The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 08 28 PCTitit 4 4 Q" 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 August 28, 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 2001-105 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-014 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on July 24, 2001. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... CONTINUED - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2000-066 Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Review of applicability and impact of current Water Efficient Ordinance on development proposals Action ............... Request to table B. Item ................... CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001- 427 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-062 Applicant........... AT&T Wireless Services Location............ 81-600 Avenue 58 Request ............. Certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and review of the installation of tele- communication apparatus on a new 120 foot high tower Action ............... Resolution 2001- and Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-065 Applicant........... WalMart Store #1805 Location............ 78-960 Highway 1 1 1, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center Request ............. Review of a request to allow 43 metal containers for the temporary storage of holiday merchandise from September 1, 2001, through January 15, 2002, on the north and west sides of the existing store within Specific Plan 89-014 Action ............... Resolution 2001- D. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-682 AMENDMENT #2 Applicant........... World Gym Palm Desert LLC Location............ 46-760 Commerce Court Request ............. Review of a second sign where one is allowed Action ............... Resolution 2001- E. Item ................... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 - AMENDMENT #1 Applicant........... KSL Land Corporation Location............ Southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 Request ............. Reconfiguration of 21 of 55 residential lots to encompass originally approved open space Action ............... Resolution 2001- F. Item ................... TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 Applicant........... KSL Recreation Corporation Location............ East side of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50 Request ............. Amend Conditions of Approval pertaining to required off - site street improvements on Eisenhower Drive Action ............... Resolution 2001- and Resolution 2001- D/' /Tf"_'C?,M 71 G. Item ................. SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-042, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant .......... La Quinta Arts Foundation Location ........... The west side of Washington Street, between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 Request ............ Specific Plan Amendment to modify the parking lot lighting standards at the La Quinta Arts Foundation project Action .............. Resolution 2001- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................... SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014 Applicant........... Ontario Neon Location............ 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, Stater Bros. Request ............. Amendment to sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center to allow a permanent illuminated channel letter building mounted sign for the Super RX Pharmacy. Action ............... Minute Motion 2001- B. Item ................... SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036 Applicant........... Peterson Slater and Osborne Location............ 79-440 Corporate Center Drive, within La Quinta Corporate Center. Request ............. Modification to a previously approved sign program. Action ............... Minute Motion 2001- VI11. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of August 21, 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 July 24, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Mr. Lee Osborn, 43671 Messina Court, La Quinta, stated he was moving his business to the new La Quinta Court complex and will leasing two and a half units of this building. He was present to request that he be able to center his business sign over the area he will be leasing. Commissioner Butler asked if this was something they had to do or could it be handled by staff. Staff stated it would need to be agenized for the Commission to take action. Commissioner Kirk stated it was his understanding that the applicant requested the location of the signs. Discussion followed regarding the sign approval. Staff was directed to agenize this item for the next meeting upon receiving an aplication. B. Ms. Kim Bird, 52,360 Avenida Madero, stated that she had become aware that the Santa Rosa Plaza -Embassy Suites project had been scheduled for City Council on August 7, 2001. When their Referendum was denied by the Council they had agreed that this project would have to go back to the Planning Commission before going to the City Council due to the new design that would have to be done. She was present to ask why this was bypassing the Commission and going directly to the City Council. In her opinion, this should come back to the Commission before going on to the City Council. She would also like to know if the applicant had permission to increase the size/width. Commissioner Kirk asked if they could know the process. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the Commission could take no action at this time but staff G:\WP130CS\PC7-24-01.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 2.4, 2001 could give a report on the process. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it was the determination by the Community Development Director with regards to the processing in accordance with the Code sections for General Permitting Process and the reference is to modifications by the applicant and the director determining that the plan modifications would result in a significant change, referred the matter back to the original decision making authority, which is the City Council. C. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, thanked staff for placing the General Plan, Master Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Assessment at the library for review. It is an important document for the citizens of La Quinta and her concern is that there might not have as much distribution or circulation so the citizens can voice their opinion and make educated comments. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 10, 2001. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 5, Item #2 be corrected to state "Chairman Abels"; Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 2, Item A be corrected to read "....the issues are not ripe until...". Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item #10 be corrected to read, "...profile lighting in the parking lot."; Page 6, Item #1 1 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Tyler stated that that type..."; Page 10, Item #7 be corrected to state, "Commissioner Tyler...". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2001-425, Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 and Site Development Permit 2001-706; a request of AT&T Wireless Services. for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the installation of a 65 foot high wireless antenna with monopalm prototype design and construction of a single story 1,002 square foot building for related equipment to be located west of Eisenhower Drive, north of Los Arboles and south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club. GAWPDOCS\PC7-24-01.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planing Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk questioned the mitigation monitoring program. The only impact deemed significant was groundshaking; was that appropriate? It is his understanding the mitigation monitoring program is only to address impacts, so there would be no mitigations for areas there are no impacts. As there are no impact on air quality, why would we have programs dealing with it. Staff stated that was something that needed to be resolved. Staff has been taking them out of mitigation measures as they are UBC requirements. Commissioner Kirk stated that if they are complying with City Codes why are they being addressed in the monitoring program. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that rather than continuing this discussion, staff will evaluate the form and make changes accordingly. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated a change should be made to the form. 3. Commissioner Kirk stated the only impact listed were related to seismic groundshaking and the mitigation measure is compliance with City standards. Projects have to comply with City standards regardless of mitigation measures and therefore, should not have to be a part of the mitigation measures. On the mitigation monitoring, if they are complying with City codes, the project as proposed, unless the project as proposed is not complying with City codes, it would not have an impact. If we are saying the City codes then we would have a new mitigation program to address it. Staff stated that in this instance, it would be easier to change the mark for that issue. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if this was the third communication tower at the La Quinta Hotel and Resort facility. Staff stated it was the second permanent facility; there were two temporary. Commissioner Butler asked if they were under the same groundshaking zone. Staff stated they would have to review the file. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned a letter received by Mr. Jerry Swanger, Sr. stating his objection to the project, and whether the tower was constructed out of wrought iron. G:\WF'D0CS\PC7-24-01.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Polly Johnson, representing AT & T Wireless Services, stated it is a metal pole clad in a synthetic bark to have the appearance of a palm tree. She was available to answer any other questions. 7. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the proposed equipment would meet current FCC standards. Ms. Johnson stated yes. 8. Chairman Abels asked if there was any radiation from the tower. Ms. Johnson stated there is none and they would have to conform to all FCC standards. 9. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked that the Mitigation Monitoring Program reflect their changes. 11. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no problem with this project, but has an objection to the City of Indian Wells who will not accept any communication towers, which pushes all them to La Quinta and Palm Desert. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-100 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-426 as amended. a. Environmental Checklist VI.II be marked as no or less than significant impact. b. Delete the Mitigation Monitoring Program ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-101 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-061, as recommended. G:\WF'D0CS\PC7-24-01.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-102 approving Site Development Permit 2001-706, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. B. Site Development Permit 2001-707: a request of PM La Quinta LLC, for review of architectural and landscaping plans for 4 prototype residential units with three to four facades each for the property located at the northeast corner of Orchard Lane and Avenue 50 within Tract 28964 (Talante). 1. Chairman Abels 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. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler stated he has reviewed the project and does like the project, but they did not receive any colored renderings to review. 3. Commissioner Robbins stated he too needed to have the colored renderings to make a determination. Mr. Geoff McComic, representing the applicant, presented colored elevations and stated he was available for any questions. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked why staff was asking for one inch caliper trees measured three feet from grade in the front yard. That is a smaller tree than normally required for a project of this size. Mr. McComic stated the two trees were 36-inch box trees. Staff stated 15 gallon trees are about one inch in diameter. The developers are having difficulty obtaining quality plant material. 5. Commissioner Butler asked what the City standards were regarding the caliper of the tree. Staff stated it was determined by the conditions. G:\WF'DOCS\PC7-24-01.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the houses would be one story. Mr. McComic stated they were all one story. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked how many units in this subdivision. Mr. McComic stated 78. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he was under the impression that the City's Landscape Ordinance required any subdivision over a certain number, would have to have one landscape option for a desertscape for front yards for the models. Also, why are the conditions requiring turf in the front yard. Staff stated they would have to review the Code. Under compatibility review, of which this is not, there is a requirement for 24-inch box trees with 1.5- 2" calipher and ten feet tall, but under residential tract developments, which is where this development falls, there is not a requirement for landscaping. 10. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant if water tolerant landscaping was going to be a problem. Mr. McComic stated they have gone to having 30% drought material. What they have found is that once the property owner takes ownership, they either have all turf, or no turf. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked why we were requiring turf if the Code does not. Mr. McComic states the 20-30% requirement works for them. He has no problem providing a drought tolerant option. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that Section 8.13.030(D)(2)-Public Education, of the Municipal Code states, "Model homes. At least one model home that is landscaped in each project consisting of eight or more homes shall demonstrate via signs and information, the principles of water efficient landscapes described in this chapter." 12. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant had to actually construct the landscape plan. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated as he interprets the Code section, it is their obligation to provide public education on the water efficient landscaping, perhaps drip irrigation, things of that nature. The G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-01.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 baseline appearing to be the standards of the Water Efficiency Ordinance. Commissioner Butler stated the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee should be made aware of this and made part of their review process. Discussion followed as to how this would be implemented on this project. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a Specific Plan for the tract map. Staff stated no. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-103 approving Site Development Permit 2001- 707, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: a. Condition 2.A. Remove the requirement for turf in the front yard b. Add Condition: Requiring a model home be in compliance with Water Efficiency Ordinance in regard to the front yard landscaping. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioners Tyler/Robbins moved to reorganize the Agenda taking Business Item "A" before Public Hearing Item "C". VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Permit 98-415, Amendment #1: a request of Southwest Sign Company (Storage USA) for review of proposed sign plans for an additional identification sign for the property located at 46-600 Adams Street. 1. Chairman Abels 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. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler stated the drawing of the sign states 50 square feet and the staff report states 58 square feet. Staff stated their analysis, per the sign regulations, showed a total of 58 square feet. G:\WP130CS\PC7-24-01.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 3. Commissioner Robbins asked if the "Self Storage" were removed, could they increase the size of "Storage USA". Staff stated that was correct. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jack Fovell, Southwest Sign Company representing the applicant, stated that the discrepancies in the square footage was due to the white space between the lines. He calculated the sign area by calculating each letter and not the entire sign face. Of the three conditions they only have a concern in regard to the removal of the "trademark" wording, "Self Storage". They are trying to obtain information from the corporate offices to determine whether or not it is part of their trademark, as requested by staff. Second is the wire -way on the front of the sign. This is a concrete wall building that has no parapet and the space immediately behind the sign is part of a rented storage unit. This is locked and inaccessible during a normal business day. Therefore, from a service and safety point of view having the wire - way on the front of the building allows them accessibility to the wiring. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked how he addresses the wiring on the existing sign. Mr. Fovell stated the existing sign is constructed on a pop -out, architectural soffit over the entryway. There is actual attic space on the Adams Street side of the building. 6. Commissioner Butler asked how they would handle the exposed wiring. Mr. Fovell explained the construction of the sign. No exposed wiring would be seen. 7. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the look and upkeep of the building. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion and opened the item for Commission discussion. 9. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-013 approving Site Development Permit 98-415, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. a. Condition #2 deleted. 10. Unanimously approved. Q Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2001-070: a request of the City for consideration of miscellaneous amendments to Title 9-Zoning Code and Title 13-Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 1. Chairman Abels 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. a. Section 9.50.090 (A)(B) and (C). Commissioner Kirk asked if the site inspection was after the fact. Staff clarified that the inspection was prior to a building permit being issued. Approved as recommended by staff. b. Section 9.50.090(B). Commissioner Tyler asked that it be changed to "require" a conditional use permit. C. Section 9.60.030(C)(4): Commissioner Tyler asked if the developments with private streets, which are narrow, would be affected. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated private streets were not considered in regard to this section. Staff recommended this be for public streets only and a separate section be added for private streets. d. Section 9.60.030(C)(1)(c): Commissioner Tyler questioned how other trellis' would be addressed. Staff stated they are not considered a permanent structure. Approved as recommended. e. Section 9.60.045: Commissioners questioned what the problem was attaching to a wall. Staff explained the basic reason was structural requirements. Delete "B" and replace with "B" 1) with the removal of "except freestanding" fireplaces, and 2) delete 2-4. f. Section 9.60.070(B)(2): Commissioner Robbins stated he does not understand why his pool equipment cannot be placed next to his house or fence. He has a 15-foot sideyard and the pool equipment has to be placed right in the middle of this setback instead of to either side to keep it clear which now blocks the setback. Commissioner Butler stated that when a pool is in the frontyard the property owner is very limited to where he can put the pool G:\WPD0CS\PC7-24-01.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 equipment. Commissioner Tyler questioned enclosing the equipment in the frontyard. Section a. add "immediately" before enclosed in the second sentence; as recommended. Section c. Add a section, "when there is no wall". g. Section 9.60.075: Section a. On a 5,000 square foot lot, a condenser is allowed in the front yard where there is a wall around the yard or it is screened by a masonry wall, remove the last sentence and change "compressors" to "condensers"; Section b. as recommended. Section c. Add a section "where there is no wall". h. Section 9.60.160(3): as recommended. i. Section 9.60.240(E)(i)(ii)(b)(c): as recommended. j. Section 9.60.250(E): as recommended. k. Section 9.60.300(I)(1): as recommended. I. Section 9.65.030(A)(1)(a)(b)(c)(d): add language to prohibit a utility vault in the sidewalks. Sections (b) and (c) should be made options of design. Consider allowing upper stories to extend out to the property line with no setback. Retain setbacks and move design details into guidelines. M. Section 9.65.030(A)(3)(a): as recommended n. Section 9.65.040(D): Commissioner Kirk stated they wanted more discretion than interpretation. As recommended. o. Section 9.65.040: as recommended, P. Section 9.100.150(G): as recommended. q. Section 9.150.060 Table 9-11: encourage tandem and side -loaded garages. Leave the Table 9-1 1 for minimum off street parking as it is currently written. r. Section 9.150.080(B)(1): leave the length at 19-feet, not 18 feet as recommended. S. Section 9.150.080(B)(7): as recommended. G:\WPD0CS\PC7-24-01.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 t. Section 9.150.100: as recommended. U. Section 9.200.1 10(D): as recommended. 2. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-104 approving Zoning Code Amendment 2001- 070, as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of July 19, 2001. There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held August 28, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. on July 24, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPCIOCS\PC7-24-01 .wpd I 1 r ra s Tdy/ MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, PLANNING MANAGER VIA: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2001-066 Staff is requesting this item be tabled as staff is continuing to work with Coachella Valley Water District on a Valley -wide Landscape Ordinance. Once a final document is ready, staff will renotice this item for public hearing. ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELL.A VALLEY WATER r� F3, EC s� r D*T,Ra,C3 J POST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 -TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS JOHN W. MCFADDENI, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL NIANAGER—CHIEF ENGINEER RUSSELL KIAHARA, VICE PRESIDEN( BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY PATRIC TELLSA A!LARSON August 7, 2001 CODEKASSTEVEN B. ROBBINREDWINETANT AND SHERRILLL,AT TORNEYS PETER NELSON File: 0585.09 Christi Di Iorio City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Ms. Di Iorio: Subject: Valley -wide Landscape Ordinance for New Development A very productive meeting of the Valley -wide Landscape Ordinance Committee was held on July 11. Those who attended seemed to be genuinely interested in continuing this process. The goal of the committee is to develop a valley -wide landscape and water use ordinance for new development that is appropriate for the Coachella Valley. Many issues and ideas discussed at the last meeting were very constructive in relation to developing the ordinance and the district's long-range conservation efforts. Items discussed directly related to the landscape ordinance were as follows: 1. Evapo-transpiration (ET) adjustment factor. Most of the existing ordinances have a very generous maximum water allowance based on an ET adjustment factor of 0.8. The City of Palm Desert is currently using a factor of 0.5. What is the appropriate factor? 2. Limits on turf. Some felt that limits on turf should be part of the ordinance. Another point of view is to focus on the maximum water allowance and allow the landscape architects to design freely within the allowable water use. 3. Golf courses. How should the ordinance relate to new golf courses? 4. Single-family residences. How should the ordinance relate to new single-family home construction? 5. Water conservation. How can the ordinance discourage water waste or encourage water conservation? Should the ordinance require landscape architects to provide irrigation schedules or ET type controllers in their projects? TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Christi Di Iorio City of La Quinta -2- August 7, 2001 All of these are relevant issues to be addressed in the ordinance. During future meetings, other issues will likely be identified. At the committee's suggestion, several landscape architects have been invited to participate and assist with technical issues in the development of the ordinance. Your continued participation and input is encouraged. With commitment, consensus and cooperation, we can conserve water, our most valuable resource. The next committee meeting will be held at the district's Palm Desert facility located at 75-525 Hovley Lane East on August 23 from 10:00 am. to 12:00 noon with lunch to follow. Unrelated to the landscape ordinance, there were several who mentioned that there was a concern that we have been targeting only the urban areas and wanted to know more about district agricultural programs. There will be a meeting on August 20 that will present facts and figures, a tour of the control room at district headquarters with emphasis on agriculture and a short tour of a farm to see firsthand what farmers are doing to conserve water. This meeting will be at the district's headquarters in Coachella at 9:00 a.m. and will last approximately 90 minutes. If you miss the tour, facts and figures will be available as handouts at the meeting on August 23. Please RSVP for the tour and/or the landscape ordinance meeting. To RSVP or if you have any questions, comments or concerns please call Don Ackley, water management specialist, extension 541. Your very t C� Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer SC: jl\svc\scott\jul\landscapeord STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-427 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-062 REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION APPARATUS LOCATED ON A NEW 120 FOOT HIGH TOWER LOCATION: 81600 AVENUE 58 APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES PROPERTY OWNER: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE: POLLY JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER ZONING: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-427. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SOUTH: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) (COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) EAST: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLV), CITY AAPC staff rpt. ATT CUP 2001-062.wpd OI' a •I The project is located on Imperial Irrigation District (IID) property at 81600 Avenue 58 within a fenced and restricted area which contains existing IID equipment, substation and the existing tower with the previously approved Sprint communication equipment. The applicant is requesting approval of 12 antennas mounted onto a newly constructed 120 foot high tower and installation of related equipment cabinets within the interior restricted fenced area of the Imperial Irrigation District administrative center. The antennas will add to the cellular digital service area in the east Coachella Valley. The proposed 12 antennas are 6' in height and 12' wide mounted at the top of the proposed tower. As proposed, the tower will be configured at 120 feet in height. Also proposed to be installed on the new tower will be two telco microwave dishes increasing telephone service. Proposed to be installed on a concrete pad (within the interior restricted fenced area) are a beige colored steel cabinet (28' x 12" x 12") for AT&T equipment, a wave guide bridge, and additional 6' high chain link fencing to enclose the 1500 square foot area. Proposed lighting will be down lit on a switch used only for maintenance and emergencies. Power to the antennas will be supplied underground from the existing substation. The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on July 26, 2001, requesting comments be returned by August 13, 2001. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on August 6, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. The findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Development Permit, as conditioned, can be made per Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution. The project is located outside of all General Plan scenic vistas; however, other vistas may be affected but are less than significant view corridors. A:\PC.staff rpt. ATT CUP 2001-062.wpd The project will change the visual quality of the site; however it is less than significant since the site has an existing 100' tower with approved cellular antennas to be mounted on that tower and the new tower will be located in the central interior of the approximately 40 acre IID property; and the location of the new tower equates to a F138 foot set back from the closest property line (north property line) and 758 feet from Avenue 58 (south property line). 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , to certify a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-427, prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2001-062; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-062, subject to conditions. ATTACH E T 1. Project Location Exhibit 2. Site Plan and Elevations Prepared by: Fred Baker, AlCf Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lori Planning Manager AAPC staff rpt. ATT CUP 2001-062.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-062 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-427 APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of AUGUST, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-427 for Conditional Use Permit 2001-062 herein referred to as the "Project" for AT&T Wireless Services; and, WHEREAS, said Project 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 2001-427) to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project does not have significant adverse effects on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could 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 Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate conditions have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. 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. � .J'It AAPC RESO EA 2001-427.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-427 August 28, 2001 4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2001-427 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact upon the environment. 8. EA 2001-427 and the Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-427 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: A:\PC RESO EA 2001-427.wpd �'� Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-427 August 28, 2001 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO EA 2001-427.wpd t J U Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2001-062 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: 81600 Avenue 58, La Quinta, CA. ( Imperial Irrigation District) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: AT&T Wireless c/o Planning Environmental Solutions 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 6. General Plan Designation: Major Community Facility Zoning: Major Community Facility 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.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 120 foot high tower with communication apparatus, and equipment shelter building adjacent to the tower within the Imperial Irrigation District facility. The Conditional Use Permit is required to review the steel tower, equipment shelter building, which will measure 12' wide by 28' long by 10' 11 " high. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. The project is located in the center of the Imperial Irrigation District 40 acre facility. Low Density Residential and Golf Courses uses are adjacent to the 40 acre site on the north and east bordering the City. The east and south property borders Riverside County jurisdiction; with vacant land to the south and farm land to the east. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement. Imperial Irrigation District has approved the design and location of the facility. The Federal communications Commission has granted a licence to the provider. AAATT EA.wpd - Fred Baker 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: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems LJ Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared IN 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated 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. Date Si re 6?eo—r'm-4�'�� CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Printed Name For A:\ATT EA.wpd - Fred Baker 2 CJ 8 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 analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses 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 A:\ATT EA.wpd - Fred Baker L 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) IL 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 0 X 91 ►1 WN X IV. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application materials) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) 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? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 fl-.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) d) Interfere 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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 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? (Application materials, 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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) X X X X X X X X /:/ X /:/ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) X', VL 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 ER 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)Havc 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) VIL 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) 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) X X X X X X X X F /:/ X X /:1 X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 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) VIIL 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? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment. 6-13) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) 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) UL LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) 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 costal 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 F X X X X X X X K4 K/ X KL MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: ►i� XIL 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) 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? (Application Materials) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Application Materials) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Application Materials) 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? (Application Materials) 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) 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) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) XIIL 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. ) 91 09 X K4 X X X X 91 X X 3 4 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. ) XIV. 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)?(Application materials) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Application Materials) 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? (Application Materials) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application Materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVL UTILITIES 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 .1-27) 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) X /:/ X X X X X X X X 947 91 FA 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? XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES. /V K4 X r X Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Application exhibits, AT&T Wireless Services, Delta Groups Engineering PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVING INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION APPARATUS TO BE ATTACHED TO A NEW .120 FOOT HIGH TOWER AT 81600 AVENUE 58 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-062 APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28t`' day of August, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request of AT&T wireless Services to consider allowing installation of telecommunication apparatus located on a new 120' tower at 81600 Avenue 58, more particularly described as: APN: 761-720- 021 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of the "Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended under City Council Resolution No. 83-68 in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-427) and has determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval: 1. That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan Policy 2-6.3.1 in that the property is designated Major Community Facility which allows the uses proposed for the property; and La Quinta General Plan Policy 7-1.4.7 which requires the City to coordinate with telephone companies to insure comprehensive and uninterrupted service. 2. That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Zoning Code Approval Standards (9.170.070) for telecommunication equipment placed on new towers. AAPC.13eso.CUP 2001-062.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- CUP 2001-062 August 28, 2001 3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare in that the public agencies have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above -described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman, City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC.Reso.CUP 2001-062.wpd ,r , PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-062 AUGUST 28, 2001 GENERAL. 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 Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Public Works Department • Community Development Department • Fire Marshal • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • Federal Communications Commission • Federal Aviation Administration 3. Install a portable fire extinguisher (minimum 2A10BC) inside the unmanned equipment building. Prior to issuance of a building permit, final construction plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. 4. Install a Knox pad lock at the manual gates as noted in the review plans. Padlock shall be readily accessible for opening. Contact the Fire Department for an application. FEES AND DEPOSITS 5. The applicant shall pat all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fees amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks, permits, and inspections. A:\PC.00A.CUP2001-062.wpd 6. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check payable to the County of Riverside for $78.00 for recording the Environmental Assessment. _ ► ' �1>�� 7. Before any cranes, forklifts, or other aerial equipment are raised, please check for overhead wires. Please note that California Title 8, Electrical Safety Orders, specifies the closest distance that non -qualified electrical workers can get to electrically energized conductors. Non -qualified electrical workers can get no closer than ten (10) feet from distribution lines. People operating boom type lifting or hoisting equipment can get no closer than ten (10) feet from the distribution lines and no closer than seventeen feet (17) from transmission lines. 8. If ground excavation is required, even for seemingly benign applications such as anchoring a tent, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA). This service is free of charge provided USA is given at least two (2) working days' notice. Call toll free at 1-800-227-2600. 9. The tower and all attached equipment shall be painted "putty" (very light brown) to mask the visual impact. COA.PC.CUP 2001-059 �i ATTACHMENT #1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-065 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: WAL*MART STORE #1805 LOCATION: 78-950 HIGHWAY 1 1 1, WITHIN THE ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER REQUEST: ALLOW PLACEMENT OF 43 OUTDOOR TEMPORARY METAL STORAGE CONTAINERS ON THE WEST AND NORTH SIDES OF THE EXISTING STORE FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 2001, THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2002, FOR HOLIDAY MERCHANDISE ON A YEARLY BASIS. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) IN THAT THE STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TEMPORARY AND WILL HAVE NO PERMANENT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE/ZONING DESIGNATIONS: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY; REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) WITH NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY BACKGROUND: The site is a part of Specific Plan 89-014, approved in 1990, located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, between Adams Street and Washington Street. The Plan permits 617,565 square feet of floor space, with approximately 60% built to date. Wal-Mart, with approximately 131,960 square feet of floor space on 13.13 acres, was constructed in 1992, and part of the original center. Parking for approximately 898 customers is located on the south and east sides of the building on property owned by the applicant. On November 10, 1998, the outdoor garden shop on the east side of the store was allowed to expand by 3,733 square feet under Site Development Permit 98-637 (Planning Commission Resolution 98-077). On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Wal-Mart's request to place 35 temporary metal storage containers on the north and west sides of the existing store from September 1, 2000, to January 15, 2001, for the storage of holiday merchandise by adoption of Resolution 2000-085 for Conditional Use Permit 2000-052 (Attachment #1). Staff received no complaints from adjacent business owners concerning last year's storage use. Prolec;t Request This year's application requests placement of 43 temporary metal storage containers on the west and north sides of the existing building to store holiday merchandise and lay -away purchases from September 1st through January 15th on a yearly basis (Attachment #2). The outdoor storage containers on the west side of the building are located within a designated truck delivery area for Wal-Mart and other adjoining commercial businesses. Containers for lay -away merchandise is proposed to the north of the store on an existing crushed gravel storage area approved for expansion. Each roll -off style container is 400 square feet, measuring roughly 10 feet wide by 40 feet long by 10 feet tall, and can be locked. Aisle widths between the containers are 12 feet or wider. All storage containers are placed on property owned by Wal-Mart. Pu l ,- Notice: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun on August 16, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. Additionally, all property owners within the shopping center were mailed a copy of the notice as a courtesy. To date, no correspondence has been received. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Sections 9.210.020 (Conditional Use Permit) of the Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-065, subject to findings and the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. November 28, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt) 2. Storage Container Location Map Prepared by: Greg,Yr us�ell, Associate Planner V Submitted by: Nla L' (T eJ Christine di lorio, Planning Manager St PC CUP65WalmarU Greg; Ret 8/3 - Page 3 13 RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING 43 OUTDOOR METAL STORAGE CONTAINERS FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 2001, TO JANUARY 15, 2002, ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE EXISTING WAL*MART STORE CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-065 APPLICANT: WAL*MART STORE #1805 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of August, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Wal-Mart Store #1805 to allow storage of holiday merchandise in metal containers at 78-950 Highway 1 1 1, more particularly described as: Assessor's Parcel Number: 643-080-004 WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit 2001-065 is within Specific Plan 89-014 for which Environmental Assessment 89-150 was certified by the City Council on April 17, 1990. Therefore, no changed circumstances or conditions and no new information has been provided which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Ordinance to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Regional Commercial with Non -Residential Overlay which permits the temporary use proposed by this application. 2. The proposed temporary storage containers are consistent with the development standards outlined in Section 9.100.120 (Outdoor Storage and Display) of the Zoning Ordinance because merchandise will be stored in metal containers placed on the north and northwest sides of the existing business. 3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or incompatible with surrounding properties JI ResoCUP65 Wal-Mart Greg Ret 8/3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditional Use Permit 2001-065, Wal-Mart Store #1805 August 28, 2001 in that they are placed in areas away from customer traffic and view. The adjacent properties are designated and zoned for commercial use and within the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above -described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 281h day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RcsoCUP65 Wal-Mart Greg Ret 8/3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-065 WAL*MART STORE #1805 AUGUST 28, 2001 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Conditional Use Permit 2001-065, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. Each subsequent year shall require submittal of a letter to the Community Development Director requesting installation of the containers in accordance with the approved site plan. 3. Any storage container that blocks a required fire access lane to existing commercial buildings shall be relocated within 24 hours of a written notice from the Fire Marshal. 4. Recycled cardboard and excess shopping carts shall be stored in the trailer storage area abutting the west side of the building. The outdoor storage area areas shall be cleaned daily of debris and litter. 5. The applicant/property owner agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. tl ; Cond CUP 65 Walmart p-greg ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 c ROLL C Attachment 1 New Condition: cant shall process a pursuant t able Vehicle Code s recons road as determined a En ith a pedestrian acces WES: Commissioners Ki NOES: None. ABSENT:4 ABSTAIN: None. r6r, and Chairman missioners Abels r Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened at 9:28 p.m. D. Conditional Use Permit 2000-052; a request of Wal-Mart Stores to allow 35 metal containers for the temporary storage of holiday merchandise to be located at 78-950 Highway 1 1 1, within the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center. 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. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked how long the containers have been in place. Staff stated since September. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if the request addresses the pallets or boxes stacked against the containers. Staff stated they would be removed. 4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Oscar Rubio, Walmart Manager, stated that as the City has grown, so have they. In order to meet the demand of their customers they have to have a minimum of 35 containers as they cannot plan for all the requests they receive. They just received an order for 1200 specialty items and they will need containers to hold these until they are picked up. They will work with the City to the best interest of both the City and Walmart. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had been contacted by the City regarding the bales. Staff stated they have been working with all the merchants on Highway 1 1 1. Mr. Rubio stated they have been addressing the issues as the City brings them to their GAWPDOCS\PC 11-28-OO.wpd - Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 attention. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant was wanting this request granted for every year at this time. Mr. Rubio stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked why they did not expand the store to accommodate their growth. Mr. Rubio stated currently it is in process, but it is not fiscally feasible at this time. They are looking to expand in about two years. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if these containers would eliminate the stacking inside the store. Mr. Rubio stated this has not been a practice since he has been manager. Commission Tyler asked if stacking would be on top of the containers. Mr. Rubio stated it would go away. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was normal to approve an application after the fact. Staff stated they are trying to -work with the applicant, but no, normally the applicant should apply first before doing the request. 7. Chairman Robbins asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding this project. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. Commission Kirk stated he has a hard time rewarding someone after the fact. He has a problem with their rationale that they need more space at this season. If that were true, everyone would be asking for the same thing. He is concerned about setting a precedent for that reason. He would lean toward rejecting this application, but as they are a good member of the community and it is a well run store, he would agree to approving it for one year and re-examining it on a yearly basis with the applicant coming forward with a more permanent solution, and second, with a provision that it would be rescinded if it became a Code Compliance problem. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred with Commissioner Kirk's recommendation for only one year. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated you could not rescind an application within 30-days as there is a statutory limit and process one has to go through to rescind a conditional use permit. Therefore, you would have to have it read subject to the revocation process. Second, staff is recommending a two year approval and any store can request and utilize this section of the Municipal Code. G:\WPDOCS\PC11-28-OO.wpd Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 10. Chairman Robbins stated he concurs with the other Commissioners. A one year approval would allow them time and not require them to remove what is there but, they need to seriously consider remodeling the store. At this time, the approval is only for 45 days, so any issues with Code Compliance are mute. 11. Commissioner Kirk suggested staff keep tract of the Code Compliance issues for consideration when this application is re- applied for. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-085 approving Conditional Use Permit 2000-052, as amended. a. Condition #2; approved for one year, or 2001. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels and Butler. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Continued - Master D i n Guidelines 2000-0 equest of Kristy Brady for review 'prototype house pl or two ifferent facades located at 51-78�and 51-805 Ave ' illa. 1. Chairt�ian Robbins ed for the staff port. Planning Manager Chf stine di loria esented the infor. ation contained in the staff port, a coof which is on file�the Community Development Departm, ` q., C rman Robbins asked if there were any questio _ , f. ommissioner .'* 3. Commissioner Ty r asked if the pipes submitted we omes that had been b It in the Covertaff stated yes. �4 4. Commissioner irk a ' what decorative deta ad been added. Staff identified a areas. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicCtated ould like to ad ¢tress the Commission. Mr. Richard Crockett he , available to answer questions. G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-28-OO.wpd 100' MII 0 U 5 0 < r- C14 VA /ClluosaJd) 2ulpj!nq ainin., X w T :;ar en Center Expansion !on 28 ' —6" GARDEN CENTER -4" A x O—A 291. Attachment 2 b\\\\\.,\ \\ \ o PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-682 (AMENDMENT #2) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: WORLD GYM PALM DESERT, LLC. REQUEST: REVIEW OF A SECOND SIGN WHERE ONE IS ALLOWED LOCATION: 46-760 COMMERCE COURT (LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTRE) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-383, PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036 AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 BY RESOLUTION 99- 110. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS, OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. BACKGROUND: On August 22, 2000 the Planning Commission approved the architecture and landscape plans, under Resolution 2000-052, for a 15,500 square foot fitness center. Amendment #1, to modify the exterior elevations and landscaping, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2001 under Resolution 2001-096. The site for this building falls into Specific Plan 99-036 (La Quinta Corporate Centre) approved by the City Council on September 7, 1999. Construction of this building is complete. The applicant, World Gym Palm Desert, LLC., is now requesting approval of a second sign for this building. August 2.2, 2001 Page 1 PROPOSED SIGNS: The applicant is proposing two internally illuminated, individually mounted channel letter signs, each having a logo box cabinet sign. This would be mounted to the building using an exposed 8 inch thick raceway. The sign measures 12 feet long by 4 feet tall for a total of 48 square feet. The copy reads "WORLD GYM FITNESS CENTERS." The applicant is proposing that the text "WORLD GYM" be red individual channel letters with gold trim caps, while the text "FITNESS CENTERS" be a cabinet with white letters on a black background with a black trim cap (Attachment #1). This sign is consistent with the World Gym trademark sign. One sign would be located on the west side of the building near the north end of the building facing the parking lot, while the second would face Commerce Court (Attachment #2). MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.160.090(D)(3) (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. The proposed signs are consistent with the purpose and intent of the La Quinta Sign Ordinance including the maximum 50 square feet size per sign. In addition, the proposed signs are visually related to the building on which they will be placed, as well as the surrounding future developments. The Specific Plan allows alternative locations for the most effective use of graphic representation. Not only is the World Gym located at the end of a cul de sac off Commerce Court, but it is also an integral part of the entire La Quinta Corporate Centre. They are requesting two signs where one is allowed. This one sign would be located above the entry of the building which faces southwest toward an empty lot. Because the orientation of the sign does not provide visibility to the cul de sac, staff is supporting the second sign. Signs with raceways have been considered for previously approved sign programs for which there are extenuating circumstances. Due to the design of this building, mounting the letters directly to the wall is not feasible in this case. Therefore, a raceway is necessary. Staff has added a condition that the raceway be painted to match the color of the building. (Condition #1) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Site Development Permit 2000-682 (Amendment #2), subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. August 22, 2001 Page 2 Attachments: 1. Sign specifications 2. Proposed sign on northwest corner of building Prepared by: Submitted by: L I' di P 04'tA�" )�AL Michele Rambo, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager August 22, 2001 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SECOND SIGN FOR A FITNESS BUILDING, LOCATED AT 46-760 COMMERCE COURT. CASE NO. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-682 AMENDMENT #2 WORLD GYM PALM DESERT, LLC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28' day of August, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of World Gym Palm Desert, LLC., to consider a second sign for a fitness building at 46-760 Commerce Court, more particularly described as: APN: 649-020-061 WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee recommended approval of Site Development Permit 2000-682 on August 2, 2000; and WHEREAS, Site Development Permit 2000-682 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2000 under Resolution 2000-052; and WHEREAS, Site Development Permit 2000-682 (Amendment #1) was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2001 under Resolution 2001-096; and 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 sign per Section 9.160.090 (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Sian. As designed and conditioned, the proposed locations and design for the wall signs provide balance and aesthetic appeal while providing the necessary building identification. 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 sign program, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. August 22, 2001 Page 1 !1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California August 22, 2001 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-682 (AMENDMENT #2) WORLD GYM PALM DESERT, LLC. AUGUST 28, 2001 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or preceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant shall change the plans to reflect that the raceway shall be painted to match the color of the building behind the sign. August 22, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 (AMENDMENT #1) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LAND CORPORATION REQUEST: RECONFIGURE 21 OF 66 RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO ENCOMPASS ORIGINALLY APPROVED OPEN SPACE. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50. ZONING: ON -SITE: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) NORTH: GC (GOLF COURSE) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SOUTH: FP (FLOODPLAIN) EAST: RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WEST: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: ON -SITE: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) NORTH: GC (GOLF COURSE) AND LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SOUTH: W (WATERCOURSE/FLOOD CONTROL) EAST: MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WEST: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 19, 2001 BY RESOLUTION 2001- 87. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS, OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT August 13, 2001 Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. BACKGROUND: Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment 5 was approved by the City Council on June 19, 2001 by Resolution 2001-85. Tentative Tract Map 30125 was approved by the City Council on June 19, 2001 by Resolution 2001-87. As approved, the map consists of 65 residential lots and a number of lettered lots. Lots 17 through 37 were approved backing up to a common open space, shown as lots "N" and "0" on the approved map. (Attachment 2) The average lot size is 7,653 square feet, with the lots in question being approximately 105 to 150 feet in length. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: The applicant is now requesting that the approved Tentative Tract Map 30125 be modified to incorporate portions of lots "N" and "0" into the adjoining residential lots. (Attachment 3) This will eliminate the open space between the backs of the affected lots, while increasing the size of these 21 lots. The average lot size will increase from 7,653 to 8,508 square feet, and the lots in question will be increased in length by approximately 15 to 20 feet. In addition, lot 66, near the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, was approved for development of a clubhouse facility. The applicant would now like to use this as an additional residential lot. This would bring the total amount of residential lots to 66, still below the maximum amount allowed by the Specific Plan, Zoning, and General Plan designations for the property. REQUIRED FINDINGS: The findings outlined in Section 13.12.130 (Mandatory Findings of Approval) of the Municipal Code can be made as noted below. As previously discussed in City Council Resolution 2001-87, approved on June 19, 2001, Tentative Tract Map 30125 is consistent with the General Plan and will not have substantial effects on the environment or public health. All mandatory findings were met per the previous approval. There are no circumstances in this amendment which would change the previous findings. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Tentative Tract Map 30125 (Amendment #1), subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. August 1:3, 2001 Page 2 Attachments: 1. Approved Tentative Tract Map 30125 2. Proposed Amended Tentative Tract Map 30125 Prepared by: Submitted by: L , Michele Rambo, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager August 13, 2001 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING THE RECONFIGURATION OF 21 RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO ENCOMPASS ORIGINALLY APPROVED OPEN SPACE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50. CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 (AMENDMENT #1) KSL LAND CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 2e day of August, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of KSL Land Corporation, to consider an amendment to a Tentative Tract Map for a residential tract, more particularly described as: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 APN: 658-190-004, 773-020-021, 773-020-033, 773-020-034 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 30125 was approved by the City Council on June 19, 2001 under Resolution 2001-87; and 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, per Section 13.12.130 (Mandatory Findings of Approval), to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract Map amendment: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The property is designated Low Density Residential. The Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages differing residential developments throughout the City. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) insofar as Low Density Residential development fits the character of the City's residential community. 2, Consistency with City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development is consistent with the land uses specified in the Zoning Ordinance, as conditioned. Modifications to the City's standards, which are included in Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #5, are justified in that the current amendment does not alter the land uses or the zoning of Tentative Tract Map 30125. August 13, 2001 Page 1 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map 30125 approved by the City Council on June 19, 2001 by Resolution 2001-87. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. 4. Site Design. The proposed design of the subdivision conforms with the development standards found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as modified in the Specific Plan. In addition, the site is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is flat and without physical constraints, and the Tentative Tract Map amendment is consistent with other parcels in the La Quinta Resort project. 5. Site Improvements. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will service the site in underground facilities as required. No adverse impacts have been identified based on letters of response from affected public agencies. 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 recommend approval to the City Council the above described Tentative Tract Map amendment, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: August 13, 2001 Page 2 JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California August 13, 2001 Page 3 � k PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 (AMENDMENT #1) KSL LAND CORPORATION AUGUST 28, 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 Tentative Tract Map amendment. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved and contained in the file for Tentative Tract Map 30125, unless amended by the following conditions. 3. All conditions of approval adopted by the City Council on June 19, 2001 shall be followed. PUBLIC WORKS: The Public Works Department requests the following changes/additions to the existing conditions for the subject map (TTM 30125 Amendment #1): Add the following Condition: FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(a) 21. Tentative Parcel Map 30146 shall be recorded prior to the recordation of Tentative Tract Map 30125. Revise the following Condition: REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS Condition No. 47: The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) August 13, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 (AMENDMENT #1) KSL LAND CORPORATION AUGUST 28, 2001 (A) OFF -SITE STREETS August 13, 2001 22. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - Applicant shall construct half of the total street improvements in compliance with the General Plan along the 500- foot (the property adjacent to TT 30125) frontage on Eisenhower Drive. Applicant shall also construct a six foot meandering sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and a 12-foot raised center median. Applicant will be reimbursed for the cost of the median construction from the Transportation DIF in an amount not to exceed the budget allowance for this median construction. Applicant shall dedicate all future right-of-way along Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Golf Hole #13 on the Dunes course (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive), necessary for the construction of Eisenhower Drive pursuant to General Plan street standards. Applicant shall dedicate a temporary construction easement to the City of La Quinta, ten (10) feet wide, along the east side of Eisenhower Drive from the southerly tract boundary south to the bridge across the Oleander Reservoir Evacuation Channel (adjacent to Parcel 3, Parcel Map 28334, PMB 189129-31). The west boundary of said easement shall be the east Right -of -Way line of Eisenhower Drive. Said easement shall be to allow the future construction of a block retaining wall. Applicant shall dedicate a permanent easement to the City of La Quinta, three (3) feet wide, along the east side of Eisenhower Drive from the southerly tract boundary south to the bridge across the Oleander Reservoir Evacuation Channel (adjacent to Parcel 3, Parcel Map 28334, PMB 189129-31). The west boundary of said easement shall be the east Right -of Way line of Eisenhower Drive. Said easement shall be for the future block retaining wall. Applicant shall be responsible for all modifications to Golf Hole #13 on the Dunes Course... The Applicant may enter into a secured agreement for the construction of Eisenhower Drive street improvements... The Eisenhower Drive improvements... Page 2 ME PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 (AMENDMENT #1) KSL LAND CORPORATION AUGUST 28, 2001 August 13, 2001 23. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Construct median... B. PRIVATE STREETS Residential (Lots Afl: 28-foot travel width,... 2. Emergency Access (Lot G): Minimum 25-foot travel width, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line. C. CULS DE SAC 1. Use Riverside County Standard 800... Page 3 �/ ter.•;tti'��'?� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS REQUEST: AMENDMENT OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO REQUIRED OFF -SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON EISENHOWER DRIVE. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EISENHOWER DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 220 FEET SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) #41 (SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED IN 1975, BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AND EIR ADDENDUM CERTIFIED ON JUNE 19, 2001, BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) AND GOLF COURSE (GC) ZONING: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) AND GOLF COURSE (GC) r; • This request is the result of the City Council action on Tentative Tract 30125 on June 19, 2001 (Attachment 1). The City Council at that meeting adopted conditions of approval pertaining to the improvement of the east side of Eisenhower Drive, south of 50T" Avenue which are different than those imposed on this parcel map and site development permit. Therefore, amendment of the Eisenhower Drive improvement requirements for these applications is necessary. p\stan\tpm 28334 amd #1 sdp 97-608 am #2 pc rpt.wpd Tentative Parcel Map 28334 is located on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, south of 50T" Avenue and divides 15 acres into three parcels (two residential and one golf course) and was approved in 1996 (Attachment 2). Site Development Permit 97-608 allows a La Quinta Resort employee parking lot on one of the parcels created by TPM 28334 and was approved in 1997. An amendment to the site development permit was approved in December, 1998. AMENDMENT REQUEST: The condition for the improvement of Eisenhower Drive approved for Tentative Tract 30125 is specific and provides time frames for completing the improvements, defines responsibilities, and costs. This amendment replaces the Eisenhower Street improvement requirements for the tentative parcel map (Condition #10) and site development permit (Condition #32 and #38). The Findings needed to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2001- , recommending approval of amendment #1 to Tentative Parcel Map 28334, subject to conditions Adopt Resolution 2001- , recommending approval of amendment #2 to Site Development Permit 97-608, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENT: 1. City Council minutes for the meeting of June 19, 2001 2. Location Map Prepared by: Submitted by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner (g,i;njLL Christine di lori Planning Manager p\stan\tpm 28334 amd #1 sdp 97-608 am #2 pc rpt.wpd RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO REQUIRED OFF -SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON EISENHOWER DRIVE FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WHICH CREATES THREE PARCELS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28`h day of August, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of an amendment to Conditions of Approval pertaining to required off -site street improvements on Eisenhower Drive, in the Tourist Commercial Zone, located on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, approximately 220 feet south of 501h Avenue, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Parcel Map amendment request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"' as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that this Parcel Map has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #41 (Specific Plan 121-e) which was certified in 1975, by the County of Riverside, and EIR Addendum certified on June 19, 2001, by the City of La Quinta. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed and there is no new information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Parcel Map 28334, Amendment #1: 1. The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 121-E in that its amended lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the amended subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the amended Map is developed. j pAstan\pm 28334 amendment #1 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Parcel Map 28334 August: 28, 2001 3. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access to the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28334, Amendment #1 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California _► � r pAstan\pm 28334 amendment #1 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 AUGUST 28, 2001 GENERAL 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 28334, Amendment #1 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This amended tentative parcel map approval shall expire in two years unless extended pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance. PROPERTY RIGHTS 3. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. 5. Before approval of the parcel map, final map, or other land action allowing development of this property, the applicant shall dedicate public and private street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Dedications required of this development include: Eisenhower Drive - the easterly half of a 100-foot right-of-way J5 P:\STAN\TPM 28334 PCCOA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 AUGUST 28, 2001 Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc. If the City Engineer determines that public access rights to proposed street right-of-ways shown on the tentative parcel map are necessary prior to approval of the final map dedicating the right-of-way, the property owner/applicant shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas within 60-days of a written request by the City. FINAL_ PARCEL MAP 6. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish the City, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer, accurate computer files of the map(s) as approved by the City's map checker. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 7. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, La Quinta Municipal Code or approval of any building permits for this property. 8. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, parcel improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 9. Street pavement sections for the future streets shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: P:ASTAN\TPM 28334 PCCOA.wpd �� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 AUGUST 28, 2001 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The applicant shall submit mix designs for road base and pavement materials, including complete testing lab results, for review and approval by the City. Paving operations shall not be scheduled until mix design(s) is approved. 10. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - Applicant shall construct half of the total street improvements in compliance with the General Plan along the 500-foot (the property adjacent to TT 30125) frontage on Eisenhower Drive. Applicant shall also construct a six foot meandering sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and a 12-foot raised center median. Applicant will be reimbursed for the cost of the median construction from the Transportation DIF in an amount not to exceed the budget allowance for this median construction. Applicant shall dedicate all future right-of-way along Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Golf Hole #13 on the Dunes Course (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive), necessary for the construction of Eisenhower Drive pursuant to General Plan street standards. Applicant shall provide a construction easement necessary to permit the construction of a retaining wall, and the necessary easement to permit the construction of the retaining wall on their property. Applicant shall be responsible for all modifications to Golf Hole #13 on the Dunes Course (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive), due to the construction of Eisenhower Drive, including, but not limited to, modifications to golf paths, golf lake, green, tee box, fairway, fencing, irrigation, landscaping, and any other modifications necessary for the safety of the public. P:\STAN\TPM 28334 PCCOA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 AUGUST 28, 2001 The Applicant may enter into a secured agreement for the construction of Eisenhower Drive street improvements or shall construct said street improvements, prior to final map approval. The secured agreement shall reflect a time line as follows: The Eisenhower Drive improvements shall be constructed before or at the same time the Eisenhower Bridge and Eisenhower Drive improvements are made along hole #13 of the Dunes Course (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive). 2. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Construct median modification to allow left turn from Ave. 50. Construct 8-foot meandering sidewalk from eastern end of bus shelter to the eastern property boundary. 11. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markers, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, equestrian trails, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the US Post Office and City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 12. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safety integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 13. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows: Eisenhower Drive - A single right-in/right-out access road or drive serving all parcels created by this land division may be install only if an engineering study indicates that this section of Eisenhower Drive can safely support an access at this location and Specific Plan 121-E is amended to permit access onto Eisenhower Drive, a Primary Arterial street. 14. Before occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings based on the Codes in effect at that time. P:\STAN\TPM 28334 PCCOA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28334, AMENDMENT #1 AUGUST 28, 2001 FEES AND DEPOSITS 15. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 16. Before approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. P:\STAN\TPM 28334 PCCOA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EISENHOWER DRIVE OFF -SITE STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of August, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of an amendment to Conditions of Approval pertaining to required off -site street improvements on Eisenhower Drive in the Tourist Commercial Zone, located on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, approximately 220 feet south of 50" Avenue, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of September 16, 1977, approved Site Development Permit 97-608 by adoption of Resolution 97-77, and; WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of January 5, 1979, approved Amendment #1 to Site Development Permit 97-608 by adoption of Resolution 99-11 and; WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit amendment request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that this Site Development Permit has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #41 (Specific Plan 121-e) which was certified in 1975, by the County of Riverside, and EIR Addendum certified on June 19, 2001, by the City of La Quinta. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed and there is no new iinformation which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 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 a recommendation for approval of Amendment #2 to Site Development Permit 97-608: 1 . The project, as amended, is consistent with the General Plan because the use is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the Specific Plan area. P:\stars\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 97-608, Amendment #2 August: 28, 2001 2. The project, as amended, has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions. 3. Processing and approval of this amended project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified. 4. The architectural design of the project, as amended, is adequate and compatible materials and colors will be used. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with, the project will be architecturally acceptable. 5. Provided the conditions of approval, as amended, are complied with, the site design will be acceptable. The revision will mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding residences by moving it to the west and south. 6. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping will provide visual screening of the on site facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an amendment to Conditions #32 and #38 of Site Development Permit 97-608, Amendment #2; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 2e day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ili P:\stan\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 97-608, Amendment #2 August 28, 2001 JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\stars\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AUGUST 28, 2001 1. The use of this site for an employee parking lot shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97-608, Amendment #1, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition, construction, and upon site development/operation. A) Prior to issuance of a demolition/building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction/demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies; as needed: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department A,W P:\ST.4kN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) 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. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 6. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 7. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall be met. 8. Exterior lighting shall to be low profile, down shining, and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Top of lights shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. Light shields may be required by the City within first six months after beginning of operation. 9. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the property to which they apply. 10. Ali easements, rights of way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be acquired or granted, as appropriate, or the process of said acquisition or granting shall be ensured, prior to issuance of a grading permit. P:\STAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 Grants shall include additional right of way widths as necessary for dedicated right turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc., included on approved plans. 11. The applicant shall grant public street right of way along Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - sufficient for a 50-foot half right of way plus additional area as needed for right- or left -turn lanes or other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 13. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. IMMOITNIADUNWACUNI 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and satisfy obligations required of this site development permit. Security provided shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. 15. The applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Plans for site improvements may be combined on a single plan provided excess clutter doesn't affect readability. All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature M PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. WOR-119 L 18. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 19. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 21. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LO.MC. In accordance with said Chapter, 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. 22. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, lI .ti; P:\STAAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. O 0A 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development or in impounded areas on the adjacent golf course unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 25. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 27. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development (or off of the golf course areas) through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 28. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 29. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater water to off -site locations other than impounded areas on the adjacent golf course, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other P:\STAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 city- or area -wide pollution prevention program and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from the such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. UTILITIES 30. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 31. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 32. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - Applicant shall construct half of the total street improvements in compliance with the General Plan along the 500-foot (the property adjacent to TT 30125) frontage on Eisenhower Drive. Applicant shall also construct a six foot meandering sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and a 12-foot raised center median. Applicant will be reimbursed for the cost of the median construction from the Transportation DIF in an amount not to exceed the budget allowance for this median construction. Applicant shall dedicate all future right-of-way along Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Golf Hole #13 on the Dunes Course (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive), necessary for the construction of Eisenhower Drive pursuant to General Plan street standards. ,I F) P:\STAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 Applicant shall provide a construction easement necessary to permit the construction of a retaining wall, and the necessary easement to permit the construction of the retaining wall on their property. Applicant shall be responsible for all modifications to Golf Hole #13 on the Dunes Course (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive), due to the construction of Eisenhower Drive, including, but not limited to, modifications to golf paths, golf lake, green, tee box, fairway, fencing, irrigation, landscaping, and any other modifications necessary for the safety of the public. The Applicant may enter into a secured agreement for the construction of Eisenhower Drive street improvements or shall construct said street improvements, prior to final map approval. The secured agreement shall reflect a time line as follows: The Eisenhower Drive improvements shall be constructed before or at the same time the Eisenhower Bridge and Eisenhower Drive improvements are made along hole #13 of the Dunes Course (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive). 2. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Construct median modification to allow left turn from Ave. 50. Construct 8-foot meandering sidewalk from eastern end of bus shelter to the eastern property boundary. 33. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to a left- & right-in/right-out driveway on Eisenhower Drive centered in this parcel's frontage. If the entry is gated, the applicant shall provide sufficient stacking room for entering vehicles and a turn -around for rejected vehicles. 34. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street P:\STAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by professional engineer(s) registered to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standards and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 38. DELETED - AUGUST 28, 2001 39. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the Eisenhower Drive perimeter setback. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 11 0 P:\STAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 40. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 41. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 42. 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 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 43. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment. 44. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 45. 75% of all trees shall be a minimum of 48" box (3 3/4"+ caliper) size and 25% a minimum of 36" box size (2 3/4"-3 3/4" caliper), or its equivalent along Eisenhower drive. 46. Parking lot shade trees shall be provided every four parking spaces with trees a minimum 24" box size (2"-2 3/4" caliper). 47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 48. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 49. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 50. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all off -site plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 51. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. 52. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 1411110MM111i _ ■�_ 53. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 54. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. 55. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if any, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following ;s P:\STAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd `" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 28, 2001 certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 57. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group 1. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 58. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 59. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 60. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground/aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 61. Install portable fire extinguishers in structures, if any, per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 62. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 63. Prior to issuance of any building permits for structures or fences approved by Site Development Permit 97-608, the developer shall complete the golf maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96-024, or any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto. P:\STAN\sdp 97-608 am #2 pc coa.wpd �1 ATTACHMENT #1 City Council Minutes 15 June 19, 2001 MODEL HOMES; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 17.82 ACRES INTO 65 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50. APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:15 p.m. Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report. Chevis Hosea, 55-920 PGA Boulevard, of KSL Land Corporation, gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. He stated KSL feels the retaining wall is an over -burdensome cost to the tract and is asking for relief from the street and bridge improvements adjacent to the No. 13 golf hole. They feel the four -lane street and bridge widening will benefit the public more than the homes in this development. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Hosea stated KSL feels the City should look to the ultimate developer to ask the City for assistance in bearing the costs of the improvements and believed the revenues generated by the Vista Montanas development will justify the City bearing the costs . of the improvements. He questioned the requirement to make improvements adjacent to built assets, and noted the Washington Street widening improvements adjacent to Duna La Quinta were funded by the City. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Hosea stated the improvement costs they are asking relief from are estimated at $480,000, including $188,000 for the retaining wall. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Hosea stated the staff report does not reflect discussions between KSL and City staff at the time of the casitas approval about the conditions being associated with the access on Eisenhower Drive. He stated KSL understood they would be responsible for the Eisenhower Drive improvements if the parking lot was not relocated within five years. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Hosea stated there was no documentation in the documents received from RTC regarding the Eisenhower Drive improvements as a condition of approval or bonding obligation and that those improvements did not become an obligation until 1996. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Hosea stated he felt the improvements should have been included in the Specific Plan conditions of approval if it was to be an obligation of the project. He also felt the City should 0 • City Council Minutes 16 June 19, 2001 consider the economic benefit of property development by making it feasible for development. In response to Council Member Adolph, Public Works Director Vogt stated he was not aware of the City ever requiring a developer to construct a bridge. As for the City moving forward with widening Eisenhower Drive, he advised the bridge could be constructed so it does not affect private property and leaving the development to make improvements in the future. The cost to the developer is the Development Impact Fee, which includes the total construction and design of the bridge. He stated developers pay a portion towards this bridge and other regional facilities as part of their payment of Development Impact Fees. He added this does not include the retaining wall. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Hosea stated KSL would prefer building a condominium/hotel resort residential development on the property but is trying to be sensitive to the surrounding properties. There being no other requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 8:02 p.m. Council Member Henderson stated she believed there's merit to the developer's request given the loss of value in changing the land use from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. Mayor Pena noted the City has paid for improvements for the public good in other areas and stated he felt this project may qualify for it as well. Council Member Sniff questioned the City being obligated to support residential development to make it economically viable and voiced concern about setting a precedent. Mayor Pena noted if the property is not developed, it will cost the City more in the future to make the improvements and eliminate the "bottleneck" on Eisenhower Drive. Council Member Sniff suggested KSL share the cost of the improvements in order to widen Eisenhower Drive to four lanes but without the City assuming full responsibility. Council Member Adolph stated he supported the project and questioned the fairness of requiring KSL to pay all the improvement costs compared to what they are doing in other areas of the City. He felt the low density designation would help eliminate gridlock on Washington Street. 0 • City Council Minutes 17 June 19, 2001 Mayor Pena stated he felt the City should look at doing the improvements if they benefit the public. Council Member Perkins stated he didn't see the justification for the City bearing the costs of improvements that the City would otherwise demand of other developers. He was concerned about setting a precedent. Council Member Henderson stated she felt the City should consider developments on an individual basis and that precedents are set only if the City chooses to do so. She supported working with the developer on this issue and suggested the City undertake the costs up to $480,000. She was concerned that doing otherwise would be complicated and maybe trigger other concerns. Mayor Pena concurred. Council Member Sniff commented on the validity of precedents and the difficulty of responding in different ways to developers. He suggested the City pay for the wall and KSL pay for the other costs. He was not prepared for the City to pay all the costs. Council Member Perkins stated he would agree to the City paying part of the costs but not $480,000. Council Member Adolph noted the retaining wall cost is only $188,000. He stated he might feel differently if the project extended to the curb line but it doesn't. He agreed four lanes are needed but objected to KSL being required to make the improvements. Council Member Sniff suggested continuing this item to July 3, 2001, to give staff an opportunity to work out an equitable solution with KSL with the City paying approximately 50% of the costs. Mr. Hosea spoke in opposition to a continuance and noted relocation of the parking lot will not take place if this application is not approved. He added he was not aware of any objections to the proposed project by surrounding property owners. Council Member Perkins stated he could not support a motion to approve the project at this time. Council Member Henderson stated she supported relieving the developer of the conditions of the retaining wall and one lane improvement along the property fronting Hole No. 13. • • City Council Minutes 18 June 19, 2001 Mr. Herman advised a condition will be needed to require dedication of right-of- way and a construction easement for future improvements. Mr. Vogt noted the need to also take into consideration cost of any repairs or changes to Hole No. 13. Council concurred to recess at 9:16 p.m. and continue this item until after Public Hearing No. 3. 3. PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 PHASE 23, RECONFIGURING SEVEN ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF AVENUE 50 AND WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048. APPLICANT: RJT HOMES, LLC. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 9:18 p.m. Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report. Chris Bergh, 79-799 Old Avenue 52, of MDS Consulting, stated they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. There being no other requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 9:20 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 RECONFIGURING SEVEN ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER COMMON LOTS (RJT HOMES, LLC). It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Sniff to adopt Resolution No. 2001-82 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 0 City Council Minutes 19 June 19, 2001 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.41; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078, AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-101 TO CHANGE LANDS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT #5 ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 65 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, COMMON AREA FACILITIES AND AN AMENDMENT OF THE LANDSCAPING PLANT PALETTE; SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE MODEL HOMES; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 17.82 ACRES INTO 65 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50. APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. (This item was continued from Page 18.) Mr. Herman proposed Condition No. 47(A)(1) be modified to read as follows: "Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - The applicant shall construct half of the total street improvements in compliance with the General Plan along the 500-foot (the property adjacent to Tentative Tract Map 30125) frontage on Eisenhower Drive. The applicant shall also construct a six-foot meandering sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and a 12-foot raised center median. The applicant will be reimbursed for the cost of the median construction from the Transportation DIF in an amount not to exceed the budget allowance for this median construction. The applicant shall dedicate all future right-of-way along Eisenhower Drive (adjacent to Golf Hole No. 13 on the Dunes Course) necessary for the construction of Eisenhower Drive pursuant to the General Plan standards The applicant shall provide a construction easement necessary to construct a retaining wall, including necessary easements to construct said wall on applicant's property. Applicant shall be responsible for all modifications to Golf Hole No. 13 on the Dunes Course, including but not limited to, modifications to golf paths, golf lake, green, tee box, fairway, irrigation, landscaping, and any other modification necessary for the safety of the public." Mayor Pena suggested Hole No. 13 be referred to in the condition as the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive. • City Council Minutes 20 June 19, 2001 Mr. Herman advised of additional modifications to Condition No. 47(A)(1) as follows: "The applicant may enter into a secured agreement for the construction of Eisenhower Drive street improvements or construct street improvements prior to final map. The secured agreement shall reflect the following time line: Eisenhower Drive improvements shall be constructed before or at the same time the Eisenhower Drive bridge and Eisenhower Drive improvements are made along Hole No. 13 (or if renumbered, the golf hole adjacent to Eisenhower Drive)." In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman stated under the proposed condition the developer is responsible for constructing approximately 500 feet of Eisenhower Drive but not responsible for other improvements south of the tract frontage. Although the applicant may bond for the improvements, the improvements must be completed by the time the City constructs the bridge. He stated he was not sure if the road, parkway, sidewalk, and median improvements between the bridge and Tract 30125 were included in the $480,000 figure referenced by KSL but the proposed condition relieves KSL of those improvements. City Attorney Jenson noted the sidewalk and landscaping requirements on the 820 feet are also waived. She recommended if Council approves the proposed conditions that staff be directed to come back with a formal amendment to amend the conditions of approval for the Tract Map and Site Development Permit. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Vogt stated it's not known at this time whether or not the easement and/or right-of-way will fall within the lake boundaries but the proposed condition requires dedication of a construction easement at no cost to the City. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Vogt stated the only cost estimate available at this time for the improvements that the developer is being relieved of is the estimate provided by the developer. He advised the bridge is identified in the CIP for design next year and construction the following year. • City Council Minutes 21 June 19, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 41 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078, ZONE CHANGE 2001-101, SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT NO. 5, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 (KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to adopt Resolution No. 2001-83 as submitted. In response to the City Attorney, Mr. Hosea stated KSL is in agreement with the conditions as modified. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR SIX ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078 - KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to adopt Resolution No. 2001-84 as submitted. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to take up Ordinance No. 358 by title and number only and waive further reading. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO. ORDINANCE NO. 358 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE LAND DESIGNATION FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A 17.82-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50 (ZONE CHANGE 2001-101 - KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). City Council Minutes 22 June 19, 2001 It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to introduce Ordinance No. 358 on first reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Mayor Pena NOES: Council Member Sniff ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 2001-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT NO. 5 FOR A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE, AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES ON 622 ACRES KNOWN AS THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB (KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). It was moved by Council Members Adolph/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 2001-85 as submitted. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF 65 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT NO. 5(SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 - KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to adopt Resolution No. 2001-86 as submitted. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF 17.82 ACRES INTO 65 PARCELS AND A NUMBER OF LETTERED LOTS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 - KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to adopt Resolution No. 2001-87 as amended (amending Condition No. 47(A)(1) as presented by staff). Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO. City Council Minutes 23 June 19, 2001 MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to direct staff to come back with amendments for the Tract Map and Site Development Permit for KSL Development. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO. PU; INESS SESSION ............continued 3. CONSIDERATION OF UTILIZING CITY -OWNED BUILDING IN THE VILLAGE AS OFFICES FOR LA QUINTA POLICE DEPARTMENT. Management Analyst Casillas presented the staff report. In response to Council Member Perkins, Ms. Casillas advised the utility cost estimates are based on the high -end estimates provided by the Chamber of Commerce. Council Member Perkins questioned the water and phone cost estimates and asked about the landscape maintenance cost. Ms. Casillas stated the monthly cost estimate to add the facility to the City's contract with Lundeen is $100. Council Member Sniff stated he was told the air conditioning and heating units in the facility need repair. In response to Mayor Pena, Assistant City Manager Weiss stated staff has inspected the facility but did not conduct a thorough examination of all the facilities in the building. Council Member Sniff noted the additional repair costs need to be included with the cost estimates. City Manager Genovese noted the maintenance/repair costs will exist for any use of the property except for a parking lot. Council Member Adolph asked if staff has looked into the facility being used as an art gallery or other commercial business. Mr. Weiss responded no, stating staff understood the Police Station was Council's preferred use. In response to Mayor Pena, Sergeant Ammons stated he felt the facility would serve the officers' needs and be a win -win situation for the police officers and the City. He noted it will provide more visibility in the village, including storage for the officers' bicycles to use in the village. _.p c_, r 4 % '�'I^I •� t I � ' t U � °�1S I dli PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-042, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION LOCATION: THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, BETWEEN AVENUE 47 AND AVENUE 48 REQUEST: AMEND THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW PARKING LOT LIGHTING FIXTURES INSTEAD OF BOLLARD LIGHTING SO AS TO MEET THE CITY'S ZONING CODE PARKING LOT LIGHTING STANDARDS. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION PROJECT AS MODIFIED BY THIS REQUEST, IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING/ DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: Site Background The La Quinta Arts Foundation Specific Plan 2000-042 was approved by the City Council in June 2000. The applicant under the Specific Plan is required to provide low vertical light bollards within all parking lots. City staff, Arts Foundation representatives and the Homeowner Association Board members of Laguna de la Paz met on August 23, 2001. A presentation was given by the lighting consultant who then answered questions. Project Request The applicant has filed a request to amend the Specific Plan to allow 18 foot high parking lot light fixtures in place of the bollard lighting. The reason for this amendment is that in completing the parking lot lighting plan, the applicant's lighting consultant has determined and demonstrated to city staff that the originally proposed bollard lights cannot meet the City's lighting standards (Section 9.150.080(K)(8). G:\WPDOCS`,PCStfRptArtsSP042Amd# 1.wpd The Specific Plan Amendment proposes changes only to Page 27 of the document (Attachment #1). The section on bollard lighting would be deleted, and new language inserted which allows the installation of 18 foot high lighting standards with light fixtures having flat lenses. The fixtures will also be shielded so as to eliminate possible light glare and spillage onto the residential structures at Laguna de la Paz. A photometric study has been prepared, as well as a narrative description of to proposed lighting, which demonstrate that the proposal will not create unacceptable lighting conditions, per the City Zoning Code, at the Laguna de la Paz project (Attachment #2). In accordance with the mitigation measures the light standards will be located a minimum of 50 feet to the north of Laguna de la Paz boundary. Lighting levels along the southern project boundary will be 0.01 foot-candle. The existing elevation of the homes within Laguna de la Paz is 60 feet, the approved elevation of the Arts Foundation general parking lot varies from 54 to 59 feet and the berm height separating the two uses has an approved elevation of 65 feet (as measured from the Laguna de la Paz side). The Laguna de la Paz interior street that runs parallel to the artist parking lot has a 58 foot elevation. The approved elevation of the artist parking lot is 54 and the berm separating the two uses has an approved elevation of 65 feet (as rrreasured from the Laguna de la Paz side.) Lighting within the parking lots will meet City standards of one footcandle, providing a safe environment for drivers and pedestrians. Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 16, 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. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Specific Plan Amendment can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution, with the exception of the following: Finding 1 - Land Use Compatibility The proposed Amendment is compatible with adjacent properties, insofar as lighting levels will be only 0.01 foot-candle at the property line. However, with regard to reducing visibility of the light standards, staff is recommending the light fixtures are painted a brown color to blend in with the mountains to the west of the site (Condition #2). G:\WPDOCS\PCStfRptArtsSP042Amd#1.wpd RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2000-042, Amendment #1. Attachment: 1. Specific Plan 2000-042, Amendment #1 document 2. Photometric study and lighting consultant narrative Prepared by: Submitted by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Planning Consultant Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Ji GAWPC OCS\PCStfRptArtsSP042Amd# 1.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 AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 18 FOOT HIGH LIGHTING STANDARDS IN PARKING LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, BETWEEN 47TH AND 48TH AVENUES. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 00-042, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of August, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the La Quinta Arts Foundation for review of a Specific Plan Amendment to allow 18 foot high lighting standards within the parking lots on 28.33 ± acres located on the west side of Washington Street, between Avenues 47 and 48, more particularly described as: APN 643-090-024 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 Specific Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and supports the development of the proposed project. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it implements the City's lighting standards. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it will provide a safe environment for drivers and pedestrians. 4. Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with the parcel on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses along Washington Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; G:\WPD0CS\PCResoLQAFSP042.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 2000-042, Amendment #1 La Quinta Arts Foundation Adopted August 28, 2001 2. That it does hereby determine that the Specific Plan Amendment is within the scope of Environmental Assessment 00-394 and no further environmental review is required; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2000- 042, Amendment #1 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERR'Y HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PCResoLQAFSP042.WPD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Recommended SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-042, AMENDMENT #1 LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION AUGUST 28, 2001 1. The applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 2. The applicant shall specify on the lighting plan that the light fixtures will be brown in color to blend with the adjacent hillside. G:\WPCOCS\PCResoLQAFSP042.WPD IVI R C ASSOCIATES Y � �� E L E C T R I C A L E N G 1 N E E R I N G & L I G H T I N G C O N S U L T I N G Ms. Christine D'Lorio August 16, 2001 City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253-1504 Subject: La Quinta Arts Foundation — Site Lighting Comparisons Dear Christian, The following describes the differences between a bollard lighting system noted in the Specific Plan and a traditional lighting system utilizing sharp cut-off reflector systems, flat lenses and 100-watt high-pressure sodium lamps. Refer to exhibit 41 for a detailed comparison. Bollard Lighting System The bollard lighting system requires a total of 272 light fixtures in the general parking lots areas to achieve 1.09 average foot-candles, 10.9:1 average to minimum ratio and 74:1 maximum to minimum ration. Although the average footcandles meets the city ordinance the maximum to minimum and average to minimum ratios fail to come close to the city ordinances. The result of this type of lighting is extremely poor due to the hot spots of light and the potential for dangerous driving and pedestrian traffic conditions. The intended uses for bollard lighting is walkways and pedestrian gathering places where lighting is confined in a specific area. As illustrated in the photometric site plan (exhibit 2) the lighting between bollards provide for good illumination while the lighting in the drive lanes falls to .20 foot-candles. This was achieved by raising the top of the bollard to +/- 6'6", which positions the light at or about eye level, in order to increase the distribution of light and to raise the base of the light out of the flood basin. What's important to understand about the .20 foot-candles is that these readings are calculated with no cars parked in the spaces. What will happen when cars are present is that the drive lanes will not be lighted and even worst, drivers could be confronted direct glare from the raised bollard light fixture. Engineers and lighting designers are concerned about two type of glare, "discomfort glare" is the subjective component that causes a discomfort to the eye but does not interfere with the ability to see. "Disability Glare" on the other hand, is that which dangerously affects one's ability to function in an environment. An example would be the temporary blindness after passing an oncoming car with its high -beam lights on or driving through areas with little or no illumination while approaching areas illuminated with hot spots of light and light sources positioned at eye level. 1 255 EAST RAMDN ROAD / PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92264 / 760.325.1045 FAX: 760.325.3025 mrcrayakaol.coln IARC ASSOCIATES ELECTRICAL ENGI NEERI N G & LIGHTING C O N S U LTI N G August 16, 2001 Subject: La Quinta Arts Foundation — Site Lighting Comparisons Pole Mounted Lighting The pole lighting system being proposed in exhibit #3 utilizes 93 light fixtures compared to 272 required for a bollard lighting system. The average foot-candle is 1.16 across the total area of the parking lots. This is best illustrated by the maximum to minimum ration of 16:1 and the average to minimum ration of 5.8:1. As illustrated in the photometric data the drive lanes generally have between 1.20 to .20 foot-candles of light. We are able to create an extremely efficient and even illumination by utilizing a lighting fixture that incorporates a type 5 reflector system with a vertical lamp position to reduce the high levels of foot-candles directly below the fixture while spreading light in broader areas. Combined with a flat lens and a mounting height of 18'0" the results of this lighting system provide for even illumination with no hot spots of light. In addition to utilizing a high performance luminaire we chose to utilize High Pressure Sodium lamps to reduce the contrast of light between the dark sky and the color of the artificial light. Contrast issues are generally promoted when white light sources are used against a dark sky, which results in discomfort glare. The issue of discomfort and disability glare is minimized in the pole lighting design approach by positioning fixture away from the residential side of the project, properly spacing luminaries to eliminate hot spots of light and mounting a sharp cut-off luminaire at 18'0" above grade. The foot-candle readings at the residential properties are less than .01 foot-candles without taking in account that a 6' landscape berm exists. Photometric data and readings are based on a flat plan or workspace and do not take into account berms, trees, cars or other objects that might block the light. The result of this lighting system will be even illumination with little or no glare, low levels of contrast against the night sky and no intrusion of light into residential properties. If in the event you have additional questions concerning the project lighting issues or general questions concerning lighting design please contact me at 760-325-1045. cere , Ra A. ya President Pe: Christi Salamone Greg Diodati 1 255 EAST RAMON ROAD / PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92264 / 760.325.1 045 FAX: 760.325.3025 i 1 mrcraya(i_aol.com IVIRC ASSOCIATES ELECTRICAL E N G I N E E R I N G & L I G H T I N G C O N S U L T I N G La Quinta Arts Foundation Lighting Study BOLLARD LIGHTING POLE MOUNTED LIGHTING Average Footcandles 1.09 1.16 Maximum Footcandles 7.4 3.2 Minimum Footcandles 0.1 0.2 Average to Minimum 10.9 to 1 5.8 to 1 Ration Maximum to Minimum 74 to 1 16 to 1 Ration 1 255 EAST RAMON ROAD / PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92264 / 760.325.1045 FAX: 760.325.3025 l Rll'CPay arh),aol.Coin EEL.�r,,o� ��Rv SERIES SK Catalog No. Wattage A B SKA SKB 150 175 8 12 42 42 LAMPS: MV - Mercury Vapor MH - Metal Halide HPS - High Pressure Sodium VOLTAGE: 120 - 208 - 240 - 277 OPTIONAL FINISHES: DBE - Dark Bronze BLE - Black GYE - Pewter SPECIFICATIONS LUMINAIRE ... shall be a heavy gauge extruded aluminum tubing with a cast aluminum dome and louvers. LENS ... shall be a clear screw type cylinder glass, gasketed for weather tight performance. BALLAST ... shall be either Mercury Vapor, Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium HPF core and coil ballast. MOUNTING STAND ... shall be die formed with a heavy duty porcelain socket, ballast and anchor base. FINISH ... shall be a high solid polyurethane Medium Bronze finish. Rated 1000 hour salt spray test (ASTM B-177). U.L.... all electrical components shall be U.L. listed, suitable for wet location. LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC. C21 POLES 5" STRAIGHT SQUARE STEEL GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The Gardco-Emco Lighting SSS straight steel pole consists of a one piece square fabricated steel lighting standard. The carbon steel base plate is secured to the shaft with a continuous circumferential weld providing excellent strength and integrity. The poles are finished with an electrostatically applied, thermally cured TGIC polyester powder coat. All poles include anchor bolts, full base cover, hand hole, ground lug and top cap. ORDERING POLE HEIGHT SIZE GAUGE DRILLING PAINTED FINISH OPTIONS SS:iR 25 5 11- D1 BRP PC SSS 25' V. 7 D1: 1 way BRP: Bronze PC: Photocontrol 30' 11 D2: 2 way NP: Natural Aluminum and Receptacle D3: 3 way BLP: Black (in top cap) D4: 4 way WP: White PCR: Receptacle only T2: 2 3/8" OD Tenon OC•: Optional Color (in top rap) T4: 4" OD Tenon (Specify RAL designation as FES: Festoon Outlet shown in Color Selection Guide) SC: Special Color (Must supply color chip.) TYPE POLE HEIGHT SIZE GAUGE DRILLING FINISH OPTIONS SSS 5 SSS 5 SSS 5 SSS 5 SSS 5 SSS 5 CATALOG NUMBER POLE SIZE MAXIMUM LUMINAIRE LOADING* ANCHOR BOLT DATA"` PREFIX HEIGHT (FT.) POLE SIZE (inches) . .GAUGE 100 MPH EPA-FT2 90 MPH EPA�T2 80 MPH EPA-FT2 BOLT CIRCLE (inches) BOLT SIZE (inches) MAX PROJ. (inches) SSS 25 5 11 3.7 6.3 9.8 11 1 x 36 x 4 4.0 SSS 25 5 7 9.1 12.7 17.8 11 1 x 36 x 4 4.0 SSS 30 5 11 - 2.0 4.7 11 1 x 36 x 4 4.0 SSS 30 5 7 3.9 6.7 10.7 11 1 x 36 x 4 4.0 *Warning: Additional wind loading, in terms of EPA, from banners, cameras, floodlights and other accessones attached to the pole, must be added to the luminafre(s) EPA before selecting the pole with the appropriate wind load capability. "Factory supplied template must be used when setting anchor bolts. Gardco•Emco Lighting will not honor any claim for incorrect anchorage placement resulting from failure to use factory supplied templates. Gardco r--�— E M CO 2661 Alvarado Street San Leandro, CA 94577 ph: 800/227-0758 CA 510/357-6900 Lighting —LIGHTING FAX 510/357-3088 http://www.sitelighting.com/ Genlyte Thomas Group LLC FE I 'l � 4 b tr. . .xuco"pw" . . . . . . . ...�.�� ORDERING i41P s .., PREFIX MOUNTING SIZE DISTRIBUTION WATTAGE VOLTAGE FINISH OPTIONS DEC P1 18 OV 1000MH 277 BRP PCR EC P7 18' li 11! 2Z SEE CHART 120 BRP CR ACR t x . DEC P2 23, 2H 2H tL Ve BELOW 208 BLP HS POLY ft 6 � DECT P3 3H 3H 2H 3V 240 NP F OS f ' P4 FH FH 3H FV 277 WP PCT QUAD 1 as OH OH FH QV 480' OC PCR t _ 3V 3V OH 3V-RNC SC PCB OV-RNC 1p OV QV 3SV QSV PREFIX DISTRIBUTION EC Ecolume HORIZONTAL LAMP VERTICAL LAMP' MALLMASTER DEC Decolume 2H Type 11 3V" Type ill Semi Cutoff VertiC0 DECT Decolume Tall 3H Type III ow Type V Square 3SV Type III # FH Forward Throw FV' Forward Throw QSV Type V MOUNTING QH Type V Square 3V-RNC" T dvIII w/reduced nadir candlepower P1 Yoke Mount - QV-RNC2' Type V w/reduced Fits EMCO SSS5 Pole P2 Yoke Mount Pole Top Fitter - nadir candlepower Fits 2 3W O.D. Tenon P3 Yoke Mount Pole Top Fitter - Fits 3' - 3 1/2' O.D. Tenon P4 Yoke Mount Pole Top Fitter - Fits 4' O.D. Tenon WATTAGE' FINISH OPTIONS a Ecolume/Decolume is a tilinear post -top mounted ECP/DECP18 BRP Bronze Painted CR Colored Reveal - Decolume only The Deolume 250HPS 250MH BLIP Black Painted (Specify cobr. Subject to aval1W1 ) a luminaire. 400HPS 40OMH NP Natural Aluminum Painted HS Internal House Side Shield tures three (3) decorative ECP/DECP23 WP White Painted (Supplied standardwdhFWFVopli s) s alongthe lower 750HPS 75OMH OC- Optional Color Paint F Fusing portion p 1000HPS 1000MH 'Specify RAL designation as PCT Twistlock Photocontrol and .he dieformed housing. DECTPIB shown in Color Selection Guide Receptacle precision segmented 750HPS 45OPSMH ex. OC-RAL7024 PCR Twistlock Photocontrol Receptacle Only 750MH SC Special Color Paint PCB Button Photocontrol ;ical systems provide 1000MH (Must supply color chip) (Photocontrals 11r ad to l000wmavftn m combined wired light levels, even s luminan wattage.IVAw/480W mination, wide pole NOTES ACR'• Acrylic Sag Lens Icings and glare control. 1. 18" Vertical lamp optics are supplied standard with a high POLY" Polycarbonate Sag Lens 'Only temperature resistant thermoplastic sag lens. 23' Vertical lamp available w/ar oW and twin luminalres ® 180' door frame is anodized, optics are supplied standard with sag glass. " WA w/DECA23' or DECT18lunftdres. ruded aluminum. Each 2. 3V/QV optical system features an upper (factory set) sharp QS Quartz Standby linaire is completely cutoff socket position. For wider spacings, a lower (field QUAD Quad Tap Ballast (12W2O8/240/277) p y adjustable) semi -cutoff socket position may be set. tied and gasketed, 3. RNC (Reduced Nadir Candlepower) option should be specified venting intrusion from only in applications requiring extreme maximum to minimum uniformity ratios (5 to 1 or lower). Reduced lumiraire efficiency isture, dust, insects and will result in lower footcandle levels. Itaminants. The DECT 4. Mercury Vapor (MV) is available. ising adds subtle D I M E N S 10 N S iitional height to allow for In...." ..-.,- e nt,a:a,.:., ECOLUME/DECOLUME DIMENSIONS r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 CASE NO.: ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT APPLICANT: ONTARIO NEON PROPERTY OWNER: STATER BROTHERS MARKETS (STORE #128) REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE ONE ELEVEN - LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER TO ALLOW A PERMANENT ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER BUILDING MOUNTED SIGN FOR THE SUPER RX PHARMACY ON THE SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION FOR THE STATER BROS. SUPERMARKET LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: 78-630 HIGHWAY 111 M/CR (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 (CLASS 11, ITEM Al OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) IN THAT IT IS FOR NEW SIGNS. Stater Brothers is in the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center (Specific Plan 89-014), located on the north side of Highway 111 between Washington Street and Adams Street. The Sign Program for the shopping center was initially approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1990, permitting internally illuminated channel lettering signs for the tenants in varying sizes depending on whether the user is an in - line use, or major tenant requiring a larger identification sign. Albertsons supermarket, a Phase 1 major tenant, was allowed their corporate sign of 3'-0" and 4'-0" high individual illuminated channel letters and accompanying 5'-0" high logo (122 sq. ft., or 192' sq. ft. graphic rectangle). However, supplemental signs ("Liquor" and "Food - drug") were denied because they were determined as not appropriate. A number of corporate businesses in the center have received approval of their building signs (i.e., graphic:, lettering style, trademark colors and logos, etc.) by the Commission in the last eleven years. The Stater Brothers grocery store (formerly Albertsons) is located on the west side of the shopping center (Attachment 1). An internally illuminated channel letter sign for the Stater Bros. supermarket south -facing facade was approved by the Planning Commission in 1999. Sign face letters are red and approximately 4-feet high by 45- feet long (177 square feet), centered on the 245-foot long stucco facade. A blue and white logo sign ("0" in Bros.) was also allowed. On March 25, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a corporate identification channel letter sign for the mini -branch Wells Fargo Bank facility inside Stater Bros. by adoption of Minute Motion 97-003. This permanent identification sign, measuring 18- inches high by 21-feet long (31.5 square feet) with yellow copy, has been installed and is located on the south -facing facade closest to the west entrance of the supermarket. REQUEST: The applicant has submitted an amended One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center Sign Program for the Stater Brothers Market (Attachment 2). The proposal is to add a new internally illuminated channel letter sign for the store's pharmacy, reading "Super Rx Pharmacy" in primarily 18-inch high letters with red plexiglass faces in 3/16 inch thickness, mounted on the south building elevation in close proximity to the east store entrance. Letter depth is seven -inches with black trim cap and exterior finish. It is staff's understanding that the pharmacy is a separate business inside the store and accounts for 434 square feet of the under -roof lease area. The location of the proposed sign is consistent with the Commission's approval of the Well's Fargo sign in 1997, at 12 feet above the pedestrian arcade and two feet lower than the lowest section of the Stater Bros. sign. This sign, and the existing Wells Fargo sign, are approximately 25 feet from east and west ends of the Stater Bros. sign and centered above the storefront windows. The grocery store is located approximately 330 feet from Highway 111. FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.160.090 (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below: SRPC Sign563 RX - Greg - Page 2 form\s-tan\sa 2001-536; Ret. 8/20 1. The Amended Sign Program is consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign requirements in that the location of the proposed sign is consistent with the Wells Fargo permanent sign previously approved by the Planning Commission for the south -facing building facade. 2. The submitted sign exhibit is compatible and consistent with the design parameters of the shopping center and those signs previously approved by the Commission for corporate tenants. In conclusion, the findings needed to approve this request can be made provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Amended Sign Program for Stater Bros., subject to the above findings and the attached conditions. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Sign Program Exhibit Prepared by: i� `�y X Gr - royisdell Associate Planner Submitted by: Chris ine di lorio Planning Manager SRPC Sign563 RX - Greg - Page 3 form\stan\sa 2001-536; Ret. 8/20 MINUTE MOTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT SIGN APPLICATION 2001-563 (ONTARIO NEON) AUGUST 28, 2001 GENERAL 1. Sign Application 2001-563 shall expire and become null and void on August 28, 2002, unless sign is installed or an extension of time is granted by the Community Development Director. 2. The applicant and/or property owner agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. A building permit shall be obtained to install any permanent building sign covered under this application pursuant to the exhibits on file with the Community Development Department. SA PC Sign563 RX coa - greg A-1 SHOPS .-6 1 9 90 S F .3 0 S F �M MAJOR 8 8 loo S . 100 S F I m i (n Lj- -0 a- w 2, A-3 cr- STATER BROS #128 LLI110 MAJOR L C-1 L&QWA2263 35.200 S f 0 Cl) SHOPS E 4OOdS Future Phase P. - Cl? AD STATE HIGHWAY 111 245'-0' 44' • 9' �I STATER BROS 0 0 0 0 0 G 25'-Ir irl: SUPER Rx PHARMACY n n n n n 0 0 0 0 0 1116' _ STATER BROS #128 1 78-630 Hr4WAY 111. 1 LA QUINTA. CA C2253 j J EXISTING LCHANNEL ' MONUMENT EXISTINGRMACY" SIGN SIGN ERS EXISTING \ MONUMENT SIGN (61 O N TA R I O NEON C O ■ SINCE 1 S 4 ED so3 wEs� anAIN SI IFI. ONTAPoO. CALFp9MA 9t7fi2 TEL: 1609196fi-O Fp% (9091993$376 6TATEUCEJ6E u622966 `a ^ _ _ Ea) yrY$I/1�� PROJECT: SCALE: DATE: FILE: FOLDER: DESIGN #: STATER BROS *128 78630 HIGHWAY 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 AS NOTED 001 AUGUST R S STATER BROS STORE #128 128-002 HIGHWAY n(111p1 I_GLV IC II \`�/ AUG 0 32Mi SITE PLAN NOT TO SCALE CITY OF LAOUINTA '•SKETCfIMAAYVARY ARY FROM SPECIFIED COLORS ••SIGN C1 TO BE PROVIDED BY CUSTOMER being This is an OnDublishetl drawingwdhtheevicephpn Of trademarxs.createtl forrSonel nechnn with a Drniect D18nnedfor you by Neon Co Ilisnoltobshowntoanyneoutsrdeour ww organizatis it la be used, reprotlucetl,porehi6iledinanyfashionwilitan fromenOff,c r lOntarioNecinCoOwnershipesign Dermiss�on is held by Ontario Neon Co N PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001 CASE NO.: SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 2001-555 (AMENDMENT #1) SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036 APPLICANT: PETERSON, SLATER, AND OSBORNE, CPA'S PROPERTY OWNER: J. PAUL REQUEST: MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM LOCATION: 79-440 CORPORATE CENTRE DRIVE (LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTRE) BACKGROUND: On March 14, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Site Development Permit 2000- 669 for a 47,000 square foot multi -tenant industrial/office building. The site for this building falls into Specific Plan 99-036 (La Quinta Corporate Centre) approved by the City Council on September 7, 1999. On July 10, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Sign Permit Application 2001-555 to establish a sign program for this building (Attachment #1 and #2). Peterson, Slater, and Osborne, CPA's, a tenant in the building, is now requesting that the sign program be modified to accommodate their sign request. The approved tenant sign program consists of 3/4 inch thick acrylic letters in helvetica font. These letters are to be stud mounted directly to the building and would not be illuminated in any way. A combination of black and gold coloring is to be integrated into each letter to provide interest and shadowing. The signs are to be placed in a specific sign area previously approved by the Planning Commission. Businesses with a double frontage were instructed to use one side of the fascia on which to place their sign. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant occupies a tenant space with a double frontage and would like approval to center his sign between the two lease spaces instead of having it on only one side of the fascia (Attachment #3). August 22, 2001 Page 1 MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.160.090(E)(3) (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. Alternative Locations: The Zoning Code allows a sign to be placed in an alternative location when normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of a structure. By placing a sign on one side of the fascia, the uniformity of the building is compromised. Therefore, staff supports the centering of this sign to create a balanced effect. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2001- approving the amended 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 will be located in the center of the fascia. Attachments: 1 Previously approved sign program 2. Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 2001 3. Proposed sign location Prepared by: Michele Rambo, Associate Planner August 2:2, 2001 Page 2 Submitted by: Christine di lorio, rlanning Manager w V P-W W "- F V a w W a` 10k, -.1 %0- F V N FB,%w %A F I P% w V 5 j( ATE CENTRE [)I,. LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 -Ij 6 Lo ll� -m-erial Sion Company Inc. V SIGN PROGRAM (760) IJKLM contact Mark Ross 347-3566 I -L - to TENANTS TE AN 8 TENANTS TERANT4 TENANTS TENANT,. 77 -7 Max 2,4_ � L� LJ lJ A LA-J- 9 19 Deolomated oiam area 60 5Q. FT. FRONTAGE 51GNAGE bO% 486Q. FT. AVAIL113LE AFFROVEDSIGNAGE: 3/4" PAINTED BLACK ACRYLIC, LAMINATED WITH SHINY GOLD WK15CO METAL INSET 3/4 f9 TO SHOW BLACK BOARDER STUD MOUNTED INTO PLASTER WITH MINIMAL ADHESIVE WK15CO METAL FACE I 5TUP 5/411 ! MOUNTED Acrylic 24" LETTEK5 OWNERS: MR & MK5 JAME5 PAUL t3UILDEK5: OKK DUILDER5 ARCHITECT: RODENT H. RIGGIAR01 ATTACHMENT #2 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 C. Site Development Permit 2001-669: a request of James R. Paul for review of a proposed sign program for an approved multi -tenant industrial/office building located at 79-440 Corporate Centre Drive, within the La Quinta Corporate Center. 1 . Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 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. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify the request. Staff stated they were requesting approval of the tenant and directory sign and not the monument sign. The monument sign requires a specific plan amendment. Discussion followed as to the different signs. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if the height proposed was allowed. Staff stated the height was not defined in the Code, but there was a 48-foot maximum size. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked why the applicant was making application for an amendment to the existing Code requirement. Staff stated the applicant could address this under a sign program. Commissioner Kirk asked what would happen if one tenant took two lease spaces. Staff stated they would still only be allowed a total of 80 percent of the total store frontage as designated by the sign program. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the specific plan modified the Code requirements. Staff stated it did not address size, but required them to submit a sign application under a Site Development Permit for each building. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mark Ross, Imperial Signs representing the applicant, clarified the designated sign area and stated that if a tenant took two spaces, they would still be required to submit an application to the City for approval. He went on to describe the material to be used for the sign. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to show where the designated sign area was on the storefront. Mr. Ross showed where it was located. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 8. Commissioner Butler asked if this sign program would be applied to all the tenants. Mr. Ross stated that was correct for just this building within the Center. Staff stated the entire project had design guideline for each building and each would have to come in with a sign program to conform to the Specific Plan. Mr. Ross stated that depending on the use of the building, different signage would be needed. 9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked what the Specific Plan requires; can the Specific Plan change the Zoning Code. Staff stated yes within the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kirk asked if the sign program must meet the Zoning Code if the Specific Plan did not have a sign program. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if you were going to exceed the Zoning Code requirements, it would have to be stated in the Specific Plan. Planning Manager Christine di lorio read the Zoning Code definition for sign program and stated the applicant is seeking additional flexibility in the sign program. Commissioner Kirk stated that if a registered trade mark is involved they could request a cabinet sign. Staff stated that was correct, but the Commission could deny the cabinet. The reference to a cabinet could be deleted from the condition. Commissioner Kirk asked why the Commission would have to address registered trademarks when they are submitting a sign program. Condition #f2 could be removed. Staff clarified that staff in the past, has not supported what type of products are sold by the tenant in the sign program as a sign is for the identification of the business. 1 1. Commissioner Tyler stated that that type of information usually appears on the windows and can be controlled by the Zoning Code. 12. Commissioner Kirk asked if they met the sign program can they put whatever they want up for a sign. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated they would not be in compliance with the Zoning Code as it defines identification signs for multi -tenant buildings. 13. Commissioner Butler asked how the sign would be positioned if a tenant took two spaces. Staff stated a condition could be added allowing them to center the sign. Planning Commission Minutes July '10, 2001 14. Commissioner Robbins stated there was a discrepancy in the size of the sign and what is shown on the design. Mr. Ross stated the example shown in the picture is the east elevation on Dune Palms Road. If one tenant took two spaces they would still be limited by the size stipulation. 15. Commissioner Robbins stated there was enough discrepancy in what was being proposed that he would like the project to be continued as it is uncertain what they are proposing. 16. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant was entitled to signs on both frontages. Mr. Ross stated they have one tenant who would have two frontages. 17. Commissioner Robbins asked if the size was the same for all signs. Mr. Ross stated the signs are all different sizes as they were trying to achieve a balance in the signs. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-095 approving Site Development Permit 2001- 669, subject to the findings and conditions as amended. a. Condition #2 & 3 deleted. b. Condition #4: The proposed directory and monument signs are not a part of this approval ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. D. Site Development Permit 2001-682 Amendment #1: a re of World Gym Palm Desert, LLC for review of a revised a nor elevation and landscape plan for a previously approved , 00 square foot fitness center located at 46-760 Commer ourt, within the La Quinta Corporate Center. 1. Chairman Abe pened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. ssociate Planner Michele Rambo presented the inf ation contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. r.•\WPnnCS\PC7-10-01.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questio of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant coul provide any rationale for their request. Staff stated /esenting he reason for the request. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant address the Commission. Ms. Wanda Mataranga, rWorld Gym, stated they wanted a brick building, butct designed a building with awnings and plaster whiQ� they did not want. The building is 30 feet high and there ar�small 3 by 5 windows to bring natural light into the building toy/decrease the intense lighting. The awnings defeat the purpose he windows which was to let in the natural light. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked why�e applicant was objecting to plant sizes. Ms. Martaranga state their only objection was the cost. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if they were wanting smaller trees as well as the plant ma rial. Ms. Mataranga stated both. Commissioner Tyler ask d if the applicant was concerned about the amount of heat th would be coming in the windows. Ms. Mataranga stated the indows would be treated to keep the heat out and let the light i . Commissioner Tyler stated the purpose of the awnings was to dd articulation and without them there is only a flat exterior. s. Mataranga stated the look of the building would not be ch ged by adding the awnings. 6. Commissioner utler asked how much of the use of the building was on the s cond floor. Discussion followed regarding the size and wheth r Title 24 requirements would be changed. Commissio r Butler stated he was concerned about approving the smaller pla t material. Ms. Mataranga stated they have invested a lot of oney into this building and the landscaping will be maintain d no matter what the size. 7. There b ing no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the publiZTmission articipation portion of the hearing and opened the project or fC discussion. 8. Co missioner Kirk stated she agrees with the applicant's request to remove the awnings and retain the plant material as re ommended by staff. u K) LD N N Eq