The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 06 26 PCT4ht 4 4Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.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 June 26, 2001 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2001-088 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-012 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. I11. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on June 26, 2001. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 Applicant........... Starlight Management, Inc. Location............ 78-099 Calle Estado Request ............. Review of use, architectural, landscaping, site plans, lighting plans, and sign program for a multi -tenant office building Action ............... Resolution 2001- B. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077, AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-100 Applicant........... NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership Location............ Bounded on the north by Avenue 52, on the eat by Monroe Street, on the south by Avenue 53, and east of the existing City limits Request ............. Certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a change in zoning and General Plan designation to Low Density Residential for approximately 240 acres within the City of La Quinta's Sphere of Influence. Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ............ Request ............. Action ............... SIGN APPLICATION 2001-554 Palm Royale Country Club Southeast corner of Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive Request for a monument sign Minute Motion 2001- Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of June 19, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 12, 2001 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 Robbins who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Engineering Assistant Hector Guzman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 22, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 12, Item 20 be corrected to say General Plan "Amendment". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties, Inc. (Charles and Normal Fausel), for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the subdivision of approximately 37.08 acres into 97 single family and other common lots for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street GAWPD0CS\PC6-12-01.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2001 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted changes requested by the Public Works Department to Conditions #48.A.2, 3, and 57.E. The applicant was requesting changes to Condition #4 and #40. Staff stated they were both standard conditions and is not recommending those changes be made. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked why this was being processed prior to annexation. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it expedited the application. Once the annexation had been completed, the project could start. 3. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether or not the site was subject to liquefaction. He then asked if this annexation would square off the City boundaries at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. Staff stated yes. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were 36-wide rights of way. Staff stated that was correct for a public right of way. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Hacker, Hacker Engineering, representing the applicant, questioned Condition #40 and asked if they would be penalized for using the extra foot of freeboard on the retention basin. It was his understanding that staff had approved this request. There would be no lot retention. In regard to the liquefaction zone, he is unaware of it being in this zone. Staff stated it may be that the note needs to be changed on the tract map. If this was true, a condition would be added. Engineering Assistant Hector Guzman stated five feet of water is the standard with the freeboard and therefore the plans conform. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-087, certifying Environmental Assessment 2001- 417, as submitted. G:\WPD0CS\PC6-12-01.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-088, approving Tentative Tract Map 30092, as amended. a. Condition #48.A.1 & 2: Add "construct a 'landscape' half median". b. Condition #48.A.3: Developer shall enter into a secured agreement for the deferred installation of a traffic signal at the main entrance off Avenue 58 at such time that signal warrants are met. Developer shall pay its fair share based on an "after the fact" traffic study. Developer may assign secured agreements to the HOA. Signalized intersection costs to be divided based on percentages of use to the participating developments. C. Condition #57.B. Emergency Access on Monroe Street - No public access allowed; let turns are restricted. d. Add Condition #84. Revise the Tract Map exhibit map to reflect the Geotechnical Investigation Report regarding liquefaction. A. Zoning Code Amendment 2000-066 a request of the City for review of applicability and impact of the current Water Efficient Ordinance on development proposals. 1. Staff requested this item be continued to the Commission meeting of August 28, 2001. 2. It was moved and seconded by Tyler/Abels to continue this item to August 28, 2001. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding the Planning Commission summer meeting dates. The Commission determined they would be dark on August 14, 2001. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of May 15, 2001. G:\WPD0CS\PC6-12-01.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2001 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held June 26, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7: p.m. on June 12, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPD0CS\PC6-12-01.wpd 4 PH #A DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: ZONING DESIGNATIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 26, 2001 VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. LENCH DESIGN GROUP REVIEW OF USE, ARCHITECTUD SIGN PROGRAM FOR A PLANS, LIGHTING PLANS, AN MULTI -TENANT OFFICE BUILDING. 78-099 CALLE ESTADO ON SITE: ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES: ON SITE: ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) ENVIRONMENTAL LOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DETERMINED THAT THES PROJECT S EXEMPLA FROM T TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SECTION 15303 (NEW CONS STRUCTURES) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. BACKGROUND. The project site is a 5,000 square foot vacant lot within the Village Commercial District. The proposed building consists of 4 office units totaling which stipulateguare that village The land uses is subject to the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, are to include a diverse mix of retail, office, and residential at varying densities and scale. Multi -story commercial retail/office projects shall generally locate office uses on upper floors, but are reviewed on a site -specific basis. Page 1 Project Proposal The proposed 30 1/2 foot tall, two-story building will have a side face gable roof covered with red clay "S" tile. The proposed tower located at the northwest corner of the building will have a hipped roof and house the mechanical equipment. The tower will be supported by heavy stucco pilasters. The project proposes a variety of materials. The exterior finish features stucco plaster walls in Miami Peach, with Sandstone and Southern Coral as accent colors. A color and materials exhibit will be available at the meeting. The second story features a balcony. The proposed balcony will be covered with a post (8 X 8) and beam trellis. The proposed balustrade will have wood channel with wrought iron square pickets. The first floor facade features five pilasters with pedestal bases. In between each of these pilasters are large mulV-pane storefront windows and doors. The window frames will consist of 6 inch foam trim. At the northwest corner of the building is the stairway leading up to the second floor. A second exterior stairway is located at the rear of the building providing secondary access for the second floor offices. Small fixed clear pane glass windows and doors are also used on this side of the building. The rear elevation balcony will have a low stucco wall. The east and west elevations are large, plain expanses of stuccoed wall which face the adjacent properties. These walls are fire separation walls as the building is located on the property lines. On -site parking is provided at the rear of the building and is accessed from the service alley that runs parallel to Calle Estado on the south. A trash enclosure is located at the southeast corner of the lot and will be accessed through the service alley. Parking Requirements The parking lot will provide a total of six spaces. Four of the spaces, located against the rear of the building, will be shaded by the cantilevering of a portion of the top floor over the ground floor. The remaining two parking spaces will remain uncovered. Section 9.150.060 of the Parking Ordinance requires one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, which results in 20.54 spaces normally being required for the building. Landscaping The conceptual landscaping plan consists of a variety of plants, including trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The applicant included a plant list on the site plan. Two planters are proposed for the rear of the building in the parking lot. A 6-foot high masonry block wall, painted to match the building, is proposed around the trash enclosure. In the front of the building, the City has installed one tree in a tree well with decorative cast iron grates in the sidewalk. The grates will have a circular design as indicated in the detail. Page 2 Li htin Proposed exterior lighting fixtures are called out on the floor plan. Proposed are 6" horizontal single lamp downlights in the front of the building and flush mounted lamps in the rear of the building. Signs The proposed sign program includes a permanent building identification sign on the facade at the upper northeast corner of the building, and dedicated sign spaces above each office for tenants. The identification sign will consist of individually mounted 9" high aluminum letters in the University Roman font style. The signs will not be illuminated. The tenant signs will be mounted flush with the building. Lettering will be of uniform style and materials consistent with the identification sign. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed this project at its meeting of June 6, 2001, and determined that the design was acceptable as presented, with minor modifications. The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001-026 recommending approval to the Planning Commission, subject to conditions. Public Notice This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 15, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received regarding this project. MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request per Zoning Code Section 9.65.040(F) - (Village Use Permit) can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution with the exception of the following: Architectural Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed building architecture does comply with the architectural guidelines of the adopted Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines. The proposed design, scale, and place will lend itself to the Village environment by providing for pedestrian space and an attractive streetscape with the inclusion of the trees in sidewalk wells across the front of the building, including the balcony. The entries into the offices are accessed directly from the pedestrian oriented street. The window and door openings are proportionate to the building and allow maximum light for both floors, as well as visual interest to encourage pedestrian activity. The building mass and scale is compatible with that of surrounding commercial structures. A one story building exists to the east of the proposed structure, while the lot to the west is currently vacant. The building has been designed with appropriate architectural variation Page 3 and detailing to break up future monotonous building elevations with the balcony, columns, stairways, and trims. The use of the stucco finish and glass produce textures that are interesting and inviting. The formal columns and other architectural treatments help create the appearance of a highly designed project consistent with the historic Village themes, however, to further enable the proposed building to be compatible with the design guidelines and give the appearance of a highly designed building, staff recommends in Condition No. 36 that the stucco finish be smooth troweled. Parking Design. Section 9.65.030 of the Zoning Code stipulates that parking area requirements for permitted uses in the Village shall be determined by staff as set forth in Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code with the consideration that variations to any parking standards can be approved. Staff has determined that the five proposed parking spaces are adequate to serve the needs of this project. Street parking will supplement available on -site parking. Setbacks. Section 9.65.030 of the Zoning Code stipulates that development along either Avenida La Fonda or Calle Estado have a 10 foot front setback. This setback was established to provide pedestrian access within their property as the City provided no right of way for a sidewalk. The City is currently in the process of improving both of these streets, including the addition of a sidewalk 6 to 9 feet wide. This is consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Village, adopted July 7, 1998, that states "rights -of -way for Calle Estado and Avenida La Fonda, between Desert Club and Bermudas, shall be investigated for reduction and redesign of medians, curbs and sidewalks to allow better pedestrian movement and on -street parking design." Therefore, Staff, at the request to the Planning Commission, will process a text amendment to eliminate the currently required setback. (Condition No. 37) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Village Use Permit 2001- 009, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Resolution. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Project Exhibits (Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations) 3. ALRC Minutes of June 6, 2001 Prepared by: Submitted by: t Michele Rambo, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF A TWO-STORY MULTI - TENANT GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING, LOCATED AT 78- 099 CALLE ESTADO. CASE NO. VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 261 day of June, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of Starlight Management, Inc., to consider a Village Use Permit for a two-story multi -tenant general office building, more particularly described as: LOT 7, BLOCK 9, UNIT NO. 1 DESERT CLUB TRACT, LA QUINTA APN: 770-152-007 WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Village Use Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. As designed and conditioned, the design and improvements are consistent with the current goals and objectives of La Quinta General Plan, and the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, in that the two-story, multi -tenant office building meets the policies and goals for small businesses offering goods and services in the Village Commercial area. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. As designed and conditioned, the proposal is consistent with most current standards of the Zoning Code in that the existing VC (Village Commercial) Zoning District provides for approval of certain uses deemed desirable in the Village downtown for the convenience of residents, visitors, and businesses but have impacts which must be mitigated by conditions specific to each proposed use. The shortage of required on -site parking is allowable through the approval of the Planning Commission due to the size of the lot and the existence of other parking in the area designed to compensate for the parking shortage. 3. Compliance with CEQA. This proposed project has been determined to be exempt from environmental assessment pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act which exempts office buildings not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances and not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use, and where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally Page 1 sensitive. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. Surrounding Uses. As designed and conditioned, the design of the two-story multi - tenant office building is not likely to cause serious public health problems, or adversely impact the general public welfare or safety, in that the Fire Department, Community Development Department, and the City's Building & Safety Department have reviewed the project for these issues with no concerns identified. 5. Architectural Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed building architecture does comply with the architectural guidelines of the adopted Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines with respect to design, scale, mass, place, and appropriate architectural detailing including the wrought iron banister and smooth troweled stucco finish. 6. Site Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed office building is consistent with the development standards for the Village Commercial Zoning District with respect to setbacks, building height of 30' 6", parking and traffic circulation with access from the service alley, trash facility, location of landscaping planters in the rear parking lot, shading for parking provided by the cantilevering of the building, and required street improvements to the service alley and Calle Estado. 7. Landscape Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines with respect to the design of the landscaping for the parking lot, appropriate plant species, and the tree in a tree -well in the front sidewalk to provide pedestrian shading and soften the appearance of the building. 8. Sign Proaram. As designed and conditioned, the proposed locations and design for signs provides balance and aesthetic appeal while communicating necessary information about tenants. 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 said Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Village Use Permit, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. JUNE 26, 2001 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this 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 preceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Approval of this Village Use Permit is subject to compliance with Sections 9.65 and 9.150.050(D) of the Zoning Code, as applicable. 3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved and contained in the file for Village Use Permit 2001-009, unless amended by the following conditions. 4. The approved Village Use Permit shall be used within two years from City approval date of June 26, 2001; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means beginning of substantial construction as allowed by this approval. A one year time extension may be requested pursuant to Section 9.200.080(D) of the Zoning Code. 5. Prior to issuance of a grading, construction, or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. JUNE 26, 2001 The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Calle Estado - no dedication required 2) Service Alley - no dedication required 8. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. GRADING 9. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. JUNE 26, 2001 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 11 _ Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 12. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 16.6, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 13. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. UTILITIES 15. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 16. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlaying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. JUNE 26, 2001 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 17. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Access is prohibited to Calle Estado. Property access will be from the service alley adjacent to the south of the property. Note that the service alley will be restricted to one-way traffic, the direction of which will be determined by the City at a later date. LANDSCAPING 18. The applicant shall provide landscaping consisting of specimen sized trees in "tree wells" within the required sidewalk and adjacent to the curb along Calle Estado to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 19. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. 20. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. MAINTENANCE 21. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 22. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. JUNE 26, 2001 FIRE MARSHAL CONDITIONS 23. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 24. Minimum fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration. Fire flow is based on type VN construction and a complete fire sprinkler system. 25. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 square feet or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 standard. 26. Approved super fire hydrants shall be located not less than 25 feet, nor more than 165 feet, from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. 27. Provide primary and secondary access for emergency vehicles. 28. Gates (if any) shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 29. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible material being placed on an individual lot. 30. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 31. Install a KNOX key box. Contact the Fire Department for an application. 32. Install portable fire extinguishers in cabinets throughout the complex. MISCELLANEOUS 33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building elevations shall be revised to indicate that the stucco shall be smooth trowel finished. 34. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall post traffic directional signs indicating one-way traffic for the service alley. The number, design, and location of these signs shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-009 STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC. JUNE 26, 2001 35. Final plans for all exterior lighting fixtures shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. 36. Prior to issuance of building permit, the balustrade shall be replaced with metal railing and pickets and the roof shall include design relief through random mudding and colors. 37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, reduce the building to provide a 10 foot front setback unless a text amendment to the Zoning Code allowing the building on the front property line is adopted. If modified, the applicant shall be required to process a quitclaim for the sidewalk easement, if one exists. Page 6 E ATTACHMENT #1 ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 6, 2001 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the Post Offic was moving. Staff stated not at this time. When and if a n post office is built this office will stay at this location. 3. Committee Member Reynolds stated his concern w the chain link fence. If he was to approve the funding reque he would want the fence removed. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about t e wall on the north side of the building. Discussion followed aso where the retaining wall was located. 5. Committee Member Cunningham tated he was not in favor of the shade cloth as it would only Fe temporary fix. He would suggest that if the chain link fencee to stay, then the insert slates should be used instead of oth. 6. Committee Member Bbitt stated the chain link fence is not an asset to the commuriA v. 7. Committee Mem r Cunningham stated it is a nonconforming use and at least w' the inserts the interior is not visible from the street. Discus ion followed relative to the different improvements to be made. 8. There be g no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commi ee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001 025 recommending approval of Capital Property Im ovement Program 2001-010 with the deletion of the shade cloth. Unanimously approved with a total score of 90. B. Village Use Permit 2000-009; a request of Starlight Management, Inc. for review of landscaping and architectural plans for a multi -tenant general office building within the La Quinta Village. 1. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Staff introduced Skip Lench, designer for the project, who explained the newest revisions to the building. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there were any setbacks on this lot. Staff stated no. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC6-6-0l .wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 6, 2001 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated he liked the revisions as proposed. He asked if the applicant could use a flash tile to soften the look. Mr. Lench stated he had done a modification to the mudding on the the roof on another house and he would ask staff to look at it. They used three different colors and added mudding on a random basis. Committee Member Cunningham asked about the railings. Mr. Lench stated they used metal to have it last with wood beams. Committee Member Cunningham suggested they use a metal railing as well using texture and design. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if planters with vines could be added to the back of the buildings. On the front, less landscaping is better due to the building being so close to the street. Staff stated the City has a landscape plan for the street frontage and the applicant will have to conform to that plan. Mr. Lench stated they could add some planters to the rear elevation to soften the look. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Reynolds adopt Minute Motion 2001-026 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2001- 009, subject to the conditions as modified. a. Condition #1: Prior to issuance of building permit the balustrade shall be replaced with metal railing and pickets and the roof shall include design relief through random mudding and colors. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on July 11, 2001. This meeting was adjourned at 10:44 a.m. on June 6, 2001. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California GAWPD0CS\ALRC6-6-0 l.wpd 3 PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 26, 2001 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077, AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-100 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 2. APPROVAL OF A PRE -ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION 2B (2-5 UNIT PER ACRE)TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UNITS PER ACRE) 3. ZONE CHANGE FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION OF A-1-20 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) LOCATION: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY AVENUE 52, ON THE EAST BY MONROE STREET, ON THE SOUTH BY AVENUE 53, AND EAST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS APPLICANT: NRI, LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077, ZONE CHANGE 2001-100, AND ANNEXATION 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. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 2B(2-5 DU/AC) PROPOSED CITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COUNTY ZONING: A-1-20 PROPOSED CITY ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL G AWPDOCS\PCStfRptCCDes.wpd BACKGROUND: The subject property is currently located outside the City limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence and located generally at the southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52. The applicant has requested annexation into the City of La Quinta. Prior to annexation, the City requires that the General Plan designation and pre -zoning be established to City standards. Project Request The General Plan and Zoning designations proposed by the applicant are for Low Density Residential development. The requested land use and zoning designations are compatible with the surrounding development in the area which is characterized by single family residences around golf course development. Mrs. Walters, a property owner of the 40-acre parcel north west of Avenue 53 and Monroe Street, currently operates a grape vineyard. She has specifically indicated that she will continue her operation. Under current zoning regulations for the City of La Quinta, the property once annexed would be allowed to continue its operation for ever or until the current or future property owner chooses to discontinues the activity. Public Notice These applications were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 11, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. CONCLUSION: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Pre -annexation Zone Change are consistent with General Plan goals, policies and programs for a varied housing stock. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-418. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-077, subject to the findings. G: \WPDOCS\PCStfRptCCDes.wpd 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-100, subject to the findings. Prepared and submitted by: terry Hermari, Community Development Director G AWPDOCS\PCStfRptCCDes.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- 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 2001-418 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077, ZONE CHANGE 2001-100, AND ANNEXATION, ESTABLISHING PRE -ANNEXATION DESIGNATIONS FOR 240 ACRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418 APPLICANT: NRI, LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of June, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-418 for General Plan Amendment 2001-077, Zone Change 2001-100, and annexation, generally located at the southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as follows: APN 767-200-002, 003, 004, 005, 007, 008, 009, 010 AND 01 1 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 2001-418) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval 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 General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100 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 2001-418. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001 -011 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 G:\WPDOCS\PCResCCDEAAnnex.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Environmental Assessment 2001-418 NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership - Country Club of the Desert 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 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100 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 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100 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 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100 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 the Environmental Assessment 2001- 418 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 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. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G:\WPDOCS\PCResCCDEAAnnex.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Environmental Assessment 2001-418 NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership - Country Club of the Desert 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-418 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-418 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PCResCCDEAAnnex.wpd ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-077, Change of Zone 2001- 100, Pre -Annexation land use designation and zoning 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Bounded on the north by Avenue 52, on the east by Monroe Street, on the south by Avenue 53, and east of the existing City limits. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: NRI/LQLP 81-100 Avenue 53 La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Proposed: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Proposed: 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.) General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to assign land use and zoning designations for an annexation application to the City of La Quinta. The proposed designation is Low Density Residential. The current County General Plan designation is 2B 2-5 units per acre. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Developed polo grounds South: Approved golf and low density residential development, Country Club of the Desert West: Approved golf and low density residential development, Country Club of the Desert East: Vacant desert lands and agriculture 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Local Agency Formation Commission G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. WPD 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 Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the: basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" 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 pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature May 24y 2001 Date W G:\WPCIOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD Fa 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 reference 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact." to a "Less 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 XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis 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). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a 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) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X E/ ri X III 121 ►0 G:\W PDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. W PD IV. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, polices, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Int:erfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed Delineation Map) X X X X X X X X 94 0 X G:\WPC 0CS\EACheck1istCCAnnex. WPD VI. VII. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) 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, 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? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied 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) X X X X X X X X 0 X X KI G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD e) For a project located within an airport 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 private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater 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 (i.e., 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, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing 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, page 4-30 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) KI X X 10 X X X X X X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) X G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD b) Conflict with any applicable land use 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 purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation 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, page 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) c) A :substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the: project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport 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? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) X X X 91 X // 04 /:/ X 09 X G:\W PCO CS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. W PD XIII. XIV c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) 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, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of 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 facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 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, page 4-126 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) X X X X - —X X /:1 X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) X g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVI. UTIILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 24 ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to 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 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are 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 project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X X X X X X F1 G:\W PDO CS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. W PD 10 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. The EIR for Country Club of the Desert (SCH #99061109) was used in the preparation of this checklist and addendum. 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. See attached Addendum. 30URCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. 3CAQMD CEQA Handbook. 3eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. --ity of La Quinta Municipal Code Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 99061109, Country Club of the Desert, August 2000. G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. WPD 11 ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418 I. d) The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of itself. Buildout of the parcel, however, will generate light, since the proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel. The land use designation to be placed on the parcel will result in low density residential units, which generate low levels of light. The project will be required to meet the City's standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the site. These standards will mitigate the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level. II. c) Portions of the annexation area have been in agriculture for some time. Annexation of the land, and the imposition of land use designations, will not impact the agricultural use of the land. In the long term, however, the land will be developed in low density residential land uses. This development will result in the loss of 240 acres of agriculture in the Valley. The land is not currently under Williamson Act contract, and as an isolated parcel surrounded by approved residential development, does not represent a significant agricultural parcel. The loss of this land will be less than significant. III. c) & d) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Although annexation will not cause an increase in air emissions in and of itself, the buildout of the project will. The proposed land use designation for the project site is low density residential, 0-4 units per acre. At this density, a maximum of 960 single family residences would be possible. Based on calculations provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, 960 units could generate up to 9,187 trips per day'. As shown in the Table below, buildout of the annexation area will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 284.74 10.95 58.41 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 -- 1.22 1.22 150 Based on 9,187 trips/day and average trip length of 6 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6the Edition." Rate calculated for single family residential, at 9.57 trips per day. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. Although no immediate project is proposed, the disturbance of the site for construction will eventually have an impact on air quality from PM 10. These impacts can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM 10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD 13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation measures. 14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at the time of development. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout of the annexation area will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future are not included in the analysis. IV. a) The annexation area was previously studied for biological resources'. The biological analysis concluded that four types of habitat occur on the site: Desert Scrub, Agriculture, Pasture and Disturbed. No species of concern were identified in site surveys conducted specifically for Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, Palm Springs Ground Squirrel, Palm Springs Pocket Mouse and Flat Tailed Horned Lizard. The area was, however, identified as having mesquite hummocks, which provide important habitat for a number of desert species. The proposed annexation area includes several mesquite hummocks. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall submit an on -site biological resource analysis identifying the total acreage of mesquite hummocks on the 240 acre site, or any portion thereof proposed for development. 2. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project proponent(s) shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California Department of Fish and Game and an appropriate non- profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage the equivalent acreage identified in mitigation measure #1 of mesquite hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area. V. b1 Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. A 2 "Biological Assessment for the Country Club of the Desert Project," Michael Brandman Associates, May 1000. G:\WF'DOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property3. The survey found a number of resources in the area, but only very limited resources on the annexation area property. In order to ensure that buried resources are not lost if they occur, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all demolition, earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to occupancy. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III 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. The site is not subject to liquefaction'. In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) & c) The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will impose requirements for a PM 10 management plan, which will control this hazard (please see above). The soils on the property will also be examined through an on -site soil analysis required prior to issuance of grading permits. These requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Vill. b) 4 All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. At the time the site is developed, the project will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. The project proponent will also be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. "A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the Country Club of the Desert Project Area..." McKenna et. al., September 1999. "Draft Environmental Impact Report, Country Club of the Desert," SCH #99061109, Impact Sciences, August 2000. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c)-e) When the annexation area is developed, impermeable surfaces will be created, which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. Any project on the site will be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on - site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. IX. b) The County of Riverside currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. The land use designation for the subject property under the County General Plan is 213, which allows 2 to 5 units per acre. The City's proposed designation will therefore somewhat reduce this density, resulting in an overall reduction in impacts from development of the property. The character of the property will not be changed by the proposed action, insofar as residential development would be expected to occur on this site under either jurisdiction. Finally, the adjacent lands to the west are being developed in residential units in a low density, and the project site will provide a logical extension of this development. The impacts to land use are not expected to be significant. XI. a) b) & c) The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the site will result in an increase in noise levels, particularly noise generated by automobiles. The proposed land use designation will result in residential land uses on the site, which are considered sensitive receptors. In order to ensure that these sensitive receptors are not subject to noise impacts, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Any project on the subject property shall be required to complete a noise analysis which includes current conditions and anticipated buildout noise levels, and which includes mitigation measures to ensure that exterior and interior noise levels meet City standards in effect at that time. The analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. XIII. a) Both annexation and construction of the subject property will result in potential impacts for both police and fire services. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to police and fire service. The project will also be required to pay school fees, as required by law. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD XV. a) & b) The ultimate development of the subject property will result in fewer trips than under the County General Plan designation, insofar as the City land use designation proposed does not allow as many residential units as does the County. Furthermore, the buildout of the project will result in improvements on both Avenue 52 and Monroe which will improve circulation in the area. The impact of buildout of the annexation area is not expected to be significant. XVI. b)-f) Although the annexation will have no impact on utilities, the ultimate buildout of the site will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ASSIGN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 240 ACRES LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 50 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077 APPLICANT: NRI LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of June, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for La Quinta Limited Partnership to review a General Plan Amendment to assign pre -annexation land use designation of Low Density Residential to approximately 240 acres, pending annexation to the City, located generally at the southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN 767-200-002, 003, 004, 005, 007, 008, 009, 010 AND 011 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. The General Plan Amendment, to be effective upon annexation of the property, supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G:\WPDOCS\PCResoCCDG PAAnnex.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ General Plan Amendment 2001--077 NRI La Quinta Limited Partnership - Country Club of the Desert 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001-418 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does approve General Plan Amendment 2001-077 as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution effective upon annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\W PDOCS\PCResoCC DGPAAn nex.wpd EXHIBIT A 0 0 0 N H z w 0 z w z g cr Q W Z W CD as I O ... J _Q I— Z W _0 Cn W CD Z W O J 0 J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE, ASSIGNING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 240 ACRES LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 50 CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2001-100 APPLICANT: NRI LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of June, 2001 held duly noticed Public Hearing for NRI La Quinta Limited Partnership for review of a Pre -Annexation Zone Change to allow the pre - zoning of approximately 240 acres, pending annexation to the City, located generally at the southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN's 767-200-002, 003, 004, 005, 007, 008, 009, 010 AND 01 1 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 recommending approval of said Zone Change: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The Zone Change will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. The Zone Change, to be effective upon annexation of the property, supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G AW PDOCS\PCResoCCZC 100.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Zone Change 2001-100 NRI La Quinta Limited Partnership - Country Club of the Desert 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001-418 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2001-100 as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution effective upon annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 261h day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ---- -------- 0 BOBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G AW PDOCS\PCResoCCZC 100.wpd EXHIBIT A O 0 T- O CV W C3 Z Q 2 U W Z O N J Q Z W 0 CD W Cr Cn Z W O J OJC B 1 #A DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 26, 2001 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 2001-554 DGI SIGNS (PALM ROYALE COUNTRY CLUB) PALM ROYALE COUNTRY CLUB REVIEW OF PROPOSED SIGN PLANS FOR AN ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION SIGN. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE Palm Royale Country Club is requesting to replace an identification sign that was removed during the recent widening of Washington Street at the corner of Fred Waring Drive (Attachment 1). The proposed sign would be located on the southeast corner of the intersection. As proposed, the sign is a double face sign installed in a "V" shape on a concrete base. At the base, the sign would measure 8 feet tall and 9 feet wide. Due to the rounded shape, the total square footage of the sign face would be approximately 38 square feet per side. Section 9.160 of the Zoning Code requires that a sign such as this be no more than 6 feet tall, and a maximum of 24 square feet. There is also a restriction on the maximum number of 2 per entry street. Any adjustments to these requirements must comply with the following: MANDATORY FINDINGS Additional Area: In order to allow for the additional square footage proposed for this sign, a case must be made that there is an unusual circumstance that would necessitate a larger sign. After a careful review of the Zoning Code and the subject property, no unusual circumstances exist, therefore, Staff recommends the sign not exceed 24 square feet in size. Additional Number: The Zoning Code states that a development such as Palm Royale is allowed to have two signs per entry street. In this case, Washington Street does not provide access to the property. However, the existing sign along Fred Waring Drive is far enough away from the intersection of Washington Street that passing motorists can not see It. Therefore, Staff recommends that there is sufficient reason to allow for a sign along the Washington Street frontage. Additional Height: Signs are allowed to be taller then the prescribed maximum only if there is a "visibility disadvantage" that necessitates more height. The sign is proposed to be piaced in the middle of an area that is landscaped only with turf, leaving nothing to create a visibility problem. Therefore, the finding for any additional height above the 6 feet allowed can not be met. Staff recommends the sign not exceed 6 feet in height. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2001- approving the Sign Permit Application subject to the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of a permit, the plans shall be redrawn to indicate that the sign be no more than 6 feet high, and have a maximum of 24 square feet. 2. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the phone number shall be removed from the sign face. Prepared by: Submitted by: l r Michele Rambo, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager DXdjI ATTACHMENT #1 11ING Rine 7, 2001 t Cily of La Quinla 78-495 Calle Tampico La Qunita, Ca 92253 Attn: Community Development Department RE: Palm Royale Sign We are requesting a double face Medex sign installed in a "V" shape on a concrete base. Mr.ase see design 99434-R-3. This sign is to replace the prior display that -was removed due to road expansion on Wasbinplon Strect. The new Display is smaller in square footage and has a design more suited for the sinToundiags. The original sign. teas given apermit on 11-29-93, SA 93-235, )Cfl Si s, Inc. Skip Berg ).0. BOX 1770 �' LA GUINTA, CA 92253 9 PH: 760-360-6460 * 888-200-0581 e FAX: 760-360-643' i st I (.puTL t ►-I F-- C>N L �o'PY C..OUN_TRY o CLUB .a .00. op �L104T SLbF