
tentative map.
C. Knuckle
1) The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract
map except for minor revision as may be required by the City Engineer.
Curve radii for curbs at all street intersections shall not be less than 25 feet except at the
entry similar to the lay out shown on the rough grading plan.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric
layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median
curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes,
deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be
accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the
appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact
the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape
setback requirement
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of
t
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary
right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility
easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such
easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of
IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Monroe Street (Primary 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.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
16. Direct vehicular access to [ insert street names(s) ] from lots with frontage along
[insert street name(s) is restricted, except for those access points identified on the
tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The
vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the
date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City
Engineer.
4y 1
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
FINAL MAPS
19. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
ALAOCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
20. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
21. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below
shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a
larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be
required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to
improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street/Signing & 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 berming design in the combined parkway and landscape
setback area.
B. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
Vertical
1
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
C.
On -Site Rough Grading/Storm Drain Plans
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
D.
On -Site Precise Grading Plan:
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top
Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant
may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the
City.
23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through
a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a
file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
24. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site
improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and
executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction
of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree
4'. 5
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
25. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the
applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion
of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
26. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on -
site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the
issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development,
or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to
the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all
permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
27. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to:
A. Construct certain off -site improvements.
B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its
costs by others.
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map.
,, i
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 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.
28. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall
submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site
improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for
checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit
cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost
estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements.
29. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
1 I
4
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
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,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
33. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
34. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain
and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as
otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not
exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted
with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb
shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb,
otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 10 �_ t
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
35. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the
pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
36. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from
the building pads in adjacent developments.
Applicant shall revise the building pad elevations of lots 42 thru 51, and lot 54 as
necessary to comply with this requirement. The retention basin concept shall also be
revised to accommodate the revised drainage pattern.
37. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
38. Prior to any site grading or grading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
npAmAnp
40. The applicant shall revise the proposed retention basins to comply with the provisions
of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97-03 and to
accommodate the revised building pad elevations of lots 42 thru 51, and lot 54.
CADocuments and Setting s\bsawyeALocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-31910.doc 11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be
retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the
greatest total run off.
41. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
42. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water
shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system
approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to
contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5
gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
43. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
45. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97-03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted
with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual lots, retention
depth shall not exceed two feet.
46. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots
Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will
be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback
and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and
mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
k.ocumerts and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 12
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
48. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity
to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic
drainage relief route.
49. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
51. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
52. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
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.
m
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc
13`
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Monroe Street, Primary Arterial Option A - 1 10' R/W ):
Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative
Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the
General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or
reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert
it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design
standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') west of
the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to
accommodate:
a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at Primary Entry if required by
a traffic study prepared for the applicant per Engineering Bulletin
#03-07. The north curb face shall be located fifty five feet (55')
west of the centerline.
Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b) 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.
c) Half width of an 18 foot wide raised landscaped median along
the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map plus variable
width as needed to accommodate full turn movements at the
entry.
4
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
d) A County of Riverside benchmark in the Monroe Street right of
way established by a licensed surveyor.
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).
The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1► Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements measured gutter
flow line to gutter flow line except for the Lot A entry drive.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative
map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb using a smooth
curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown on the rough
grading plan.
D. KNUCKLE
1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the
tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by
the City Engineer.
56. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic (minimum 60 feet from the curb face to the voice box); and shall
provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale
of 1 " = 10, demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into
the development can safely make a full turn -around out onto the main street from the
gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane
shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction
plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer.
57. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design 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.
Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
58. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time
of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent
(less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test
results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production.
The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are
approved.
59. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
Primary Entry (South portion of Tentative Tract Map on Monroe Street): Full turn
movements are allowed.
60. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
61. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-31910.doc 16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
CONSTRUCTION
62. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings
and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially
constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the
pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the
development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
63. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
64. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
66. 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.
67. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
68. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
69. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction
supervision.
70. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods
employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.
71. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying
to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all
AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the
as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
72. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
73. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
74. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
75. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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 patter, etc.) may be administratively approved
11
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 1 8-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
through the plan check process, with the mutual consent and approval of the
Community Development and Public Works Directors. This shall include increase or
decrease in number of lots meeting 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. Prior to any non-agricultural ground disturbing activity on the site, and within 48
hours of the initiation of such activity, the project proponent shall cause the site to
be surveyed by a qualified biologist for burrowing owls. Should the species be
identified on site, passive relocation, in conformance with the biologist's
recommendations and protocol in place at the time, will be completed prior to the
initiation of any activity. The biologist shall submit a written report to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of any ground disturbing
permit on the project site.
78. 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, whichever occurs first.
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 prior
to issuance of building permits on the site.
The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to the final inspection of the project.
79. 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 shall be accompanied
by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the
original graphics.
80. On- and off -site monitoring in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological
resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor
shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction
delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of
small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to
r
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given to the City prior to issuance of
the first earth -moving permit, of before any clearing of the site as begun.
81. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent
preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates.
82. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be
submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the
City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all
recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted
will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to pale ontological
resources.
83. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City. Packaging of
resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the pale
ontological industry.
84. Landscaping plans for the units shall comply with 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 timers, type of sprinklers, etc. Prior to the
issuance of any building permits the landscape plans shall also be approved by the
Coachella Valley Water District before final approval by the Community Development
Department.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
85. Fire Department plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. Specific
fire protection measures will be determined at the time of plan check.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
86. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's
Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space, and other law
enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff's
Department should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-8950.
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-31910.doc 20
ATTACHMENT 1
a%
� s
W oG��F
TATE HIGHWAY 111 y
W o - COA CHEL LA
ROJECT > .
SI TE AIRPORT BLVD.
58TH AVE.
I I =
VICINITY MAP
(NO SCALE)
THOAAS BROTHERS GUIDE. -EDITION 200J
PAGE 55JO COORDINATE E6
CASE No.
ATTACHMENT 4
Historic Preservation Commission
February 19, 2004
C. Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reports for a
38.65 Acre Site Proposed for Tentative Tract Map 31910, located on
the west side of Monroe Street, between Airport Boulevard and
Avenue 58.
Applicant: John Megay and Associates
Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Associates and Eilar
Associates.
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 Sharp asked for clarification of a location in the
middle of the Augustine reservation referenced on Page 2 of the
report. Chairperson Mouriquand clarified the location he was
questioning and commented it was 50 feet below sea level and
had been inundated by the ancient lake.
3. Chairperson Mouriquand complimented the research design
discussion on Pages 10 and 11 as it followed the ARMR format.
She commended the consultants on their work and defining
research goals. She stated she was curious about the Neuman
tenant farm house site listed in the table on Page 12. She also
noted on Page 13, Subsection C, Previous Surveys, it stated the
entire City had been previously surveyed while the staff report
stated it had not. Apparently, it had been surveyed in 2000 or
2001. She asked why a re -survey was required if it had been
less than the State recommended five years since the last one.
Staff asked if there was a need for the survey. Chairperson
Mouriquand replied yes, for the Village at the Palms project.
She also mentioned in the last paragraph on Page 13 there was
a discussion about the dirt wagon road (the Old Indian Trail
which later became the Bradshaw Trail Line). A highly
significant landmark. The consultant had not recommend
monitoring, but staff did and she agreed.
4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and
Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2004-004 accepting the
Historical and Archaeological Resources Report for Tentative
Tract Map 31910 as submitted by staff. Unanimously
accepted.
7
Historic Preservation Commission
February 19, 2004
5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and
Wilbur to adopt Minute Motion 2004-005 accepting the
Paleontological Resources Reports for Tentative Tract Map
31910 as submitted by staff. Unanimously accepted.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Staff discussed the information passed out regarding the Historic
Preservation Conference.
B. Staff distributed photographs of historical artifacts recovered through
the research efforts of Marlys K. DeBell who had been asked by the
City to conduct a search to see if anything could be located. She was
able to locate these in storage at the University of California,
Riverside. These items are scheduled to be included in the City's
Museum, when constructed. The Commission requested the actual
items be shown at a future meeting. Staff replied they would make
arrangements for the Commissioners to view these items.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion regarding about the City's Fill Policy for on- and off -site fill
and stockpiling. Staff contacted the Public Works Department and
found out the permits are issued without approval from the
Community Development Department. Several options are being
discussed with the Public Works Department.
B. Commissioner Mouriquand brought up the subject of parcels that have
been surveyed. She made reference to Quad sheets with surveyed
areas filled in. Staff replied the City Manager has initiated a GIS
mapping system showing developments, tract numbers, and file
names for a base plan of what has been done.
C. Ms. Neeley, 42625 Iowa Street, Palm Desert, and Docent Director for
the La Quinta Museum, introduced herself and stated she was
instructed to address the Commission on the Point Happy project.
Staff stated they were unaware of this arrangement. It was staff's
understanding the McKenna group was to arrange for an oral report
that would be presented to the Commission at a date to be
determined. Also in attendance was Kristina Lindgren, representative
for the McKenna Group. Staff asked if this was the Oral Report,
formerly requested for the Point Happy Project. Kristina Lindgren
replied it was not. This was just a brief presentation Ms. Neeley
8
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 23, 2004
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-800
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT
GROCERY STORE
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
SIMON DRIVE
APPLICANT: JACK TARR DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTATIVE: JACK TARR
PROPERTY OWNER: WASHINGTON 1 1 1, LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2002-072 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 87-01 1,
AMENDMENT NO.4, WASHINGTON PARK SPECIFIC PLAN.
NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO
NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL AS SESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SOUTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
EAST:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC staff rpt. SDP 2004-800.doc
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Site Development Permit
The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a 12,000 square
foot grocery store.
Site Plan
The site is located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Simon Drive, with
direct access to the building from two driveways on Simon Drive. Full turning
movements will be allowed at the western entrance from Simon Drive. The eastern
entrance from Simon Drive will be designed for a right -in and right -out only access and
aligns with an internal road that allows vehicles to access an entry on Washington
Street with right -in and right -out only turning movement. Both driveways provide
access to Washington Park commercial center and to the parking lot for the grocery
store. There are 98 parking spaces provided for this building at this portion of the site.
Architectural and Landscape Design
The proposed architectural design is characterized as a "Desert Deco" style which is
described as "...an interpretation of contemporary, modern, and art deco architecture".
The proposed building features flat roofs, mellifluous colors, varied surface textures
with rich facade colors and vibrant accent colors as an integral component to the
overall design approach. Building massing features deep-set openings, reveals, and
insets emphasizing shadow and light. The building utilizes a staggered roof line at 18
to 22 feet in height, an anodized aluminum store front, glass doors, wood trellises with
steel support and color band wainscoting. The highest point of the building, a stone
veneer architectural tower element, is proposed to be 28 feet.
The proposed landscape plan is consistent with the Specific Plan guidelines and palette
of plant materials. The landscape setback on Washington Street exceeds the required
20 feet in portions surrounding the building and on the corner of Washington Street
and Simon Drive. Landscaping surrounds the outside perimeter of the parking lot on all
sides of the property. The preliminary landscape plan consists of Date Palms and
Mexican fan palm trees and shade trees including Sweet Acacia, Chilean Mesquite, and
Desert Willow. The ground cover and shrub plant material are low water consumption
and native to the area. Planting materials conform to the Washington Park Specific
Plan.
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW:
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 3, 2004 (Attachment 3). The
Committee adopted Minute Motion 2004-010 recommending approval with the
condition that the applicant provide a meandering sidewalk at the corner of
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC staff rpt. SDP 2004-800.doc
�, f
Washington Street and Simon Drive creating a pedestrian access connection to the
sidewalk north of Simon Drive.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public
agencies on February 27, 2004, requesting comments returned by March 16, 2004.
All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on March13,
2004. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice.
ANALYSIS AND ISSUES:
The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made provided
the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 of the
Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving Site Development Permit
2004-800 to allow construction of a 12,000 square foot grocery store, subject to
conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Map
2. Plans and Elevations
3. Draft minutes for the
Committee
Prepared by:
Fr d Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
March 3,2004 Architecture and Landscape Review
S
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC staff rpt. SDP 2004-800.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT
GROCERY STORE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-800
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
23rd day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
Washington 1 1 1, LTD for approval of development plans for a 12,000 square foot
grocery store located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Simon Drive,
more particularly described as:
Parcel Map 30903, Parcel No. 3
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta did on the 3" day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed public meeting
to consider a request for review of development plans for Site Development Permit
(SDP) 2004-800; 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). The City Council certified Environmental
Assessment 2002-072 for Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No 4, Washington
Park. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed
which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approving the
Site Development Permit:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the commercial project is designated as Regional Commercial.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code, or amended as allowed in the applicable Specific Plan.
4. The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been
designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided with
adequate landscaping.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC RESO SDP 2004-800.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: March 23, 2004
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve the above -described Site Development Permit
request 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
Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of March, 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
�_I
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC RESO SDP 2004-800.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-800
WASHINGTON PARK 111, LTD. — TRADER JOES
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative
Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Site Development Permit, 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 applicable 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.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 1 1 1, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean
Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the State Water
Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ and the approved Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan prepared for Specific Plan 1987-011,
Amendment No. 4 and Parcel Map No. 30903.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street
right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this
development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) — No
additional right of way is required.
2) Simon Drive (Non -Conforming Local Street, 88' ROW) — No
additional right of way is required.
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.
f 't
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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. Simon Drive (Non -Conforming Local Street) - 10-foot from the R/W-
P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not
limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned
setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those
purposes on the Final Map.
11. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Simon Drive are restricted,
except for those access points identified on the Site Plan for Site
Development Permit 2004-800, or as otherwise conditioned in these
conditions of approval.
12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
13. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the 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.
14. 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.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
15. 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 berming design in the combined
parkway and landscape setback area.
B.
On -Site Precise Grading Plan
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
C.
Traffic Signal Plan
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior
to commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall
show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond
the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design
transitions.
On -Site Precise Grading Plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs
& gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements.
16. 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.
1 .1
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 4
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 1 1 1, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
17. 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
18. 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
19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements), LQMC.
20. 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.
21. 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
PAFRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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.
22. 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.
23. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have
undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section
9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement.
The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback
area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape
lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The
maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed
4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb,
otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1.
All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and
one-half inches 0.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
24. 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 Rough Grading Plan for Tract Map No.
30903, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City
Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
_r4
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 6
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
25. 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.
DRAINAGF
26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120
(Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97-03, and the approved
Hydrology Study and Storm Drainage System for Tract No. 30903.
27. 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.
UTILITIES
28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110
(Utilities), LQMC.
29. 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.
30. 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.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 7
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditdons of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction
for approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
31. 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.
32. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements:
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial; 132' R/W):
No additional widening on the east side of the street along all frontage
adjacent to the Site Development Permit boundary, except at locations
where additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Simon Drive
intersection. The east curb face shall be located 57 feet
(57') east of the centerline. The length of the
deceleration/right turn lane shall be a minimum of 100
feet long plus a variable transition taper of 50 feet with
the actual length and taper determined and designed by a
licensed traffic engineer when street improvement plan
are submitted and approved by the Public Works
Department.
Other required improvements in the Washington Street right or way
and/or adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering
sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that
utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 8
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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.
c) A County of Riverside benchmark in the Washington
Street right of way established by a licensed surveyor.
d) The applicant is responsible for 25 % of the cost for
design and installation of a traffic signal at the
Washington Street and Simon Drive intersection if
required of Tentative Tract No. 31348 on the west side
of Washington Street and when warranted. The applicant
shall enter upon an agreement with the developer of
Tentative Tract No. 31348, Madison Development, LLC,
for their prorated share obligation.
2) Simon Drive (Non -Conforming Local Street)
No additional widening on the east side of the street along all frontage
adjacent to the Site Development Permit boundary.
Other required improvements in the Simon 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) A raised median at the easterly access driveway as a
positive barrier for left turn in and out restrictions
imposed by these conditions of approval. The design of
the median island shall be approved when street
improvement plans are submitted to the Public Works
Department.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 1 1 1, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
33. 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
Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
34. 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.
35. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Washington Street
1) Primary Entry: Right turn in and out movements are permitted.
Left turn in and out movements are prohibited.
B. Simon Drive
1) Primary Entry (Westerly Access Driveway): Full movements are
permitted.
2) Secondary Entry (Easterly Access Driveway): Right turn in and
out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movements
are prohibited.
36. 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.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 10
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 1 1 1, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
37. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as
approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates
and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
38. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150
(Parking).
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts,
dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other
features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional
street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City
Engineer.
A. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site
public streets are limited to the access locations approved in these
conditions of approval.
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
39. 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.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 11
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
LANDSCAPING
40. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks)
& 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
41. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
42. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed
landscape architect.
43. 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.
44. 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
45. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by
SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that
meet with the approval of the City Engineer.
47. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and
such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise
xi
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 12
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 111, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide
adequate construction supervision.
48. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection
program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the
construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans,
specifications and other applicable regulations.
49. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved
by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -
Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer
or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings.
The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously
submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
51. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping,
access drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees
and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by
the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee
amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for
plan check and permits.
53. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 13
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-800
Washington Park 1 1 1, Ltd. — Trader Joes
Adopted: March 23, 2004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
54. The applicant shall provide a meandering sidewalk at the corner of
Washington Street and Simon Drive.
55. Any man doors shall be screened from view of the Washington Street and
Simon Drive to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Screen material may include but not limited to landscaping and screening
walls.
56. Landscaping plans shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance for this project. Said landscaping plans shall include a complete
irrigation system showing location and size of water lines, valves, clock
timers, type of sprinklers, etc. Prior to the issuance of any building permits
the landscape plans shall also be approved by the Coachella Valley Water
District before final approval by the Community Development Department.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
57. Fire Department plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check.
Specific fire protection measures will be determined at the time of plan
check.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
58. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the
Sheriff's Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space,
and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions
regarding the Sheriff's Department should be directed to the Deputy at (760)
863-8950.
P:\FRED\SDP 2004-800\PC COA SDP 800.doc 14
ATTACHMENT
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
March 3, 2004
recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2404-022, as
recommended by staff and amended:
a. Condition added: The courtyard 4rea, in the rear of the
first unit, shall have a decorate wrought iron fence with
gates around it and be reflected on the plans.
b. The courtyard area shall be incorporated into the use of
the first unit or become a common area.
C. Condition added: The south elevation shall have
architectural enhancement for the first two westerly units
on the south elevation.
d. The hardscape plan for the south elevation shall be
revised to ve better circulation.
e. Canopy-t pe shade trees shall be incorporated in the
courty,;�(d.
UnanimoLAly approved.
-- B. Site Development Permit 2003-800; a request of Washington 1 1 1,
L.T.D. for consideration of architectural and conceptual landscaping
plans for a 12,000 square foot grocery store located at the southeast
corner of Washington Street and Simon Drive within Washington
Square Commercial Center.
1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department. Staff introduced Michel Kareti,
architect for the project who gave a presentation.
2. Committee Member Thoms asked if this corner could have a
hardscape space to allow people to cut across the corner. The
corner needs to be enhanced with access space. Mr. Kareti
stated this was workable. He noted they will have landscape
features in this area.
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated there is a lot of
sidewalk adjacent to the curb. Washington Street has a large
volume of traffic and there is more and more development
happening at this intersection. It is creating a lot of people
movement. If this area were opened up to pedestrian traffic it
would move people around more. Staff suggested the sidewalk
be lined up with the sidewalk across the street.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-3-04 WD.doc 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
March 3, 2004
4. Committee Member Cunningham complimented the applicant on
the massing and colors used. He would suggest that the
parapets and massing be treated correctly to not look "thin".
5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt
Minute Motion 2004-010 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2003-800, as recommended by staff and
amended:
Condition added: A meandering sidewalk shall be added to
create a pedestrian access across the corner.
Unanimously approved.
VI �,, CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. `,COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There beind,, no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural
and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on April 7,
2004. This meeting was adjourned at 10:42 a.m. on March 3 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER
Executive Secretary \
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-3-04 WD.doc 4
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 23, 2004
CASE NOS.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-022
REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 3,678 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING
LOCATION: NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO, EAST OF AVENIDA
BERMUDAS
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: SANTA ROSA PLAZA L.L.C.
REPRESENTATIVE: DANIEL BROWN
ZONING: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2000-406 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050,
SANTA ROSA PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW
INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE
PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21166.
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH:
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
SOUTH:
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
EAST:
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
WEST:
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PCSTAFF RPT VUP 2004-022.DOC
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Property Description
The project site is located north of Calle Tampico, east of Avenida Bermudas
(Attachment 1). The project site will be developed under the standards and guidelines of
the Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan (SP 2001-050) adopted by City Council on February
6, 2001. The design guidelines portion of the Plan provides specific design criteria
which include architectural guidelines utilizing a contemporary interpretation of Spanish
Mission style architecture; and landscape guidelines that complement and accent the
project with perimeter landscaping.
Application Under Consideration
Site Plan
The request is for approval of a Village Use Permit to construct a 3,678 square foot
commercial office building (Attachment 2). The site has frontage on Avenida Bermudas
with access to the Santa Rosa Plaza hotel and casitas site. The building faces north
with the back of the building adjacent to the back of existing commercial uses.
Architectural Design
The proposed structure is basically rectangular in shape with heights ranging from 17 to
24 feet five inches with tiled hip roof towers and tiled shed roofs. Tower elements will
be highlighted with a stone the veneer at the base. The proposed north facing front
elevation provides four entry doors with arched insets and decorative light fixtures. The
proposed rear elevation is provided with four man doors and four column pop outs. Wall
material consists of exterior cement plaster with a light sand finish in a four shades of
brown with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around each elevation. Proposed
windows will be sectional pane glass with anodized aluminum frames.
Landscape Plan
The Landscaping Plan identifies a palette of plant material consisting of shrubs,
groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters. Plant
material along the perimeter of the site in planter areas are proposed to have Purple
Orchid, Red Gum Eucalyptus, Mondel Pine, Evergreen Elm and Queen Palm trees. The
landscape plan is consistent with the Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan and complements
and enhances the project
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PCSTAFF RPT VUP 2004-022.DOC
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW:
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 3, 2004 (Attachment 3). The
Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2004-009 recommending approval of
the project subject to the following conditions:
1. The Landscape Plan shall include a decorative wrought iron fence with appropriate
gates around the courtyard area, which is located to the southwest of the proposed
building.
2. The Landscape Plan shall incorporate the courtyard area into the use of the first
tenant space or it shall become a common area for all tenants.
3. The Architectural Plans for the south elevation shall provide architectural design
enhancement for the first two tenant spaces on the west side of the building.
4. The Landscape Plan shall provide an enhanced hardscape/circulation plan on the
south portion of the site.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on
February 27, 2004, requesting comments be returned by March16, 2004. All applicable
comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on March 13, 2004.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to approve the Village Use Permit can be made provided the
recommended conditions of approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning
Code as noted in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving development plans
for a 3, 678 square foot commercial office building, subject to conditions.
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PCSTAFF RPT VUP 2004-022.DOC
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Exhibit
2. Site Plan and Elevations
3. Draft Minutes of the ALRC meeting of March 3, 2004
Prepared by:
fi1�
4
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC STAFF RPT VUP 2004-022.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FOR A 3,678 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-022
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the, 13th day of March, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review
building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 3,678 square feet commercial office
building, generally located north of Calle Tampico and east of Avenida Bermudas, more
particularly described as:
PARCEL MAP 29909, PARCEL NO. 3; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC)
of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 3'd day of March, 2004 hold a public
meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 3,678 square foot
commercial office building and unanimously recommended approval with conditions.
WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment
2000-406 for Specific Plan 2000-050, Santa Rosa Plaza. No changed circumstances,
or conditions, and no new information is proposed which would trigger the preparation
of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21166.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of
said Village Use Permit 2004-040.
1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in
that the property is designated Village Commercial (VC). The project is
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land
Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Village Use Permit 2004-022
Adopted: March 23, 2004
2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Santa
Rosa Plaza Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with
the development standards and design guidelines.
3. The proposed commercial office building is consistent with the City's Zoning
Code in that the development standards and criteria contained in the Santa Rosa
Plaza Specific Plan supplement, replace, or are consistent with those in the
City's Zoning Code.
4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial
development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area
intersections.
5 The architecture landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned by
the ALRC, complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in
that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high
quality of materials.
6. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding
commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar
in scale. The building materials provided are a durable, aesthetically pleasing,
low maintenance, with a blend of surfaces and textures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case;
2. That it does approve Village Use Permit 2004-022 for the reasons set forth in
this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 23`d day of March, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC RESO.VUP 2004-022.DOC
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Village Use Permit 2004-022
Adopted: March 23, 2004
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC RESO.VUP 2004-022.DOC l_
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 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 Parcel Map 29909
if in effect when project construction commences.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs one (1) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
one (1) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than one (1) 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
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.
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
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.
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. On -Site Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
On -Site Precise Grading 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.
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.
-Ie
12. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a precise 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 precise grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
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.
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.
r)RAINA[;F
16. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
plan for Tract Map No. 29909. 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.
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
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.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
19. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
23. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Development
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
FIRE MARSHALL
24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan
check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed
to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
25. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the
Sheriff's Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space,
and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding
the Sheriff Department should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-8950.
MISCELLANEOUS
26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall
include the following items:
A. The Landscape Plan shall provide a decorative wrought iron fence with
appropriate gates around the courtyard area, which is located to the
southwest of the proposed building in addition it shall provide a block
wall around the east and south perimeter of the property.
B. The Landscape Plan shall provide that the courtyard area shall be
incorporated into the use of the first tenant space, or it shall become a
common area for all tenants.
C. The Landscape Plan shall provide an enhanced hardscape/circulation plan
on the south portion of the site.
27. The Architectural Plans for the south elevation shall provide architectural design
enhancement for the first two tenant spaces on the west side of the building.
28. Landscaping plans for the units shall comply with the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance for this project and as approved by the Planning
)
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-022 - SANTA ROSA PLAZA
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
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 the Coachella Valley Water District before final approval by the
Community Development Department.
29. 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 Village Use
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.
P:\FRED\VUP 2004-022\PC COA VUP 2004-022.doc
ATTACHMENT #
PROJECT LOCATION
CALLE TAMPICO
N
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT #3
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March 3, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
10:00 a.m.
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by Planning Manager Oscar Orci
who led the flag salute.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and
David Thoms.
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Fred
Baker, and Executive Secretafy Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. r'
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE A18ENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:;,
A. Staff asked i !there were any changes to the Minutes of February 4,
2003. The being no changes, it was moved and seconded by
Committe Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to approve the Minutes as
submitt96.
V. BUSINESS 1fEMS:
A. Village Use Permit 2004-022; a request of Santa Rosa Plaza L.L.C.,
for consideration of architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for
a 12,000 square foot commercial retail building located at the
northwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas within
Santa Rosa Plaza.
1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Jim
Janosik, engineer for the project, who gave a presentation.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-3-04 WD.doc
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
March 3, 2004
2. Committee Member Thoms asked what was happening in the
courtyard area behind the first unit in the building. Mr.
Janosik stated it is courtyard. Discussion followed regarding
potential treatment of the area.
3. Committee Member Thoms stated he had a concern about the
south elevation. The elevation appears to be plain in relation
to the north elevation. Mr. Janosik stated there will be a six
foot wall so only the top third of the building would be seen.
4. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is the "back of the
house" and not much architectural treatment is given to this
area. His concern is that the courtyard has no reason for
anyone to go there. It is not a usable space and could create
an undesirable element. It isn't integrated into the project. He
would suggest leaving it landscaped but put a wrought iron
fence screen the area.
5. Committee Member Thoms asked if the area would be
accessible by a sidewalk. Mr. Janosik reviewed the circulation
with the Committee.
6. Committee Member Cunningham asked that the south
elevation have some architectural treatment added.
7. Committee Member Thoms asked that the corner contours in
the retention basin be softened. Mr. Janosik stated the
retention basin is already built and is shaped.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they were sure they
wanted deciduous trees at the entrance. They will be void of
foliage during the season. They look their best in the summer
time and will be a high maintenance issue. Mr. Janosik stated
they have relayed this to the owner and they are trying to
eliminate the elms.
9. Committee Member Cunningham asked that the westerly unit
be encouraged to incorporate the courtyard into the use of the
unit or become some type of common area.
10. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was
moved and seconded by Committee Members
Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2004-009
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-3-04 WD.doc 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
March 3, 2004
recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2004-022, as
recommended by staff and amended:
a. Condition added: The courtyard area, in the rear of the
first unit, shall have a decorate wrought iron fence with
gates around it and be reflected on the plans.
b. The courtyard area shall be incorporated into the use of
the first unit or become a common area.
C. Condition added: The south elevation shall have
architectural enhancement for the first two westerly units
on the south elevation.
d. The hardscape plan for the south elevation shall be
revised to have better circulation.
e. Canopy -type shade trees shall be incorporated in the
courtyard.
Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2003-800; a request of Washington 1 1 1,
L.T.D. for consideration of architectural and conceptual landscaping
plans for a 12,000 square foot grocery store located at the southeast
corner of "Washington Street and Simon Drive within Washington
Square Comrn,ercial Center.
1. Principal PNgner Fred Baker presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development bepartment. Staff introduced Michel Kareti,
architect for the project who gave a presentation.
2. Committee Member Thoms asked if this corner could have a
hardscape space to allow Nople to cut across the corner. The
corner needs to be enhanced with access space. Mr. Kareti
stated this was workable. He `noted they will have landscape
features in this area.
3. Committee Member Cunningham sta d there is a lot of
sidewalk adjacent to the curb. Washington Street has a large
volume of traffic and there is more and 'more development
happening at this intersection. It is creating lot of people
movement. If this area were opened up to pedest4an traffic it
would move people around more. Staff suggested the"sidewalk
be lined up with the sidewalk across the street.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-3-04 WD.doc 3
PH #G
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 23, 2004
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-498, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-098, ZONE CHANGE 2004-1 18,
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32119
APPLICANT: MAYER VILLA CAPRI AND TRANS WEST HOUSING (FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP)
ENGINEER: NAI CONSULTING (FOR TENTATIVE TRACT)
LOCATION: NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON
STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE
REQUEST: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (CC) TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC) AND LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR);
3. ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
(CC) TO NEIGHBORHOOD (CR) AND TO LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL); AND,
4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 48 SINGLE-
FAMILY LOTS ON 15t ACRES.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-498 WAS
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-098,
ZONE CHANGE 2004-1 18, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
29053 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF
1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
BE CERTIFIED.
CURRENT
ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
CURRENT
P:\stan\mayer villa Capri\gpa zc tt pc rpt.doc
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
BACKGROUND
CO / VACANT LAND AND FUTURE PUBLIC
MIDDLE SCHOOL
RL / COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT
RL / SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT
General
The property fronts on Fred Waring Drive immediately east of Washington Street in
north La Quinta (Attachment 1). The vacant property consists of sand dunes and
desert shrubs. A curb and sidewalk are installed along Washington Street. The
property was created in 1992 under Parcel Map 27131, which also created three other
parcels and Palm Royale Drive, a street that will meander between Fred Waring Drive
and Washington Street. Most of the land to the north will be used for a future public
school. Palm Royale Drive has been installed to Rome Drive, a street leading to the
adjacent tract to the east. The subject property was recently divided into a 10t and
15t parcel by Parcel Map 31876. The larger parcel on the east portion of the property
is proposed for 48 single-family lots by Tentative Tract 32119. No development is
proposed on the westerly 10 acre parcel. A previous application for an apartment
complex near this project site was denied by the City Council
Project Request
Proposed is a request to change the General Plan land use designation and zoning from
Community Commercial (CC) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and the 15 acres from
CC to Low Density Residential (RL) (see attached Resolution exhibits). The Tentative
Tract Map will create 48 single-family lots on the 15 gross acre site (Attachment 2).
The Tentative Tract proposes 48 single-family lots varying from 7,667 to 17,740
square feet with an average of 9,152 square feet, at a density of 3.32 dwelling units
per acre. The majority of lots are 80 feet wide and a minimum of 105 feet deep. The
tract has street access from Palm Royale Drive and will align with the existing Rome
Drive to the east. The tract is laid out with a rectangular perimeter and two cul-de-
sacs in the center. Streets are to be private and gated at the entry. A three acre
irregularly shaped retention basin lot is shown at the northeast corner of the site.
Other miscellaneous lots will be created for the private streets, and common area
landscaping, including a 20 foot deep landscaping lot adjacent to Fred Waring Drive.
PAstan\mayer villa Capri\gpa zc tt pc rpt.doc
Public Notice
This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on March 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 with any pertinent comments received
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS
Findings necessary to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change per Zoning Code Section 9.30.020 6, and 9.220.010, respectively can be
made and are contained in the attached resolutions.
The findings that the proposed tract map and its design and proposed improvements
are consistent with the General Plan can be made with the approval of General Plan
Amendment 2004-498 and Zone Change 2004-1 18. These applications will change
the property from Community Commercial to Low Density Residential. Development
of the land with residences will require compliance with applicable residential
development standards regarding setbacks, height restrictions, density, grading,
access, streets, etc.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City
Council, certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-498.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City
Council, approval of General Plan Amendment 2004-098.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City
Council, approval of Zone Change 2004-1 18.
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City
Council, approval of Tentative Tract 32119, subject to conditions.
pAstan\mayer villa Capri\gpa zc tt pc rpt.doc
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Tentative Tract Map 29053 (large maps for Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
p:\stan\mayer villa Capri\gpa zc tt pc rpt.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-498 PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-098, ZONE
CHANGE 2004-018, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32119
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-498
APPLICANT: MAYER VILLA CAPRI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 23RD day of March, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2004-498 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2004-
098, Zone Change 2004-018, and Tentative Tract 32119, generally located at the
northeast corner of Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly
described as follows:
Parcels 1 and 2, Parcel Map 31876
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2004-498)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, and Tentative Tract Map could have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate
mitigation measures were made a part of the Assessment and included in the
mitigation measures, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2004-498.
1
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-498
Mayer Villa Capri
Adopted: March 23, 2004
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract will
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract do
not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on
environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract will
not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable
when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as
development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the
proposed project.
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract will
not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population,
either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which
would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-498
and said 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.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-498
Mayer Villa Capri
Adopted: March 23, 2004
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and 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 2004-498 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in
the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-498 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 23RD day of March, 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
EA 2004-498 Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: General Plan Amendment 2004-098, Zone Change 2004-118, Tentative Tract
Map 32119
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street APN: 609-
070-034
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Trans -West Housing, Inc.
Mayer Villa Capri 9968 Hibert St., Suite 102
660 Newport Center Drive San Diego, CA 92131
Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General plan designation:
Existing: Community Commercial
Proposed:
Western 10 acres — Neighborhood
Commercial; Eastern 15.1 acres, Low Density
Residential
N.
U
7. Zoning::
Existing: Community Commercial
Proposed:
Western 10 acres — Neighborhood
Commercial; Eastern 15.1 acres, Low
Density Residential
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan and Zone Change: The parcel in question is 25 acres in size. The General Plan
and Zoning designations on the entire 25 acres is Community Commercial. The proposed
amendments would change the western 10 acres to Neighborhood Commercial, and the
eastern 15.1 acres to Low Density Residential.
No additional applications are pending at this time for the westerly 10 acres.
Tentative Tract Map 32119 is proposed for the eastern 15.1 acres, to subdivide the parcel into
48 single family residential lots, with lettered lots for streets. The minimum lot size is
proposed to be 7,866 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,151 square feet. Interior streets
are to be private. Access to the homes will be taken from Palm Royale Drive. No access is
proposed on Fred Waring Drive. The resulting density will be 3.2 units per acre. On site
retention is proposed through three retention basins.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
A:\EA Chklst.doc -1-
North: Vacant, Future school, (Office and High Density Residential)
South: Fred Waring Drive, existing single family development, (Medium Density
Residential and Open Space)
West: Washington Street, office development and existing residential development in City
of Palm Desert
East: Palm Royale Drive, with beyond single family development (Low Density
Residential
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
A:\EA Chklst.doc -2-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X 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
March 12, 2004
Date
A:\EA Chklst.doc -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
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.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -4- _. i
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) Both Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive are identified as Primary Image Corridors
in the General Plan. In addition, the intersection is considered a Primary Gateway
Treatment in the General Plan. These designations require that additional landscaping and
aesthetic improvements be made to the streetscape, and that substantial landscaping be
provided at the corner of the Neighborhood Commercial parcel. These requirements will
be implemented through the site development permit process for each of the two parcels
as they develop. The eastern 15 acres, on which the tract map is proposed, includes a
landscape parkway and wall treatment which will be required to meet the requirements
for a Primary Image Corridor.
The ultimate construction of homes on the site will result in single and/or two story
residences of limited height. The City restricts building heights in residential areas. The
AREA Chklst.doc -5- y
site is not adjacent or near any significant physical features or mountain ranges. No
impacts to aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
The ultimate construction of single family homes on the site will result in a slight
increase in light generation, primarily from parking lot (commercial areas) car headlights
and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to
spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not be significant.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -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
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land which has been significantly
impacted by off -road vehicle use and dumping. The parcel is not, nor has it been, in
agriculture. No Williamson Act contracts occur on the property. The site is not in an area
of agriculture, and the nearest agricultural lands are several miles to the south and east.
Development of the site will have no impact on agricultural resources.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not, in and of themselves, have an
impact on air quality. Buildout of the eastern 15.1 acres for residential land uses, rather
than community commercial land uses, however, will likely reduce the air quality impacts
as estimated in the General Plan EIR, since the generation of vehicle trips will be
considerably reduced (see Section XV., Traffic, below). Since the City's primary source
of pollution is the automobile, the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are
expected to result in fewer pollutant emissions than previously expected.
The Tentative Tract Map will ultimately result in the construction of 48 single family
homes, which could generate up to 456 trips per day'. The General Plan Amendment has
the potential to allow up to 152,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space.
This space could generate up to 6,545 average daily trips2. In total, therefore, the project
1 "Trip Generation, 6`b Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210.
2 "Trip Generation, 6`b Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Shopping Center category 820.
y �
AREA Chklst.doc -8-
area could generate up to 7,001 average trips per day. Based on this traffic generation, and
an average trip length of 6 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated
from the project site.
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
ounds Der da
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
7,001 x 6 = 42,006
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50
3,780.54 98,294.04 20,162.88
420.06 420.06
Pounds at 50 mph 8.35 216.98 44.51 - 0.93 0.93
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 7,001 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. Further, the impacts associated with the General Plan
Amendment to low density residential are likely to result in lower impacts than those
which could have been expected of a community commercial designation, since 25 acres
of community commercial space could generate 381,150 square feet of space, and 15,360
average daily trips, or more than twice those of the proposed project3. 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
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
"Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 20, 2002.
1
A:\EA Chkist.doc -9-
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 662.64 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Fred Waring and Palm Royale shall be
installed with the first phase of development on the site, as shall the project's
perimeter wall.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
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.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -10-
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.
_A j
AREA Chklst.doc -11-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p.
73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
AREA Chklst.doc -12-
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site occurs at the intersection of two major roadways in the City. It
is not designated as potential habitat for any species of concern in the General Plan,
except for Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard (see below). The site has been
significantly impacted by off -road access, illegal dumping and roadway and surrounding
construction, and is therefore isolated and degraded habitat. No biological impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed project site is located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. Any portion of the proposed project which is developed shall
be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at the time development occurs. This
mitigation measure shall reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
AREA Chklst.doc -13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the roject:
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, March, 2002.
Phase II Historical Study, Archaeological
Advisory Group, June, 2002.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment, Archaeological
Advisory Group, March, 2002.
Phase II Historical Study, Archaeological
Advisory Group, June, 2002.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (MEA Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment, Archaeological Advisory Group,
March, 2002.
Phase II Historical Study, Archaeological
Advisory Group, June, 2002.)
V. a)-d) Phase I and 11 cultural resource surveys were completed for the project site, as well as
surrounding lands4.The Phase I investigation recommended the completion of a Phase 11
study, based on the potential historic resources identified on the site. The Phase 11 study
made recommendations for mitigation measures which were confirmed by the Historic
Preservation Commission, as follows:
An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth moving
activities. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving
activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The archaeologist shall be
required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and
approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
"Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment...," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, March, 2002.
"Phase II Historical Study...," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June, 2002.
o-_
A:\EA Chklst.doc -14-
2. Commemorative plaques honoring Iona Mackenzie and Raymond Darby shall be
placed within the proposed project.
3. The main drive through the project shall be renamed from Palm Royale Drive to
Mackenzie Drive.
The proposed project site is outside the historic lake bed of Lake Cahuilla, and no
paleontological resources are expected to occur on the site.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, impacts to cultural
resources shall be reduced to a less than significant level.
4-
A:\EA Chklst.doc -15- T
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's
standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for
seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical
AREA Chklst.doc -16-
analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure
that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
The project site is located in an area of very severer 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 liquefaction or landslides, nor does it have expansive soils.
A:\EA Chkist.doc -17-
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)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
AREA Chklst.doc -18-
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VH. a)-h) The construction of residential and commercial uses on the proposed project site will not
result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. Any commercial
enterprise which might locate within the commercial portion of the project would be
required to comply with County, state and federal standards for the storage and transport
of such 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.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -19- n
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-87 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-87 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
A:\EA Chklst.doc -20- r. e
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
ff. )
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water
service for residential units, commercial uses 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 City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. No project is currently
proposed for the commercial portion of this application. When a project is proposed, it
will be required to demonstrate compliance with these standards. The residential tract
map includes the provision of three retention basins, which will also be required to
accommodate the 100 year storm. 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.
AREA Chklst.doc -21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in the potential for a
neighborhood shopping center and low density residential development. The loss of 25
acres of community commercial at this location is not significant, since the commercial
uses most appropriate in this area appear to be neighborhood uses, serving the primarily
residential land uses to the south and east. The addition of residential land in the City will
increase the inventory available, and provide an additional option for those seeking
housing in the City. The proposed Tract Map conforms to the General Plan and Zoning
standards in the Low Density designation and zoning district. 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 will be required to pay fees at the
time construction occurs.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
AREA Chklst.doc -23-
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 groundborne 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 includes sensitive receptors in the form of single family residential
units on Fred Waring Drive which will be subject to high noise levels due to traffic, and
will need to be studied as development occurs. In order to mitigate the potential impacts,
the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
AREA Chklst.doc -24- a
1. Project specific noise analysis shall be completed for all residential units within
300 feet of or Fred Waring, prior to the issuance of grading permits. The analysis
will include recommendations to assure that the City's interior and exterior noise
standards will be met for lots along the tract boundary.
The construction of either the commercial or residential projects will generate noise from
construction equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the east of the site. Homes
are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a
negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied
residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located in the northwestern portion of the site.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
The implementation of the above -listed mitigation measures will assure that impacts
associated with noise are reduced to less than significant levels.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Tract Map are proposed for currently
vacant desert lands, and will not displace an existing community. The change from
community commercial to neighborhood commercial is not a significant departure from
the General Plan, and supports General Plan policies relating to reviewing the land use
pattern in the City to ensure that the City is responsive to changes as they occur.
The development of the single family home project will be consistent with General Plan
and Zoning standards and will add to the options available to those seeking housing in the
community.
AREA Chklst.doc -26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIH. a)Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed
project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract.
Buildout of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The
project will be required to pay the mandated school fees and park in lieu fees in place at
the time of issuance of building permits.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -27-
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 48 residential units within the project will be supported by the
payment of the City's parkland fee, to mitigate any additional impact to City parks.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -28-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
("Traffic Impact Study," Hartzog & Crabill, Inc.,
June 20, 2002.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? ("Traffic Impact Study,"
Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 20, 2002.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative
Tract Map 32119)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 32119)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 32119)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
AREA Chkist.doc -29-
XV. a)-g) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for this property as well as surrounding properties
in 20025. The analysis found that the potential impacts associated with traffic from the
proposed site would be slightly lower than those analyzed in the General Plan. Since
preparation of the traffic study, the scope of the project, particularly for the properties
being considered under these applications, has been reduced. The Tentative Tract Map
will ultimately result in the construction of 48 single family homes, which could generate
up to 456 trips per day6. The General Plan Amendment has the potential to allow up to
152,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space. This space could generate
up to 6,545 average daily trips. In total, therefore, the project area could generate up to
7,001 average trips per day. The impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment to
low density residential are likely to result in lower impacts than those which could have
been expected of a community commercial designation, since 25 acres of community
commercial space could generate 381,150 square feet of space, and 15,360 average daily
trips, or more than twice those of the proposed project$.
The study found that mitigation measures will be required, however, to assure that project
and surrounding roadways operate within an acceptable level of service:
1. When Darby Road is aligned with Tucson, a traffic signal should be installed, as
well as a right -turn pocket on northbound Washington onto Darby Road
2. When the area of the tract map reaches buildout, or when traffic warrants are met,
whichever occurs first, a traffic signal shall be installed at Fred Waring Drive and
Palm Royale Drive.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with traffic
and circulation will be reduced to less than significant levels.
5 "Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 20, 2002.
6 "Trip Generation, Ob Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210.
7 "Trip Generation, Oh Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Shopping Center category 820.
8 "Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 20, 2002.
AREA Chklst.doc -30-
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.)
s
A:\EA Chklst.doc -31-
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.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -32-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
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, and by providing an opportunity for
amendment when land use patterns show a change in the community's needs. The
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are reflective of policies.
AREA Chklst.doc -33-
XVII. c) The construction of 48 residential units and 152,500 square feet of neighborhood
commercial space is less than could potentially occur on this site, will not have
considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan.
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 PM10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation
measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been
mitigated above to less than significant levels.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
A:\EA Chklst.doc -34-
O+�za
�
0
x
0
0
x
3
3
O
b
M
N
OO
�
�
O
�
a
0
o
�
a
OU�
F
�
N
�
¢aaa
¢
N
o
06
0
06
aN
003
.,
o
�
C�UcNn�E�
oz
z�
z
x�
F�1
A
U
Wd
E•
A
a
U
UU
Ca y
c�
N
N
U
U
¢b�
W
�?
:?
to
bb
�
�
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
z
u
U
a
U
U
.
o o 0o
to
ago
a
a
..
.
..
04
ap
u
to
to
to
to
W)
aoto
U
U
U
U A
CA
GQ
z
C
0r
u
N
°
o
�
�
E.,
a
v�
F
a
o
"aa
tb
b .
O+
°
r.
�
r
b r.
'
U
a
x
�
Cd
°�'
o
%
Q.
0 Cd '
A
as
S�,
b
ice.
wa
w
Qn
U
cn
0
W
(1)
u
�o
a
a�
b
tt
W
E�
4
U
UU
W
o
0
•U
0
•U
U
t7
z
�
�D
0
o
to
0
A
r.�
a�
on
Q
i
cl
F�
cl
an0-4 to
o
a
0
a
�? to
Cd
a
a�
�
�
C)
O cl
cd
t)
w
F
d
d�
a
U
UU
0
a.+
•
• U
U
rA
o
U
U
�
�
a0
A �
Ca
Q
Q
b
b
b
z
`�0
4
'b
(1)
o
C
Ell
.n
-o
10.
cNC
O
G7 W
op
a
o
� ai
i.r
aW
�
o
a,
a°
rL
w
aw
Q.
a�
o
0
o
z�
C
U
C
U
v)
w
F
A
z
d
0-4
U
UU
a
U
S S
0
U
z
�
a�
a
o�
z
�a
0
zF
O C
•� �
U U
o � �
a
bA
io
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
FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-098
MAYER VILLA CAPRI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23RD day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Mayer Villa Capri for approval of a General Plan Amendment from
Community Commercial (CC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for 15 ± acres and
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for 10 ± acres for property located on the northeast
corner of Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as:
Parcels 1 and 2, Parcel Map 31876
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment application has complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2004-498. The
Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the General Plan Amendment
results in promoting a residential character for 10 ± acres of land and the
Community Commercial is consistent with the minimum lot size requirements.
2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the resulting
project will provide adequate setbacks, be well designed and landscaped, and
will comply with all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements.
p:\stan\mayer villa capri\gpa 2004-098 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
General Plan Amendment 2004-098
Mayer Villa Capri
Adopted: March 23, 2004
3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent properties in that the
resulting Low Density Residential project is similar in nature with surrounding
single family residences and the Neighborhood Commercial is similar to the
previous Community Commercial.
4. The General Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in that
it will allow development of commercial development at the intersection of
Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive and single-family residences on Fred
Waring Drive in conjunction with those on adjacent land.
5. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because the
Neighborhood Commercial lot size complies with the minimum size required and
the Low Density Residential provides a buffer for those existing residential
properties to the east from the future commercial to the west and north.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2004-098 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as shown in the attached Exhibit "A."
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23RD day of March, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
General Plan Amendment 2004-098
Mayer Villa Capri
Adopted: March 23, 2004
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
EXHIBIT "A"
l�
H
PALM DESERT
HOMEY LANE
ITJ
w
tn
5
6
z
3
CALLS LAS aR1SAS
FREE WARING DRIVE
INDIAN WELLS
CASE MAP
BERMUDA DUNES
AVENUE 42
Zo wW pelt4s"N t ►5 n�c.
U.va)
PALM . ROYALE
DRIVE
LA. QUINTA
CASE No.: ClegWj, pt.4l MMMCµQNE► r Xoq-098 �..�
A4VUU44T,- r(64- 141 "* LAPw SCALE: rl •'C• 5.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 2004-
118
CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2004-118
MAYER VILLA CAPRI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23RD day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Mayer Villa Capri for a Zone Change from Community Commercial (CC) to
Low Density Residential (RVL) for 15 ± acres and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for
10 ± acres for property located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Fred
Waring Drive, more particularly described as:
Parcels 1 and 2, Parcel Map 31876
WHEREAS, said Zone Change application has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the La Quinta Community Development
Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2004-498. The Community
Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of said Zone Change.
1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and
policies of the General Plan in that the Zone Change will be consistent provided the
associated General Plan is approved.
2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning
Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that
the resulting projects are well designed and adequate conditions of approval are
imposed.
3. The new zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent
properties because the project on the subject property will be designed to reduce
potential impacts from adjacent properties that are planned to be developed with
commercial and school uses.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Zone Change 2004-118
Mayer Villa Capri
Adopted: March 23, 2004
4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved
because they will be designed to be compatible with adjacent properties and reduce
potential impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change
2004-1 18;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 23RD day of March, 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
PASTAMmayer villa capri\zc 2004-1 18 pc res.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
PALM DESERT
H0M-EY LANE
�i
W
Z
6
Z
2
CALLS LAS aRISAS
FRED WARING DRIVE
INDIAN WELLS
CASE MAP
CASE Na : ft t1r.. a4Ar1 F-- ?,00s4 I t
A?KALWI M144piL giWk cPt=i
BERMUDA DUNES
AVENUE 42
py�l► '. COM IMU N ct�( fAtµMO" I At,
cv-)
Yo LDW ftt461ry Pf,*LDf1'1
PALM ROYALE
DRIVE
LA. QUINTA
Ff6t-j COMKU µ �YN coMMP94,.ackc
To riel4q o c-"" cam►+-(p")
NORTH
SCALE:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF
15 ± ACRES INTO 48 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32119
TRANS WEST HOUSING
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23`d day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Trans West Housing for the subdivision of 15 ± gross acres into 48 single-
family residential lots and miscellaneous lots, located at the northeast corner of
Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as:
Parcels 1 and 2, Parcel Map 31876
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development
Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2004-498 and has determined
that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate
mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 321 19:
1. The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and zoning
requirements with approval of General Plan Amendment 2004-098 and Zone
Change 2004-118 in that its lots and improvements conform to applicable
goals, policies, and development standards, in terms of lot size, street widths,
and utilities and provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities.
2. The design of the subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to
create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife ortheir
habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been imposed to
mitigate those impacts.
P:\STAN\mayer villa capri\tt 32119 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Mayer Villa Capri
Adopted: March 23, 2004
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems because the improvements are
existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal
requirements.
4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or
use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 32119 to the City
Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23RD day of March, 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
p:\stan\mayer villa capri\tt 32119 pc res,doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32119 — TRANS WEST HOUSING
ADOPTED: MARCH 23, 2004
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative
Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply
with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain 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.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-321 191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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) Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — The required 60
feet right of way dedication to the centerline of Fred Waring Drive
has been dedicated per the recorded approved Parcel Map 27131
and Tentative Parcel Map 31876. No additional right of way is
required to comply with General Plan street widths.
2) Palm Royale Drive (Pursuant to Parcel Map No. 27131 and
Tentative Parcel Map 31876 - Collector Street, 72' ROW) — Street
right of way has been dedicated according to the recorded
approved Parcel Map 27131 and Tentative Tract Map 31876. No
additional right of way is required to comply with General Plan
street widths, except for an additional right of way dedication to
accommodate improvements conditioned under
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-
of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line: 36-foot
travel width measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line. The
travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to
one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking is prohibited, and
provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and
visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing
enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's
shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to
recordation.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative
map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on
the tentative map.
C. KNUCKLE
1) The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative
tract map except for minor revision as may be required by the City
Engineer.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street
geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design
aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane
widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s), and bus stop turnout(s). The
studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and
auxiliary lanes that may impact the right-of-way dedication required of the
project and the associated landscape setback requirement.
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior
to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall
grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the
City.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public
utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets.
Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written
approval of IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-
of-ways as follows:
A. Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
B. Palm Royale Drive (Collector Street) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L as
dedicated on the approved Parcel Map 27131 and Tentative Tract Map
31876.
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.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
16. Direct vehicular access to Fred Waring Drive from lots with frontage along Fred
Waring 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.
17. Direct vehicular access to Palm Royale Drive from lots with frontage along Palm
Royale Drive is restricted, except for those access points identified on the
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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
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
C:\Docurnents and Setting s\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-321 191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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 berming design in the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
B. On -Site Street Plan:
1 " = 4' Vertical
C. On -Site Rough Grading Plan
D. On -Site Precise Grading Plan:
1 " = 40' Horizontal,
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall
& Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-
foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
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 may be fully
retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
CADocurnents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-321 191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
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.
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.
i
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final
Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the
costs of such improvements.
29. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant
shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and
off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey
monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such
estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or
ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall
also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the
Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's
detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
30. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or
fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City
shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project,
or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
32. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
!' a
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
33. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit
and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared
in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
34. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
35. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F)
except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum
slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for
the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not
exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first
six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of
sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the
right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-321191 Am
i,
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen
inches 0 8") behind the curb.
36. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless
the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these
Conditions of Approval.
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.
nRAINAC;F
39. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basin(s) 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.
40. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two
inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the
applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-321 191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent
system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be
designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and
infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
42. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
43. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
44. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be
planted with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual
lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet.
45. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback
lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the
setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The
perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped
with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
46. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
47. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into
the historic drainage relief route.
48. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
UTILITIES
49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
50. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves,
and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
51. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles
are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
52. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City
Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access
For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and
Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are
proposed.
54. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is
approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a
minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to
standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
55. The applicant may elect to construct the following public street improvements
to conform with the General Plan as conditioned of Tentative Tract Map No.
31876.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
CADocuments and Setting s\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
1) Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial; 120' R/W):
a) Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent
to the Tentative Tract Map boundary to its ultimate width on
the north side as specified in the General Plan and the
requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or
reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to
augment and convert it from a rural county -road design
standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The
north curb face shall be located forty-eight feet (48') north of
the centerline.
Other required improvements in the Fred Waring Drive right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk
shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes
concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line
that either touches the back of curb or approaches within
five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and
300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius
should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout.
The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot
and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals
not to exceed 250 feet.
c) Construct an 18 - foot wide raised landscaped median along
the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map. plus
variable width as needed to accommodate a left turn lane
for northbound traffic at the Palm Royale Drive.
d) The applicant shall install the traffic signal at the Fred
Waring Drive and Palm Royale Drive intersection when
warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for a prorated
share of the cost to design and install the traffic signal. The
applicant shall enter upon an agreement with the Desert
is
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
Sands Unified School District for the remaining obligation.
The applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for its
prorate share of the cost to design and install the traffic
signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit and the
security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal
is actually installed by the applicant or the Desert Sands
Unified School District. The above cost for design and
installation of the traffic signal may be reduced
proportionately by existing participatory security from Tract
28457 and 28458 and other participatory developments.
2. Palm Royale Drive - Pursuant to Parcel Map No. 27131, 72'
ROW:
Widen the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Tract Map
boundary to its ultimate 48-foot width pursuant to Parcel Map No. 27131
and the requirements of these conditions.
Other required improvements in the Palm Royale Drive right or way
and/or adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b► 6-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk.
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic
control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
56. The applicant shall construct the following private street improvements to
conform with the General Plan.
A. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Private residential streets except for entry drive at Palm Royale
Drive - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements
where the residential streets are double loaded.
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-321 191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
B. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the
tentative Tract 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.
C. KNUCKLE
1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the
tentative Tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required
by the City Engineer.
57. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted
vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at
a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not
gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around out onto the
main street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one
lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner
cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the
approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be
determined by the City Engineer.
The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned
above per any unilateral agreement with the developer of Tentative Parcel Map
No. 31876. If said construction is performed as part of Tentative Tract Map
32119, the development is eligible for reimbursement from the City's
Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that
program. The cost of improvements expended by the applicant from the
centerline of Fred Waring Drive to within 20 feet of the outer curb face is
eligible for reimbursement. The applicant is responsible for the remaining cost
of the improvements.
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\COA - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
CONSTRUCTION
58. 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
59. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
60. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
61. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
62. 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.
63. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
64. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-321191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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
68. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
69. 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
70. 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.
71. 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).
C:\Documents and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK7\C0A - TM-321 191.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 32119 — Trans West Housing
Adopted: March 23, 2004
FIRE MARSHAL
72. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with during Final Map
plan check.
MISCELLANEOUS
73. Within 24 hours of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, the
developer shall submit to the Community Development Department, a check
made out to the County of Riverside for $1,314 to allow filing of a Notice of
Determination for Environmental Assessment 2003-498 as required by State
law.
74. The tract shall be provided with masonry walls along the perimeter. Adjacent to
commercial zoning and school site wall may be seven feet high. Perimeter wall
designs including height, color, material, design shall approved by the
Community development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the
wall.
75. Proposed street names with a minimum of two alternative names per street
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval.
Names are to be approved prior to recordation of the final map.
76. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2003-498 shall
be met.
77. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community
Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the project.
78. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval,
unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of
Division 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
79. Approval of production homes and common area buildings requires processing
and approval of a Site Development Permit application by the Planning
Commission.
CADocuments and Settings\bsawyer\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7\C0A - TM-321 191.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: OSCAR ORCI, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: March 23, 2004
SUBJECT: CONTINUED APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE 9693
ROBERT AND BARBARA VALDIVIA
The Planning Commission initially reviewed this matter at the November 25, 2003
meeting. At that meeting the City's Prosecutor and the applicant requested the item
be continued to allow the applicant the opportunity to work out some issues.
This case is still pending, as Mr. Valdivia continues to work with the Building & Safety
Department. At this time Staff is requesting the item be continued to April 27, 2004
to provide the Building & Safety Department ample time for review, revisions, and
issuance of the building permit.
P:\va1divia\3-24 memo
FOR THE FIRM:
Mark A. Ostoich
E-Mail:
mark eatoirhtiercafiamravaearom
GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
LAWYERS - FOUNDED 1910
600 NORTH ARROWHEAD AVENUE, SUITE 300
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401-1148
(909) 884-2171 - FACSIMILE (909) 888-2120
www.greshamsavage.com
March 23, 2004
VIA E-MAIL
Mr. Timothy R. Jonasson
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Re: Site Development Permit 2004-800
Dear Mr. Jonasson:
-AL
We represent Washington 111, Ltd., the owner of the real pIvFVlry wuL1,u lA tu%o AUUJ�,u&
matter of the above -referenced Site Development Permit.
Without intending to limit our client's right to comment on other proposed conditions of
approval, the purpose of this letter is to advise you of our client's strong objection to Condition
of Approval 32.A.1)d), which provides as follows:
"The Applicant is responsible for 25% of the cost for design and installation of a
traffic signal at the Washington Street and Simon Drive intersection if required of
Tentative Tract No. 31348 on the west side of Washington Street and when
warranted. The Applicant shall enter upon an agreement with the Developer of
Tentative Tract No. 31348, Madison Development, LLC, for their prorated share
obligation."
As you know, the larger project implemented by the above -referenced Site Development
Permit, is the subject of Washington Park Specific Plan, Amendment No. 4, which was approved
by the City Council in November, 2002. In connection with the approval, the City Council made
all required findings, including findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act,
and the approval has now become final and non -appealable. In support of the California
Environmental Quality Act findings made by the City Council, the City prepared an
environmental document, which identified and evaluated the impacts of the project contemplated
by the Specific Plan Amendment. All identified impacts were mitigated through the imposition
of mitigation measures and those mitigation measures became the subject of conditions of
approval.
RIVERSIDE OFFICE - 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 250, P.O. BOX 1240, RIVERSIDE, CA 92502-1240 - (909) 684-2171 - FACSIMILE (909) 684-2150
VICTORVILLE OFFICE - 14350CIVIC DRIVE, SUITE 120, VICTORVILLE, CA 92392 - (760) 243-2889 - FACSIMILE (760) 243-0467
GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
Mark A. Ostoich
City of La Quinta
March 23, 2004
Page 2
Nowhere within the foregoing transactions was a mitigation measure or condition of
approval requiring a traffic signal at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive.
Moreover, the development contemplated by the above -referenced Site Development Permit is
within the scope of the environmental document that supported approval of the Specific Plan
Amendment and will not, independently, cause any impacts not already identified and evaluated
in that environmental document.
As we are sure you know, conditions of approval require a reasonable nexus to the
project on which they are being imposed. Since there is no nexus here, we urge you to delete
proposed Condition of Approval 32.A.1)d). Please advise us in writing of the City's intentions.
Very truly yours,
Mark A. Ostoich, of
GRESHAM, SAVAGE,
NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
MAOlpmj
cc: June Greek, City Clerk
Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager
Oscar Orci, Planning Department
Jack Tarr
William Guillermo Sanchez
NAW742\000U. ACity of La Quinta-01
The Keith Companies Irlim
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 Speck 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
T 76 uR,.
A 40889.00