The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 09 11 PCT-iht 4 4Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California SEPTEMBER 11, 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 2001-1 12 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-016 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 August 28, 2001. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-713 Applicant........... Rancho Capistrano Development Corporation Location............ North of Avenue 54 and east of Jefferson Street, within Country Club of the Desert Request ............. Review of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units Action ............... Resolution 2001- B. Item ................... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092 Applicant........... Barton Properties Location............ Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street Request ............. Review of conceptual parkway landscape plans for a 97- lot residential subdivision Action ............... Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 Applicant........... Code & Brady, Architects Location............ South side of Avenue 52, east of the intersection with Washington Street, within the Tradition Request ............. Review of development plans for a permanent maintenance and construction gatehouse Action ............... Resolution 2001- D. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 Applicant........... Michael Shovlin (for Staples) Location............ North side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Washington Street, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center Request ............. Review of development plans for a 23,492 square foot commercial center Action ............... Resolution 2001- E. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-705 Applicant........... Mary T. Delgato - Kristi Hanson, Architect Location............ Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1, within Point Happy Commercial Center Request ............. Review of development plans for Las Casuelas restaurant Action ............... Resolution 2001- PC/AG:3NDA F. Item ................... ADDENDUM TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #232, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-430, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-079, AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-102 Applicant........... Coral Mountain LLC Location............ Southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 Request ............. 1) Certification of an Addendum to Riverside County EIR #232; 2) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the property east of ; 3) Change the Land Use Designation: A► From County designation MR (Medium Residential - 2-5 units per acre) and GC (Golf Course) as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1 to LDR (Low Density Residential - 2-4 units per acre); B) From 3A (0.4 - 2 units per acre) and Planned Residential Reserve (0-5 units per acre) to Low Density Residential (LDR) on the 40 acres at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 50 not included in Riverside County Specific Plan 218 Amendment No. 1 4) Zone Change A) From Riverside County Designation Specific Plan (SP) as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1 to Low Density Residential (RL) and Golf Course (GC); B) From Residential Agriculture (W-2 and RA) to Low Density Residential (RQ and Golf Course (GC) on the 40 acres at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 50 not included in Riverside County Specific Plan 218 Amendment No. 1 Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , and Resolution 2001- G. Item ................. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-694 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... Northwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Adams Street Request ............ Review of building elevations and landscape plans for the La Quinta Community Park Action .............. Request to continue September 25, 2001 PC / AGi3NDA VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: 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 August 28, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. Commissioner Tyler thanked everyone for their good well wishes for the surgery he recently went through. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 24, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item #8 be corrected to read, "Ms. Johnson stated the levels are low and would conform to all FCC standards." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Continued - Zoning Code Amendment 2000-066; a request of the City for review of applicability and impact of current Water Efficient Ordinance on development proposals. G:\WPD0CS\PC8-28-01.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 1. Staff requested this item be tabled at this time. It would be re - noticed when it was ready to be brought back to the Commission. 2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to table this issue as requested. B. Environmental Assessment 2001-427 Conditional Use Permit 2001-062; a request of AT&T Wireless Services. for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the installation of telecommunication apparatus on a new 120 foot high tower located at 81-600 Avenue 58. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins stated he thought this was an existing tower they were adding an antenna to. Staff clarified that Sprint had added an antenna to the existing tower and AT&T was requesting an additional tower to accommodate the new antennas. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the staff report where it states the 12 antennas are six feet in height and 12 feet wide as this was misleading. It is his understanding there are several arrays that are spaced appropriately for the frequency involved and in between there is a lot of space. Staff stated that was correct. The description in the staff report describes the entire envelope. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Polly Johnson, representing AT & T Wireless Services, stated she was available to answer any questions. 5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the facilities they intend to use meet all the current standards of the FCC and if this tower required an obstruction light to meet the FAA requirements. Ms. Johnson stated they were licensed by the FCC and met all requirements and no light was required at this height according to G:\WPDOCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes August :28, 2001 the FAA. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like a condition added that if the FAA require a strobe light they be required to install one. 6. 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. 7. Commissioner Robbins stated his only objection was the proliferation of towers in the City. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated he had the same concern, but at the same time, if there was a good location for a tower, this was it. 9. Commissioner Butler asked if there would ever be a shared site on the towers. Ms. Johnson stated AT&T is only planning on the antennas at the top. Their landlord, IID, is possibly planning on adding some more of their radio equipment for additional carriers. The tower was designed to carry other carriers. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated his concurrence that this was a step in the right direction to allow other carriers to utilize their tower. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked if a condition could be added requiring them to allow other carriers. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he would have to look at the Tele-communications Act before he could comment. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated AT&T has stated the future locations are not being requested for at this time. If they want to expand their antenna service they will, if the landlord agrees; but at present the intent is to rent them to another carrier. 12. Commissioner Robbins suggested that instead of continuing to approve numerous towers, the Commission should approve multiple use sites throughout the City and not have the large proliferation of towers. 13. Commissioner Kirk suggested a condition be added encouraging co -location by AT&T assuming it did not conflict with the FCC Act. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated this approach appears to be innocuous and he has no problems. He would G:\WPIDOCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes August :28, 2001 suggest staff and the City Attorney's office work together to provide information to the Commission at the next meeting in regard to the rules governing towers/antennas. 14. Commissioner Kirk asked that staff fashion an appropriate condition that furthers the spirit of a co -location idea. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-105 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-427 as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-106 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-062, as recommended. a. Condition #10: Policy statement added supporting co - location with the permission of IID. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. C. Conditional Use Permit 2001-065: a request of WalMart Store #1805 for review of a request to allow 43 metal containers for the temporary storage of holiday merchandise from September 1, 2001 through January 15, 201, on the north and wet sides of the existing store within Specific Plan 89-014 for the property located at 78-960 Highway 111 within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked the at aisle widths be clarified to state aisle widths between groups of containers. In addition, does this permit allow them to have the storage bins every year. Staff G:\WPDOCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 stated yes, this would allow them to place the storage bins every year for the same time for up to 43 containers. If they wanted to make any changes, they would have to come back to the Planning Commission for an amendment. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if the City had received any complaints in regard to the removal of the containers. Staff stated there had not been no issues raised by the City's Code Compliance Department. Commissioner Butler stated he would prefer them come back each year rather than giving a blanket approval. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked how many containers are out there today. Staff stated none. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had heard of any expansion plans by WalMart for a permanent solution to the problem. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify how many containers would be on site. Discussion followed regarding the number of containers to be placed on site. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Robert Schneider, representing WalMart, stated he was available to answer any questions. 7. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were any plans for expansion. Mr. Schneider stated a WalMart/Sams Club was to be constructed at the Monterey exit from Interstate 10 and it would affect this store significantly and may eliminate their need for the trailers in the future. They are still studying the feasibility of enlarging the building or turn it into a super center. 8. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this issue. 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 had great concerns about approving this forever. He believes the containers to be unsightly and as their request last year was after the fact, he has no sympathy nor does he believes it has any affect on what they are approving for this year. If they are planning on new stores or G:\WP11OCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 expanding this one, they may not have a need for the additional trailers in the future. Therefore, he would not want to grant an approval for more than one year. 10. Commissioners Kirk and Butler agreed. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated a condition should be added that nothing be placed, or stored on top of the containers. Second, a condition be added that prohibits the use of the temporary storage shelves inside the store. He also agrees that the approval should not be for no more than one year. Mr. Schneider stated he had no objections to the conditions as stated. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-107 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-065, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: a. Condition #2: Deleted and replaced with, "The storage units shall be removed by January 15, 2002. b. Condition #6: Nothing shall be placed on top of the storage containers. C. Condition #7: The use of make -shift temporary storage shelves above the standard shelving within the store is prohibited. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. D. Site Development Permit 2000-682 Amendment #2: a request of World Gym Palm Desert LLC, for approval of a second sign where one is allowed at the property located at 46-760 Commerce Court. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if the logo was consistent with the national trademark logo, and he finds that contradictory to the action taken by the Commission at the last meeting for the Self G:\WPC)0CS\PC8-28-01.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes August :28, 2001 Storage. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the Self Storage was to submit proof that the registered trade mark was the same as what they were proposing, and they were unable to do so. Whereas, World Gym has proven this is their registered trade mark. 3. Commissioner Kirk clarified the number of signs requested and asked what the rationale was to allow the second sign. Staff stated the location of the sign over the entry is not visible from the parking lot and the second sign would be visible. Commissioner Kirk asked if this would allow other tenants to apply for the second sign based on this finding. Staff stated this was specific to the criteria under ' sign allowance for additional signs through the criteria alternativelocations for the most effective use of graphic representation in the Zoning Code. As this building is at the end of a cul-de-sac it did not have a sign visible from the cul-de-sac, so that was the recommendation for the additional signs. Discussion followed regarding the criteria for additional signs. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a site plan and if there wasn't a better location where only one sign would best serve the applicant. Staff indicated where the signs would be located on the building. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mrs. Wanda Mataranga, representing World Gym, stated the sign was needed because the existing sign is not visible from Highway 111. However, they thought they were requesting a sign on the south elevation to be seen from Highway 1 1 1. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if they could only have one sign where would they want it. Ms. Mataranga stated it would have to be on the south side, but they would limit their visibility from the parking lot. 7. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this issue. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 8. Commissioner Robbins stated he was confused about having an application stating one location and the applicant wanting a different. He can understand the applicant's concern for visibility, but he is uncertain as to where the sign(s) should be, as this could set a precedent for future tenants. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated he too was concerned about sign proliferation. Obviously, the desire of the Commission is to give the tenant good visibility. Maybe they could allow the second sign for a specific period of time, or have them reduce the size of the entrance sign. 10. Commissioner Butler stated that approving two signs could be allowed with the possibility of relocating one of the signs in the future. 1 1. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the applicant that they needed visibility from Highway 111. He would recommend approving the sign request as submitted. 12. Chairman Abels stated he concurred with Commissioner Tyler. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-108 approving Site Development Permit 2000- 682, Amendment #2, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: a. Condition #2: The raceway shall be painted to match the building. b. Condition #3: The second sign shall be located on the south elevation. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. E. Tentative Tract Map 30125 Amendment #1: a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval of a reconfiguration of 21 of 55 residential lots to encompass originally approved open space for the property located at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. G:\WPDOCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 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. There being none, the applicant was asked to address the Commission. Mr. Chris Bergh, representing the applicant, stated they were in agreement with the conditions as recommended and was available to answer any questions. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked how Lot 66 could be developed due to its size. Mr. Bergh explained it would be a standard unit like all the others. It is an odd shape on the corner which requires increased setbacks and as it is right behind the gate it is difficult to get into which is one of the reasons they left it as large as it is. 4. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this issue. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-109 approving Tentative Tract Map 30125, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. F. Tentative Parcel Map 28334 Amendment #1 and Site Development Permit 97-608 Amendment #2: a request of KSL Land Recreation Corporation to amend Conditions of Approval pertaining to required off - site street improvements on Eisenhower drive south of Avenue 50. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked if this was before them for "housekeeping" issues only. Staff stated yes. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. As the applicant had no comments and there were no questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this issue. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001 -110 approving Tentative Parcel Map 28334, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001 -11 1 approving Site Development Permit 97-608, Amendment #2, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:09 It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to reorganize the agenda to take Business Items A and B at this time. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sian Permit 98-415 Amendment #1: a request of Ontario Neon for an amendment to a previously approved sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center located at 78-630 Highway 1 1 1 (Stater Bros.). G:\WPD0CS\PC8-28-01.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 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 asked if this was a second business and where the 12 feet was measured from. Staff stated the applicant could answer his first question and in regard to the height, the 12 feet was measured from the sidewalk. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Roy Courtney, representing the applicant, stated the applicant is an independent business and has a separate license and will occupy 430 square feet of the building. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if it was a separate company. Mr. Courtney stated he is unaware if Stater Bros. has any financial interest in the pharmacy, but he does know they do have a separate license. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to describe the sign, which he did. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion and opened the item for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Kirk noted his objection to sign proliferation. 8. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-014 approving an amendment to the sign program for Specific Plan 89-014, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. 9. The motion passed with Commissioner Kirk voting no. B. Specific Plan 99-036: a request of Peterson Slater and Osborne for modification to a previously approved sign program for the property located at 79-440 Corporate Center Drive, within La Quinta Corporate Center. G:\WPD0CS\PC8-28-01.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 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. There being none, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being none, Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion and opened the item for Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-015 approving an amendment to the sign program for Specific Plan 99- 036, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. 5. Unanimously approved. Community Development Director Jerry Herman excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the meeting. G. Specific Plan 2000-042 Amendment #1: a request of the La Quinta Arts Foundation for approval of an amendment to modify the parking lot lighting standards at the project located on the west side of Washington Street, between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio and Planning Consultant Nicole Criste 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 asked staff to clarify the two photometric studies. Both were the same with the exception that one of the plans also included lighting for the artist's parking lot. G:\WP[)OCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 3. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to explain the difference between the two different type of light fixtures, bollards and poles. Staff asked that the applicant explain this. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked what color light would be put out by the bulbs proposed. Staff stated yellow. Commissioner Tyler asked if these lights would affect the traffic on Washington Street. Staff stated the study shows the light exposure to Washington Street is "0" due to the berm and light source. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Frank Delaney, representing the applicant, gave his presentation on the project. He further stated they concurred with staff's recommendations and went on to explain the reason for the request. He then addressed the issues raised in the letter received from Wayne Guralnick, attorney for Laguna de la Paz homeowners and asked that the Commission either approve or deny the application to allow the project to continue going forward. They would not like to have the project continued. He then introduced Mr. Ralph Raya of MRC Associates, the electrical engineer consultant, who gave a presentation. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Raya to qualitatively explain the difference between the two photometric studies. Mr. Raya explained the difference. Commissioner Kirk asked what the difference was between the two light fixtures at the boundary with Laguna de la Paz. Mr. Raya stated they chose a light fixture that was totally shielded with the flat lens and amber lighting to reduce the amount of light. They did not increase the amount of lighting at the property line, or along Washington Street. They reduced the hot spots and foot-candles over the site. Commissioner Kirk asked how this entire project with either light source compares to the lighting along Highway 111. Mr. Raya stated landscaping lighting only lights a single area. This will have less foot-candles than the parking lot lighting at the corner shopping center. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked where the height of the fixtures was measured from. Mr. Raya stated it was measured at finish grade. The opening of the fixture is at 18 feet. G:\WPC)OCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 8. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this issue. Ms. Marie Bochnewich, representing the HOA for Laguna de la Paz, stated they were requesting a continuance to allow them time to evaluate the proposal as one week is not adequate time to evaluate the lighting plan. 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 Robbins stated he shares the concerns of the HOA, but also shares the safety concerns of the City and Arts Foundation. He concurs with the light study as presented and as the application will not be taken to the City Council for a month it will allow them ample time to have their study completed. 11. Commissioner Kirk stated he was supportive of the bollard lighting when the project was originally approved. However, he did hope the Laguna de la Paz lighting consultant could come up with an alternative lighting program utilizing the bollard lighting. He also concurs there is ample time for the homeowners to conduct a study prior to the City Council meeting. 12. Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels stated they concurred with the statements made. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 12 approving Specific Plan 2000-042, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: a. Condition #2: "...and the light fixtures shall be a maximum of 18-feet in height." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC8-28-01.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2001 IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Butler asked staff about the letter regarding the Community Park. Discussion followed. Staff stated this would be on the next Planning Commission agenda. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of July 19, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT: 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 8:48 p.m. on July 24, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPE10CS\PC8-28-01.wpd 15 P H # A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-713 APPLICANT: RANCHO CAPISTRANO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ARCHITECT: BBG ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: GMA INTERNATIONAL REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATION: NORTH OF 54T" AVENUE AND EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET, WITHIN COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035 AND IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED, PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 65457 (A). AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARING HOUSE 83062922 AND 90020727) WAS CERTIFIED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2000, BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR SP 99-035. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: The project site is within Country Club of the Desert, a golf oriented 819 unit residential project on 988 acres north of 54T" Avenue and east of Jefferson Street, approved by the City Council in November, 2000. This request is the first group of P:\STAN\sdp 2001-713 pc rpt ccod.wpd residential units (Villa Product) in the project. The first of three golf courses, clubhouse, and maintenance building are under construction, with the main guard gate approved for construction. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proposed are the following three prototypical plans (Attachment 1): Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 size - 2,555 square feet # of bedrooms - two plus attached casita baths - three garage spaces - two plus golf cart space maximum building height - 18' - one story size - 2,819 square feet # of bedrooms - three baths - three and one-half garage spaces - two plus golf cart space maximum building height - 23'-3" - one story size - 3,128 square feet # of bedrooms - three plus library baths - three garage spaces - three maximum building height - 26'-8" - two story The proposed detached units will be constructed on 85 lots near the northwest area of the project, adjacent to 52ND Avenue and the Coachella Canal. The architecture and materials of the units is similar to that used in the clubhouse and main guard house. Architectural features include articulated tile roofs combining gable and hip roofs, wood sectional garage doors, exposed rafters, inset front windows, covered rear patios, and front courtyards (on two plans) or a central courtyard. All front elevations consist of a combination of stone siding and plaster, with rear elevations consisting of plaster walls and side elevations using some stone siding and plaster. Two facades per plan are proposed. Exterior materials include smooth trowel plaster and stone siding walls, and wood trim and 'headers. Roof tile will use both barrel tile (on bottom three rows) and "s" tile, P:\STAN\sdp 2001-713 pc rpt ccod.wpd with 25% of the tiles mudded. Colors include a red blend roof tile, tan to light brown plaster, and brown to gray accent colors. I The landscaping plans include planting and design concepts for the model complex and Plan 3. Plant material include plants and trees approved in their specific plan. The applicant proposes a zero sideyard type of design, whereby the neighbor with the larger sideyard would be able to use the adjacent neighbors sideyard for planting. For information, along 52ND Avenue the Zoning Code requires that structures within 150 feet of the street be no higher than 22 feet. This may limit which units can be constructed adjacent to 52ND Avenue. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRM: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of September 5, 2001, and recommended approval by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-037, subject to conditions (Attachment 2). FINDINGS: Findings required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving Site Development Permit 2001-713, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Plan exhibit book 2. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee minutes for the meeting of September 5, 2001 Prepared by Submitted by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager P:\STAN\sdp 2001-713 pc rpt ccod.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-713 APPLICANT: RANCHO CAPISTRANO DEVELOPMENT CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 T" day of September, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of RANCHO CAPISTRANO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION to approve the development plans for three new prototype residential units, located in the Country Club of the Desert project on the north side of 54T" Avenue, between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street more particularly described as: Portions of Tentative Tract 29894 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined the Site Development Permit is within Specific Plan 99- 035 and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (a). An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing house 83062922 and 90020727) was certified on November 21, 2000, by the City Council for SP 99-035. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on September 5, 2001, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the development plans by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-037, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1 . The prototypical plans are consistent with the General Plan in that they are related to residential uses which are permitted on the residentially designated property. p:\Stan\sdp 2001-713 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-713 September 11, 2001 2. The prototypical plans are designed to comply with City Zoning Code requirements and are in compliance with Specific Plan 99-035. 3. The architectural design of the prototypical plans, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements is compatible with the surrounding development to the south and with the quality of design prevalent in the city and has been recommended by the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee. 4. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city, provided Zoning Code Section 9.50.030 (Residential Development Standards) is met. This requires that buildings within 150 feet of a General Plan designated Primary Arterial street (52ND Avenue) do not exceed 22 feet in height. 5. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, with conditions, has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-713 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions, attached hereto; p:\Stan\sdp 2001-713 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-713 September 11, 2001 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 11 Th day of September 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 p:\Stan\sdp 2001-713 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-713 RANCHO CAPISTRANO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 1. This approval is for the following three prototype Villa Product plans: A. Plan 1 - 2,555 square feet B. Plan 2 - 2,819 square feet C. Plan 4 - 3,128 square feet 2. Detailed front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 4. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 8.13 ( Section 8.13.030 Db2), at least one model plan shall incorporate the principles of water efficient landscapes. 5. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. c:\stan\pc coa sdp 98-640 (minor rev) A ..,__ .Y_ A 14 A A i. - A I #t Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 4. Committee Member Cunningham asked what would be used on the windows. Staff explained the trim would be painted a satin black. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-034 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-710, as requested. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to take Item "E" last to allow the applicant time to arrive. Unanimously approved. G. Site Development Permit 2001-713; a request of Rancho Capistrano Development Corporation for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units located north of Avenue 54 and east of Jefferson Street within Country Club of the Desert. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated the design is in keeping with the other buildings. Unless there is something obviously wrong or there was a problem with the design, he believed that within gated communities the market will determine whether or not the design of the houses would be successful. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the style of architecture is different, but in keeping with what is occurring in the desert. To him, the design is somewhat box -like. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated the chimney stacks need to be dealt with architecturally and built as designed. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why the landscape plans were not included and are these stand alone units with zero lot lines. Staff stated the landscaping would be as submitted in the designs and they were stand alone units. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there needs to be enough drainage in the sideyard so ponding does not occur. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC9-5-01.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 6. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the sideyard responsibility is given to one owner. Mr. Robert Wilkenson, stated that is what is proposed. Committee Member Cunningham stated it needs to be added to the CC&R's to make it clear to the property owners as well as a disclosure at the time of the sale. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated another issue is a swimming pool where the electrical and/or gas lines go through the neighbors sideyard easement. It should also be disclosed. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-035 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-713, as recommended. F. Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties for review of conceptual parkway landscaping plans for a 97 lot residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff to explain the wall. Staff stated it would be six or eight foot depending on the Public Works Department height requirement for the berm, but it would have delineation and be stucco or slumpstone. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the tract would be custom lots. Staff stated the lots would be sold to individual builders for construction. The applicant was considering resubmitting the map for changes. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-036 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092, as recommended by staff. H. Capital Improvement Project 2001-694; a request of the City for review of the building elevations and landscaping plans for the La Quinta Community Park. 1. 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. G:\WPD0CS\A1.RC9-5-01.wpd 5 E_3 PLANING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE:: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092 APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC. FOR CHARLES AND NORMA FAUSEL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: SHAWN T. BURCH LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET REQUEST: REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL PARKWAY LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR A 97-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION GENERAL PLAN, ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR @ 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON JULY 3, 2001, THE CITY COUNCIL, ON A 5-0 VOTE, ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2001-91 CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2001-417) FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA SOUTH: ACROSS 58T" AVENUE, DATE PALM GROVES AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA EAST: ACROSS MONROE STREET, SCATTERED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND OTHER VACANT PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA SRPC Tr. 30092 Land. - Greg Page 1 of 4 WEST: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT OFFICES AND AFFILIATED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION FACILITIES BACKGROUND: The vacant property is not in the City. However, the property owner has requested to be annexed. On July 3, 2001, the City Council approved the applicant's request to subdivide approximately 37 acres into 97 single family lots and other common lots, provided the parkway landscape plans was approved by the Planning Commission (Attachment 1). Project Proposal: The applicant has submitted preliminary landscaping plans for the parkways on the west side of Monroe Street and north side of Avenue 58. All parkways share a similar design concept and common desertscape plant materials, utilizing Palo Verde, Crape Myrtle, Mesquite and Palm trees. Shrub placement is not shown, but noted to be located against the perimeter walls and adjacent to the meandering sidewalk and street curbs. Lawn is used in 40% of the planter areas. Canopy trees are 24" box size while palms vary in height from 10' to 14' high (brown trunk height). Tree spacing is approximately 30'-0" on center in primarily linear design patterns. Shrubs are proposed in one and five gallon sizes accented with crushed stone. Parkway landscape areas will not be used for water retention purposes, and undulating berms and rock boulders have been provided to create visual interest. Decorative concrete paving has been shown for the gated entrance on Avenue 58. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Action: On September 5, 2001, the ALRC adopted Minute Motion 2001-036, recommending approval of the landscaping plans, subject to recommended Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2). STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.60.240 (Landscaping and Open Space) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is required to review and comment on the following finding: Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between SRPC Tr. 30092 Land. - Greg Page 2 of 4 adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. RESPONSE: The plans are designed to be attractive and compatible with The Village of the Palms development to the north. The plant material and sizes are adequate to ensure an acceptable appearance upon installation. This plan was prepared before the June 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting and therefore does not reflect the a meandering wall along both street frontage pursuant to Condition #81 of Resolution 2001-92 (See Condition #3). Staff review of final wall plans is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the conceptual landscaping plans for Tentative Tract Map 30092, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 at its sole discretion. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit to the Community Development Department verification that the irrigation and landscaping plans have been approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 3. The perimeter wall shall be decorative and meandering in the parkway areas pursuant to the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 30092. Prior to issuance of a building/grading permit, the Community Development Director shall review and approve the final design of the perimeter wall for compliance with the tract map conditions. The exterior finish of the wall may be stucco or a natural masonry finish such as tan slumpstone, provided the wall is topped off with a minimum two-inch thick masonry or brick cap. 4. Lawn areas and pop-up sprinkler heads shall not be located within 18-inches of street curb areas. 5. Mounding heights shall be a minimum height of 2'-0", but not exceed a height of 3'-0", pursuant to Section 9.60.240 of the Zoning Code. Undulating berms shall cover 65 percent, or more, of the street frontage areas. 6. Trees shall be double staked with two-inch diameter lodge poles to protect against damage from gusting winds. SRPC Tr. 30092 Land. - Greg Page 3 of 4 7. Specimen trees shall have calipers of not less than 1.25 inches measured three feet up from finished grade level, unless multiple trunk trees are installed. Installed trees shall be a minimum overall height of 7'-0". Attachments: 1. 8.5" by 11 " Tract Map Exhibit 2. Draft ALRC Minutes of 9-5-01 (Excerpt) Pt'�pare by: Submitted by: ek's'd-ek Associate Planner Christine di lorio, PI Wing Manager SRPC Tr. 30092 Land. - Greg Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 IN THE CITY OF " QUINTA, . _ . LIFORNIA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30Q. THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, T.6S., R.7E, SAW BERNAROINO IM£RIU ®M/tNEt ENiINEE11Mi, INL. aMAMrasmc • woswtnn . wu.AA: VORK OUANTITES 64 MC. Cy M.0w C.Y. O RAM DES" PROPOSED WY MNAGM MOW COMMAS °rdnwG� � u, caam■ W ■a Ar11ADL. as Tx»' Attachment 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 6. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the sideyard responsibility is given to one owner. Mr. Robert Wilkenson, stated that is what is proposed. Committee Member Cunningham stated it needs to be added to the CC&R's to make it clear to the property owners as well as a disclosure at the time of the sale. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated another issue is a swimming pool where the electrical and/or gas lines go through the neighbors sideyard easement. It should also be disclosed. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-035 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-713, as recommended. F. Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties for review of conceptual parkway landscaping plans for a 97 lot residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff to explain the wall. Staff stated it would be six or eight foot depending on the Public Works Department height requirement for the berm, but it would have delineation and be stucco or slumpstone. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the tract would be custom lots. Staff stated the lots would be sold to individual builders for construction. The applicant was considering resubmitting the map for changes. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-036 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092, as recommended by staff. H. Capital Improvement Project 2001-694; a request of the City for review of the building elevations and landscaping plans for the La Quinta Community Park. 1. 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. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC9-5-01.wpd 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE:: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 APPLICANT/ ARCHITECT: CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS (RICHARD BRADY) PROPERTY OWNER: TRADITION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A PERMANENT MAINTENANCE/CONSTRUCTION GATEHOUSE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN THE TRADITION LEGAL: APN 770-230-011 ZONING: ON -SITE: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: ON -SITE: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL STRUCTURES) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). BACKGROUND: Tract Map 28470 was approved by the City Council on April 1, 1997 by Resolution 97-28. As part of this Tract Map, access was provided for an emergency/maintenance gate on Avenue 52. Currently, the existing gate is located near the east property line. A temporary September 6, 2001 Page 1 trailer, being used as a guardhouse, is located approximately 60 feet south of the gate. PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a new permanent construction entrance (Attachment No. 1). This entrance would include a new guardhouse, gate, and landscape island. The guardhouse would measure 215 square feet in size and is designed to blend with existing buildings in The Tradition, including the historic Hacienda del Gato. Materials for this building include red clay tile, stucco plaster walls, and multi -pane windows and doors. The conceptual landscaping plan for the area surrounding the guardhouse consists of existing trees and shrubs that will either remain where they are, or will be relocated to a more appropriate position. These landscape materials include trees, shrubs, groundcover, and turf. Photographs showing the existing landscaping will be provided at the meeting. In addition, the applicant is proposing a sign identifying the driveway as a construction entrance (Attachment No. 2). The sign is proposed as a monument sign with dimensions of 5 feet, 6 inches tall, 6 feet, 10 inches wide, and 24 inches deep at the base, for a total size of approximately 38 square feet per face. The sign is proposed as a sheet metal can and an aluminum base with a stucco texture painted Crystal White. The letters are black individual plastic letters with a black painted arrow on the reverse side. The sign would not be illuminated. The text on the street side would read "TRADITION CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE" while the text on the reverse side would read "EXIT" and "RIGHT TURN ONLY." A color exhibit of this sign will be presented at the meeting. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed this project at its meeting of September 5, 2001, and determined that the design was acceptable as presented, with minor modifications. The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001-034 recommending approval to the Planning Commission, subject to conditions (Attachment No. 3)., PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 30, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received regarding this project. MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request per Zoning Code Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution with the exception of the following: September 6, 2001 Page 2 Site Design. As designed, the proposed entrance does not allow for any rejection turnaround of vehicles. Therefore, the Engineering Department has added a Condition of Approval restricting access to only emergency vehicles and for the maintenance facility located nearby. Vehicular access for residential use would not be permitted due to this lack of a turnaround area. (Condition No. 4) Sign [)esign. As proposed, the monument sign exceeds the maximum size limit of 24 square feet for a monument sign in a residential zone. The proposed sign is 38 square feet. Staff has reviewed the request and finds no justification for allowing the extra 14 square feet. Therefore, staff has added a condition requiring the sign to be no more than 24 square feet. (Condition No. 47) In addition, Section 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code allows for only 1 identification sign per street frontage. A main identification sign currently exists at the main entrance of The Tradition located on Avenue 52 at the terminus of Washington Street. However, the Zoning Code allows for additional signs if there is a problem with visibility. In this case, the maintenance/construction entrance is approximate 1,500 feet east of the main entrance. The proposed sign would provide for clear direction as to where the maintenance/construction vehicles are to enter The Tradition. Therefore, staff supports the proposed sign location. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Site Development Permit 2001-710, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Resolution. Attachments: 1. Plans Exhibit (includes site/landscape plans and elevations) 2. Proposed Monument Sign 3. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee minutes of September 5, 2001 Prepared by: Submitted by: i CILLUj� a.wl� Q Michele Rambo, Associate Planner September 6, 2001 Page 3 C&S J-C6 aL Christine di lorio, tanning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION GUARDHOUSE AND GATE AT TRADITION, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH WASHINGTON STREET. CASE NO. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 111h day of September, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of Cody & Brady, Architects, to consider approval of a guardhouse and gate located on the South side of Avenue 52, East of the intersection with Washington Street, more particularly described as: APN: 770-230-011 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommended approval of Site Development Permit No. 2001-710 at its meeting of September 5, 2001 under Minute Motion 2001-034; 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 Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. As designed and conditioned, the design and improvements are consistent with the current goals and objectives of La Quinta General Plan, in that the guardhouse meets the policies and goals for gated residential neighborhoods. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. As designed and conditioned, the proposal is consistent with most current standards of the Zoning Code in that the existing RL (Low Density Residential) Zoning District provides for approval of certain uses in conjunction with a gated residential neighborhood, such as a guardhouse to serve the security of the residents. 3. Compliance with CEQA. This proposed project has been determined to be exempt from environmental assessment pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act which exempts buildings not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances and not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use, and where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally September 6, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- RESOLUTION - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 sensitive. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. Architectural Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed building architecture does conform with the architecture of the surrounding buildings, including that of the historic Hacienda del Gato in that the materials used (clay the roofing, stucco finish, and multi -pane windows and doors) are consistent with those found on existing structures located in Tradition. 5. Site Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed guardhouse is consistent with those used for emergency and maintenance vehicles. However, access to residents and guests is prohibited due to the lack of a vehicle turnaround on the outside of the gate. 6. Landscape Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed project does provide adequate landscape with respect to the design of the landscaping for the area surrounding the guardhouse and gate to soften the appearance of the building. 7. Sign Program. As designed and conditioned, the proposed sign does conform to the architecture of the proposed guardhouse. In addition, the sign conveys the necessary information while blending into the surrounding environment. 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 Site Development Permit, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. September 6, 2001 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- RESOLUTION-PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 111h day of September, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California September 6, 2001 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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 Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant to any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 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: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) 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. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. September 6, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMIBER 11, 2001 3. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 4. The project access proposed is for the exclusive use of emergency vehicles and for the maintenance facility (per Condition 44 (B) and (D) of the approved Conditions for Tentative Tract 28470). Vehicular access for residential use is not permitted due to the restrictive nature of the entry design which does not allow for "entry rejection" turning capabilities. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant 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. 7. Right of way dedication required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (major arterial) - none required. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) The applicant shall provide proof of rights of access, either by recorded easement or through processing a lot line adjustment between Lot 91 and Lot G of Tract No. 28470-1. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. September 6, 2001 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 10. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Avenue 52 - 20 feet. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 11. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, drainage facilities, drainage acceptance or other encroachments are to occur. 13. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer", " surveyor", and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 14. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" X 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading", "Precise Grading", "Streets & Drainage", and "Landscaping". Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. September 6, 2001 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 15. 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. 16. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 17. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 18. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 19. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the September 6, 2001 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMSER 11, 2001 difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 21. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for The Tradition. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved method. 22. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. UTILITIES 23. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 24. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 25. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 26. 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) Avenue 52 (major arterial) - Construct "right turn only" lane. September 6, 2001 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMIBER 11, 2001 B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) None required. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 27. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 28. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading, traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 29. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 30. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 32. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.075.00" September 6, 2001 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 33. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 34. The City will conduct final inspection of the guard building only when the building has improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspection. 35. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Avenue 52 - all turning movements are restricted to right turn movements only. LANDSCAPING 36. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 37. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. September 6, 2001 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 38. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. QUALIITY ASSURANCE 39. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 40. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 41. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 42. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings", "As -Built", or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 43. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 44. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. September 6, 2001 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-710 CODY & BRADY, ARCHITECTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 45. Prior to issuance of building permits, the plans for the building elevations shall be revised to indicate the following: A. the exterior stucco on the building shall be a smooth trowel finish B. the roof tile shall be randomly mudded. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the landscape plan shall be redrawn to indicate that the existing landscape materials will be replanted near the site. 47. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the monument sign shall be reduced to a maximum of 24 square feet in size. The revised sign shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to permit issuance or fabrication of the sign, whichever occurs first. FIRE MARSHALL 48. Gates shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lanes serving that gate. Any gate providing access from a road to an entrance shall be located at least thirty-five feet setback from the roadway to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic. 49. Gates shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). 50. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force not to exceed thirty foot- pounds. 51. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 52. At least one 2A1013C fire extinguisher shall be located in the gatehouse. September 6, 2001 Page 9 }DDLm � zm 3r-Z^� < oc z Z omo � < CL aQilr—— Q LO Z 0 W p � u 0-4 V z W ..� z z H 0 W Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 C. Site Development Permit 2001-709; a request of Bart Rinker for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 23,184 square foot retail/service building located at the southeast corner of HigKway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road, within the Dune Palms Center. ' 1. Associate Planner Wally Nesbit presented/the information contained in the staff report, a copy of w ch is on file in the Community Development Department. i 2. Mr. Bob Ricciardi, representing theplicant, gave a presentation on the project. , 3. Committee Member Cun 'ngham clarified that the staff recommended tile treatme t would be added to the columns, but not the building's front levation. Mr. Ricciardi stated that was what they would req st. 4. Committee Mem r Bobbitt asked what plans were being taken to make sure the echanical equipment was hidden. Mr. Ricciardi stated this w s a taller building and it would have a parapet wall high enou to hide it. Mr. Ricciardi asked that the largest tree they plary�be a 36-inch box. 5. Ther9keing no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by COPKmittee Member Cunning ham/Bo bbitt adopt Minute Motion 2 01-033 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 001-709, subject to the conditions as recommended. Site Development Permit 2001-710; a request of Cody & Brady Architects for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a construction gatehouse at Tradition for the property located on the south side of Avenue 52, east of the intersection of Washington Street 1. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the tile would be random mudded. Staff stated a condition could be added to require this. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the purpose of the gatehouse. Staff stated it was for maintenance and construction vehicles. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC9-5-01.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 4. Committee Member Cunningham asked what would be used on the windows. Staff explained the trim would be painted a satin black. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-034 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-710, as requested. It was mod and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to take Item "E" last to Ilow the applicant time to arrive. Unanimously approved. G. S' e Development Permit 2001-713; a request of Rancho Capistrano De l;aping ent Corporation for review of building elevations and lands plans for three new prototype residential units located north of Ave 54 and east of Jefferson Street within Country Club of the Desert 1. Princi al Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the sjaff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Develop nt Department. 2. Committee\buildings. unningham stated the design is in keeping with the otUnless there is something obviously wrong or thproblem with the design, he believed that within gatedties the market will determine whether or not the desiouses would be successful. 3. Committee Member Bob itt stated the style of architecture is different, but in keeping wl what is occurring in the desert. To him, the design is somewhat ox-like. 4. Committee Member Cunningham ated the chimney stacks need to be dealt with architecturally and uilt as designed. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why a landscape plans were not included and are these stand alone u 'ts with zero lot lines. Staff stated the landscaping would be as sub itted in the designs and they were stand alone units. Committe Member Bobbitt stated there needs to be enough drainage in a sideyard so ponding does not occur. G:\WPDOC.'S\ALRC9-5-01.wpd 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE„ SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 APPLICANT: MICHAEL SHOVLIN (FOR STAPLES) ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN FULLER & ASSOCIATES REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 23,492 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89- 150 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 90020162, PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL 17, 1990. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. BACKGROUND: The project site is located east of Stater Brothers Supermarket, next to the Postal Place. The location is a graded area north of Carl's Jr (Attachment 1). The parking lot has been installed to the north and south of the proposed site. The land to the east is vacant and planned for future buildings. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing a 23,492 square foot one story building to be used for Staples (Attachment 2). The architecture of the building is similar to the existing P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc rpt.wpd buildings to the west. The building has a flat roof of heights varying from 18 feet over the arcade at the front, to 24 feet over the main part of the building, and 35'-6" at the entry tower arch. Roof mounted mechanical equipment is proposed to be used. The Municipal Code requires the equipment not be visible from the ground. Screening compatible with the design of the building will need to be provided and shown in the working drawings. Architectural features from existing buildings include a detailed cornice with a diamond pattern, arched tower, wall light sconces, and wood outrigger posts in the tower. Exterior colors consist of the same light earth tones used in the adjacent buildings. The plans indicate no landscaping proposed for this project. PROPOSED SIGN: The proposal includes one wall mounted corporate style sign on the center of the entry arcade. The sign will be internally illuminated individual letters mounted on a red painted background. The background will be a 4'-6" high by 18'-3" long (82 square feet) stucco popout painted their standard red. On this background the 3'-3" high by 17'-0" long (55.25 square foot) "STAPLES" letters will be mounted. These letters will have a white plexiglas face, with white returns and trimcap. Under the sign program, the standard signs permitted are internally illuminated Helvetica channel letters 30 inches in height up to 75% of the lease frontage, to a maximum of 50 square feet. Under the sign program this proposed sign can be approved as a regional or national tenant. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of September 5, 2001, and recommended approval by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-039, subject to conditions (Attachment 3). Their recommendation includes a revision to the arcade near the Postal Place and adding small planters at the front of the building. PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 31, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc rpt.wpd 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. FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, to approve this request can be made provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt: Resolution 2001- , approving Site Development Permit 2001-712, subject to the! attached conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee minutes for the meeting of September 5, 2001 Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: "Christine ,ning Manager P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 23,500± SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA-QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 APPLICANT: MICHAEL SHOVLIN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11 th day of September, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request of MICHAEL SHOVLIN to approve the development plans for a 23,500± square feet commercial building in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, located on the north side of Highway, east of Washington street, more particularly described as: APN 643-220-002 and -003 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on September 5, 2001, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2001-039, recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans for the new building, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the commercial designation of the property. 2. The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and signs. 3 The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 89- 150 (State Clearinghouse Number 90020162, prepared for Specific Plan 89- 014, which was certified on April 17, 1990. No changed circumstances or p:\stan\sdp 2001-712 pc res.wpd Resolution 2.001- Site Development Permit 2001-712 September 11, 2001 conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review. 4. The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The building is a well designed with articulation on the front and rear elevations. The project uses architectural features, colors, and materials to match the surrounding existing buildings. The side elevations will not be readily visible because of the existing structure to the west and future structure to the east. Staff is recommending the arcade at the west end of the front can be revised to conform with the existing construction. 5. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The proposed building is located on an area that is designated for a commercial building of approximately 24,000 square feet with a loading ramp provided at the rear of the building and trash enclosure on the west side of the building near the rear of the building. 6. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. While there is not a lot of opportunity to provide landscaping, the recommended small planters around some of the arcade columns will soften the facade. 7. The one proposed building sign will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and centers sign program, and will be in harmony and visually related to the proposed buildings, with the approval of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: p:\stare\sdp 2001-712 pc res.wpd ResolWtion 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-712 September 11, 2001 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-712 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 11 t' day of September, 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 p:\stan\sdp 2001-712 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 MICHAEL SHOVLIN SEPTEMBER 11, 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 development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 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: Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) 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. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing 5 or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing 5 or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (N01) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the project site. 3. Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 89-014. P:\STAIV\sdp 2001-712 pc coa.wpd Printed September 6, 2001 Page 1 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 MICHAEL SHOWN SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant 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. 7. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall provide documentation to assure that the parking lots have been or will be included within the previously recorded "Common Area Maintenance Agreement". 8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 9. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. 10. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 11 . If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc coa.wpd Printed September 6, 2001 Page 2 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 MICHAEL SHOVLIN SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 12. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "'Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 13. 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. 14, When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 15. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc coa.wpd Printed September 6, 2001 Page 3 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 MICHAEL SHOWN SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 16. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. 17. `.slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 18. Prior, to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 19. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. UTILITIES 21. 'The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc coa.wpd Printed September 6, 2001 Page 4 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 MICHAEL SHOVLIN SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 22. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 23. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 24. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 25. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 26. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits for the building authorized for this property, final landscape working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Compliance with the City Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance shall be included. Clearance from the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner shall be submitted. The plans shall provide for a minimum of four pocket planters around P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc coa.wpd Printed September 6, 2001 Page 5 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 MICHAEL SHOVLIN SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 the columns at the front of the building. The planters shall include shrubs and/or vines, and groundcover. QUALITY ASSURANCE 28. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 30. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 31. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 32. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 33. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc coa.wpd Printed September 6, 2001 Page 6 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-712 MICHAEL SHOWN SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ARCHITECTURE 34. Prior to issuance of a building permit final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 35. 'The fencing at the rear of the building shall be coated or plastic with a color compatible with the building, and not be galvanized. 36. 'The arcade at the west end of the front of the building shall be revised to conform with the existing arcade construction at the Postal Place. SIGNS 37. Final sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and shall include all details, colors, and materials. LIGH-PING 38. All exterior wall mounted lights for the building shall use non-adjustable shoebox type down shining light fixtures with recessed or flush mounted lenses. P:\STAN\sdp 2001-712 pc coa.wpd Printed September 6, 2001 Page 7 of 7 AT'TA(-"'HMF-NT #1 11 -- CASE MAP CASE No.NORTH P� H m i i "100 1 S;HOV[,,lN SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 E. Site Development Permit 2001-712; a request of Michael Shovlin for Staples for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 23,492 square foot commercial building for the property located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Washington Street, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Dave Smalley, representing Desert Cities, stated the intent was to provide continuous shade. They did recognize it will obscure the Postal Place sign and would reduce the size so as not to obscure the Postal Place and still provide a shaded walkway. He continued to give a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the use of the bougainvilleas and asked what the chainlink fence area was. Mr. Smalley stated it was a loading area. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there had been complaints from the property owners to the north regarding the rear architecture. Mr. Smally stated the existing landscaping should block the view. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated it was compatible with the remainder of the Center and he had no objections. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/ Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-038 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-712, as requested. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: A. Staff informed the Committee that the Community Services Department was asking each Commission/Committee/Board to nominate a member to serve on the City's 20t" Anniversary Celebration Committee. Following discussion Committee Member Bill Bobbitt was selected. B. Staff informed the Committee there would be a joint meeting with the City Council, Planning Commission, and ALRC on September 25, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC9-5-O l .wpd 7 PH #F STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-705 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR LAS CASUELAS RESTAURANT LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MARY T. DELGATO REPRESENTATIVE: KRISTI HANSON, ARCHITECT ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: CITY OF INDIAN WELLS RESORT COMMERCIAL SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WEST: RESORT COMMERCIAL A:\PCstaff rpt 2001-705 Las Casuelas.wpd The currently vacant project site (Attachment 1), located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, consists of 1.04 acres. The project site is within Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2000, which establishes guidelines and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The design guidelines portion of the Plan provides specific design criteria which includes architectural guidelines utilizing a contemporary interpretation of Colonial Spanish style architecture; and landscape guidelines that complement and accent the project with perimeter landscaping which is consistent the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. ' •� •1MMIMMMIMN-M TTI •� The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a restaurant on a portion of the 1.04 acre site (Attachment 2) within the Point Happy Commercial Center Specific Plan 2000-043. The project consists of a 10,254 square foot building with a 1,560 square foot outdoor dining patio. Site Plan The site has frontage on Washington street and Highway 111 with access to Point Happy Commercial Center located at Washington Street and Highway 111 . Parking will be provided by Madison Development as they will be constructing on -site improvements for the entire commercial center (parking, parking lot lighting, parking lot planter landscaping) as the first phase of improvements. Landscape Plan The Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters. Plant material along the perimeter of the site in planter areas and pots is proposed to have California Fan Palm, Jacaranda, Bouganvillea, Lantana, and Texas Ranger. The landscape plan is consistent with the Point Happy Specific Plan and complements the Highway 111 landscaping. Architectural Design The applicant proposes a 10,254 square foot structure which is basically rectangular in shape with curvilinear features and uses a variety of roof types, including gable and mansard, with heights ranging from 14 '/2 to 27 foot. The proposed barrel clay the gable roof towers have with exposed rafters tails, a 22 foot high entry rotunda is also A:\PCstaff rpt 2001-705 Las Casuelas.wpd proposed. Proposed is a 2,191 square foot basement for storage and mechanical equipment. Mission style stucco parapet walls highlighted with a canterra quartafoil detail on the east and west portion of the main building are proposed. The proposed facade, facing the parking lot, consists of an arched wrought iron entry gate and capped pilasters supporting an arching brick capped plaster wall, windows with wood shutters. The rear elevation patio area proposes a "palapa" roof trellis and an arcade accommodating the 1,560 square foot outdoor bar and dining area. Decorative ornate light fixtures mounted on pilasters that support the arched brick capped plaster wall surround the outdoor dining area. Wall material consists of exterior hand troweled stonish beige stucco with rosewood accent colors. Proposed are arched man door entries with canterra surrounds and wrought iron gates; windows with canterra surrounds; and false windows with awning shutters. Sign flan Proposed are three building mounted non -illuminated sandblasted redwood signs, and one building mounted illuminated back -lit channel letter sign. All sign copy will read: "Las Casuelas Quinta" with the restaurant logo. The largest sandblasted redwood sign, 6' 6" X 4'6"( 29.25 sq. ft.) is proposed to be placed on the east elevation tower element for the view from Washington Street. A second sandblasted redwood sign is proposed to be placed on the arching plaster wall located at the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street 50" X 34" ( 11.8 sq. ft.). Also proposed is 30" X 20" ( 4.16 sq. ft.) sandblasted redwood sign to be placed on a pilaster at the entrance gate for the view of the front elevation. The illuminated 75" X 51.75" (29.9 sq. ft.) sign is proposed to be placed on the rear elevation for the view from Highway 111. The copy will read: "Las Casuelas Quinta" and is proposed to be back -lit channel letters in black; with distinctive and unique font design with letters that range in height from 9 inches to the tallest letter "Q" at 21.5 inches. The font style is a registered trademark. The Point Happy Specific Plan calls for interior illuminated channel letters and recommends colors of red, blue, yellow and, white for all tenants. The restaurant logo, the pot and plant, are proposed to be an internally illuminated sign can 44.25' X 38" (11.67 sq. ft.). This portion of the sign is in the process of being registered. The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of September 5, 2001 (Attachment 4). The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001-032, recommending approval with Conditions of Approval. A:\PCstaff rpt 2001-705 Las Casuelas.wpd The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on June 14, 2001, requesting comments be returned by July 3, 2001. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on August 31, 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 Site Development Permit (with the exception of the Sign Program) can be made provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution. Sign Program The proposed Sign Program is not consistent with the Specific Plan and Zoning Code. Staff recommends: 1) the sandblasted redwood sign mounted on the patio wall at the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street 50" X 34" ( 11.8 sq. ft.) be le iminiated as not consistent with number of signs allowed under the Zoning Code 9 16U 030 (Condition No 51)• and 2) require the illuminated 75" X 51 75" (29.9 sg. ft) sign proposed to be placed on the rear elevation for the view from Highway 111 to be consistent with the Specific Plan which necessitates requiring individual metal channel letters with plexiglass faces internally illuminated unless the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-042 is amended to allow back -lit channel letters (Condition No• 2) 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving development plans for restaurant building and outdoor dining patio of 11,814 square feet, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Exhibit (Parcel Map 29736) 2. Site Plan and Elevations 3. Sign Program A:\PCstaff rpt 2001-705 Las Casuelas.wpd Prepared by: Fred Baker, AIC Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager A:1PCstaff rpt 2001-705 Las Casuelas.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA O.UINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A RESTAURANT CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-705 APPLICANT: MARY T. DELGATO WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 11 th day of September, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a restaurant building and outdoor dining patio of 11,814 square feet, on 1.04 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street; and WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 5th day of September, 2001 hold a public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a restaurant building and outdoor dining patio of 11,814 square feet, on 1.04 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 29736, PARCEL NO. 3 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Specific Plan 2000-043, Point Happy Commercial Center. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public: Resources Code Section 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit 2001-705. 1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial (CC). The Land Use Element (Policy 2-3.1) of the 1992 General Plan Update allows retail business. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Point Happy Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. 3. The proposed restaurant/commercial building is consistent with the City's AAPC RES0. SDP2001-705.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-705 SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 supplement, replace or, are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5 The landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned by the ALRC, complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar in scale; the building materials provided are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, with a blend of surfaces and textures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2001-705 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 11th day of September, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: A:\PC RESO. SDP2001-705.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-705 SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO. SDP2001-705.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-705 SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 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 site development plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The! applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 3. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). AACOA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd 4. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of this approval or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 5. The applicant shall dedicate or grant 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. 6. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 7. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 8. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 9. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 10. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have A:\COA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 11. 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. 12. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. R��Q 13. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A:\COA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd 15. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 16. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 17. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 18. Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 19. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development as per the approved hydrology/storm drainage for Specific Plan 2000-043 or unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 20. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this development plan excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, A:\COA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 21. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 22. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 23. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. 24. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 25. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 26. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowiine shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 27. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): A:\COA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5"/6.00" 5.5"/6.50" 28. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 29. The City will conduct final inspections only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections. LANDSCAPING 30. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 31. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 32. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. A:\COA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd 01IMMAW.0611311;LA10141 33. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 34. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 35. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 36. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENAN E 37. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 38. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE MARSHALL 39. Blue dot reflectors shall be place in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify the fire hydrant locations. 40. Minimum fire flow 1500 GPM for a 2-duration. Fire flow is based on type VN construction and complete fire sprinkler system. A:\COA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd 41. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled NFPA 13 standard. 42. Approved super hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along vehicular travel ways. 43. Post Indicator Valve (PIV) and Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall not be closer than 15 feet not more than 50 feet from an approved super hydrant. 44. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 45. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 46. Install a Rapid Entry (KNOX) key box. (Contact the Fire Department for an application.) 47. Install portable fire extinguishers, in cabinets. 48. Submit Building, Sprinkler, Water, and Hood/Duct plans to the Fire Department for plan check. 49. A flat the roof shall be required unless the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 is amended to allow barrel roof tile. 50. The location of the man door, which leads restaurant employees to go directly out to the Highway 111 landscape setback, shall be changed to the west side of the building which would lead the employees to the pedestrian walkway between the restaurant building and the building to the west. 51. Eliminate the sandblasted redwood sign mounted on the patio wall at the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street 50" X 34" ( 11.8 sq. ft.). 52. Individual metal channel letters with plexiglass faces internally illuminated shall be required for the 75" X 51.75" (29.9 sq. ft.) sign proposed to be placed on the rear elevation for the view from Highway 111 unless the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000- 042 is amended to allow back -lit channel letters. A:\COA.PC. SDP2001-705.wpd T-• — WASHINGTON STREET ATTACHMENT #3 REAR ELEVATION - VIEW FROM HIGHWAY 111 EAST ELEVATION - VIEW FROM WASHINGTON o�00cn 3 vv0-,,23>. 0 m-mac= fn �OmOz �m_2 r Q 3Az�gm�gw� oz,—6imicR?,o:.'8-zz z a in m m Al =v--IZm0ZT--i m �mvcv �C) i-�D�cz�cn co m \ O (h N a an CTtmi�Z--,,n p ��0ca>�(a �z�mCCA me nC7 -+ iTtn�S�nTm c0 m < �- m m z X m v O z v p m m 0 A N 2 REAR ELEVATION - VIEW FROM HIGHWAY 111 FR( 50 X 34 1.75" THICK SANDBLASTED SIGN 30"X20" 1.75" THICK SANDBLASTED SIGN ov*pp(nLn 3 �v vc�vm v vo-� OAF om��0_iifvpOmo �mx °x�a, 00F. p 3t r m p -+ Dy o p �a <� ��v_ zQZv�i�c izGn�m_roOv�sZvz �ompZnnoo�O- z Z � rn v� m x m o W .i m m -+ c v mw- �°w(j)—< 4 Z pp DD 3 v+ m y A wzzw0*tj00onn�T�O � cTm�� no 220,PO�p�0 ZF, $�Q�xr mW < m C C cn-nu; � iz0�z0-�� vmXD�m Az ONTO m co m -<P,Zi m(n m icnM m�o z �m mo O x o 0 5 N D Back Lit Channel Itrs - Black Illuminated Sign Can for Logo C M V' v V) M z u� z W 0 CD a. m Ei O 5: �C/) < m cy- n n o cn o �� 6' 3 3 T ..J 1 -- 1 C\ i 3 .. oCD p C c IV x m cD 0 0' O CD V / f` x� m n CD ., A (, �.._j W N T- # Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 2. Mr. Robert Capetz stated he would like time tore -evaluate the application as previously submit. Committee.member Cunningham stated it was up to him if he would like to -resubmit his application. In regard to the wall, it was app.rbved as requested by the applicant at that time. If Mr. Capetz would like to change the work to be done, it was up to'him. Following discussion, it was determined the applicant, would continue with his request to extend the work commencement date and during that time make a decision as to whi6ther or not to continue with this application or submit a new -~application. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-031 to extend the time to commence work to October 16, 2001. B. Site Development Permit 2001-705; a request of Kristi Hanson for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for Las Casuelas restaurant located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within Point Happy Specific Plan. 1. 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. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to explain the roof the to be used. Staff stated they are requesting to use barrel tile. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked the applicant what they proposed in regard to the tile. Ms. Kristi Hanson, representing the applicant, stated it was up to the developer to apply for a Specific Plan Amendment to the Council for approval. Committee Member Cunningham commended the applicant on the design of the building. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed and asked where the trash enclosure was to be located. Ms. Hanson explained on the plans the location. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-032 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-705, subject to the conditions as submitted. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC9-5-01.wpd 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE:: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CASE: NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-430, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-079 AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-102 REQUEST: 1. CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 9164450613) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218. 2. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR 40 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 60 NOT INCLUDED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218 AMENDMENT NO. 1 3. A PRE -ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: A) FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION MR (MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL - 2-5 UNITS PER ACRE) AND GC (GOLF COURSE) AS SHOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 2-4 UNITS PER ACRE) B) FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION 3A (00.4 - 2 UNITS PER ACRE) TO LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ON THE 40 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 60 NOT INCLUDED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN 218 AMENDMENT NO. 1 4. ZONE CHANGE: A) FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY DESIGNATION OF SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) AS SHOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO 218 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND GC (GOLF COURSE) B) FROM RA (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE) AND CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT (W-2) TO RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND GC (GOLF COURSE) ON THE 40 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 60 NOT INCLUDED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN 218 AMENDMENT NO. 1 September 7, 2001 Page 1 LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 58 APPLICANT: CORAL MOUNTAIN, LLC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:1. THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT CAN BE MITIGATED, AND THAT AN ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THAT PORTION CONTAINED WITHIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218. 2. THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT CAN BE MITIGATED, AND THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THAT PORTION LOCATED OUTSIDE OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 1) MR (MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL) AND GC (GOLF COURSE) 2) 3A (0.4 - 2 UNITS/ACRE) AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL RESERVE (0 - 5 UNITS/ACRE) PROPOSED CITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE COUNTY ZONING: 1) SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) 2) RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE (RA) AND CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT (W-2) PROPOSED CITY ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE BACKGROUND: The subject property is currently located outside the City limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence and located at the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. The property itself is flat with the exception of a few small areas of hillside. The applicant has requested annexation into the City of La Quinta. Prior to annexation, the City requires that the General Plan designation and pre -zoning be established to City standards. September 7, 2001 Page 2 PROJECT REQUEST: The General Plan and Zoning designations proposed by the applicant are for Low Density Residential and Golf Course development. Riverside County approved Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1 for the Coral Mountain development on 1,280 acres. The current application covers approximately 342 acres of the original 1,280 acres. The 342-acre site is proposed to have residential units developed in the future. The Riverside County designation of Medium Density Residential (2-5 units per acre) is equivalent to the City of La Quinta designation of Low Density Residential (2-4 units per acre). The City is requesting that 40 acres, located at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60, be included in this pre -annexation. This area was not a part of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, and is currently zoned W-2 (Controlled Development) and RA (Residential Agriculture) by Riverside County. The current County General Plan designations are 3A (0.4 - 2 units per acre) and Planned Residential Reserve (0 - 5 units per acre). This 40 acres has previously been subdivided and has existing residences. MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings outlined in Sections 9.220.010 and 9.230.020 of the Zoning Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolutions. Consistency with the General Plan. Even though the proposed change in land use designation is from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, the total of possible units does not significantly change. The Riverside County density of 2-5 units per acre is equivalent to the proposed City of La Quinta density of 2-4 units per acre. Therefore, changing from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential will not significantly change the future development of the property. PUBLIC NOTICE: These applications were advertized in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 21, 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. September 7, 2001 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , certifying an addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-079, subject to the findings. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-102, subject to the findings. Attachments: 1. Location Map Prepared by: l Michele Rambo, Associate Planner September 7, 2001 Page 4 Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #232 (EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 9164450613) PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-079, ZONE CHANGE 2001-102, PRE - ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 218 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #232 APPLICANT: CORAL MOUNTAIN LLC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 1 1 th of September, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 (EIR State Clearinghouse No. 9164450613) for General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-102 for the pre -annexation designation for Specific Plan 218 located west of Madison Avenue and south of Avenue 58, and more particularly described as follows: APN's 761-100-003, 761-100-005,761-100-006, 761-1 10-001, 761-1 10-002, 761-1 10-003, 761-1 10-004 WHEREAS, said Addendum 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 determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the addendum and included in the Conditions of Approval; 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 Addendum: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-102 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by the Addendum. G:\WFDOCS\PCResoCoralMtEAAddendum.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Assessment #232 Coral Mountain LLC September 11, 2001 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Addendum. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum to Riverside county Environmental Impact Report #232 (EIR State Clearinghouse No. 9164450613) and the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). G:\WPDOCS\PCResoCoralMtEAAddendurn.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Assessment #232 Coral Mountain LLC September 11, 2001 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Addendum. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report #232 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Addendum text on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That the Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report #232 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 1 1 th day of September, 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 G:\WP[)OCS\PCResoCoralMtEAAddendum.wpd ADDENDUM TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT#232 (CEQA GUIDELINE 15164) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-079 AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-102 FOR PRE -ANNEXATION APPLICATION OF THE CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN, NO. 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1 EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 9164450613 GAWPDOMEIRAddCoral Mt.WPD The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 ("EIR") that the County of Riverside certified in 1999 for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1. The purpose of this Addendum is to document the annexation of the project to the City of La Quinta, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-79 AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-102 These; are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures included in EIR 232 and AEIR 232 are incorporated into this document by this reference. It is assumed for purposes of this analysis, that all the mitigation measures required within Riverside County's jurisdiction would also be required by the City. The Revised Project consists of 342 acres of the total 1,280 acres included in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan SP/EIR 218, Amendment #1. The Revised Project will result in the annexation of the western portion of the Specific Plan area into the City of La Quinta. The City has determined that the proposed residential development will be consistent with the density and character of the adjacent residential development, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1, as approved by the County in 1999. The Revised Project does not propose any change to the land uses proposed in Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1. Only annexation of the site, and associated pre - annexation land use and zoning designations, are being considered at this time. The Specific Plan allows approximately 500 residential units on 179.6 acres, a 6.7 acre clubhouse site, thirteen holes of golf, and a driving range on the balance of the 162.4 acres. The approvals requested as part of the annexation request are: 1) General Plan Amendment to change the designation on 179.6 acres currently designated Medium Density Residential under the Specific Plan to Low Density Residential, and Golf Course on 162.4 acres, pursuant to the Land Use Plan in Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1; 2) Zone Change to change the designation on 179.6 acres currently designated Medium Density Residential under the Specific Plan to Low Density Residential, and Golf Course on 162.4 acres, pursuant to the Land Use Plan in Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1. The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the; EIR and finds as follows: G:\WPIDOCS\EIRAddCoral Mt.WPD Aesthetics - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the proposed land will not result in any change in the buildout of the property. The residential units, golf course and clubhouse, and associated ancillary facilities and consistent with those currently permitted and constructed under the City's General Plan. The proposed height, mass and architectural style of buildings within the annexation area is of substantially the same character as those existing in the City and encouraged in the General Plan. Agriculture Resources - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. The development of the approved Specific Plan will result in a loss of lands designated as Prime Farmland in the County General Plan. The lands, however, are not farmed currently. The annexation of the property will not change the previously analyzed impacts to agriculture. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no impact on hazardous materials; the residents of the proposed project will participate in the City's household hazardous waste disposal programs; and the golf course maintenance operations will be overseen by City and County agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous waste. Hydrology and Water Quality - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. The City requires the implementation of both NPDES standards and 100 year storm retention in proposed project construction. Such standards will be imposed for the proposed project, when construction occurs after annexation. These measures are designed to Public Services - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation of the property will be served by Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Department staff, under the City's service contracts. The contract costs may increase for the City, but these costs will be offset by revenues generated by property tax and sales tax at the site and from the residents. School fees will be paid regardless of which jurisdiction is responsible for construction of the project. Parks will be constructed within the Specific Plan, and golf course lands will surround the homes. Recreation - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the project will not affect the parks and golf course planned for ultimate buildout of the proposed project. These facilities will be provided on -site, and will offset the need for such facilities created by future development. G:\WPDOCS\EIRAddCoral Mt.WPD Air Quality - Impacts identical to those previously analyzed. The annexation action will not have any impact on the air quality of the area. The project will remain the same; as was analyzed in the EIR, with identical mitigation measures required. Biological Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no direct impact on biological resources. Additional surveys are required in EIR 232 to ensure that no sensitive species occur on the site, or that impacts are mitigated if they do occur. These surveys will also be required by the City. Land Use Planning - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The construction of the project under the City's jurisdiction is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City General Plan and the Specific Plan, as amended, and continues the development pattern established in the General Plan. The annexation represents a logical extension of urbanization for the City. Mineral Resources - Not applicable. Transportation/Traffic - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will not have an impact on traffic generation. The ultimate construction of the project will result in identical impacts to those described in the EIR, and for which mitigation measures have been included. Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation will have no impact on utilities and service systems. The buildout of the proposed project was analyzed in the EIR for the proposed project, and mitigation measures included. These will be implemented by the City. G:\WPDOCS\EIRAddCoral Mt.WPD Cultural Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the project site will have no impact on cultural resources. The buildout of the proposed project was analyzed in the EIR, and mitigation measures included. These will be implemented by the City. Geology and Soils - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The impacts of development of the proposed project were analyzed in the EIR, and will not change from that analysis. Mitigation measures included in the EIR will be implemented by the City through the development process. Noise - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will not impact the noise environment at the project site. The buildout of the project, as analyzed in the EIR, included mitigation measures which will be implemented by the City. Population and Housing - Impacts identical to those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no impact on population and housing. The number of units proposed under the County's approved Specific Plan will be the same under the City's jurisdiction. The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: 1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EIR which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR; or 3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. G:\WPDOCS\EIRAddCoral Mt.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-079, ZONE CHANGE 2001-102 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-430 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 11 th day of September, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-430 for General Plan Amendment 2001- 079, Zone Change 2001-102 for pre -annexation designation of lands located at the northwestern corner of Madison Avenue and Avenue 60, more particularly described as follows: APNs 761-1 10-006, 761-1 10-008, 761 -110-010, 761-1 10-013, 761-1 10-014, 761-440-003, 761-440-004, 761-440-008, 761-440-01 1, 761-440-012, 761-440-016, 761-440-018 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-430) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-102 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-102 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-430. GAWPD0CS\PCResCora1MtEA01-430.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-430 Coral Mountain September 11, 2001 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-102 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001- 430 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. G:\WPDOCS\PCResCoralMtEA01-430.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Environmental Assessment 2001-430 Coral Mountain September 11, 2001 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 recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-430 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-430 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of September, 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 G:\WPDOCS\PCResCoralMtEA01-430.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001- 102, Pre -Annexation land use designation and zoning 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Proposed: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Proposed: Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to assign land use and zoning designations for an annexation application to the City of La Quinta. The proposed designation is Low Density Residential. The current County General Plan designations are 3A (0.4-2 units per acre) and Planned Residential Reserve (0-5 units per acre). County Zoning is currently W-2 and RA (Residential Agriculture). The land under consideration consists of approximately 40 acres. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant desert lands, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan South: Levee, vacant desert lands, Travertine Specific Plan West: Vacant desert lands, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan East: Vacant desert lands, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Local Agency Formation Commission G:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst CoralMt.wpd 3:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst CoralMt.wpd :nvironmental Factors Potentially Affected: "he environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving It least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the ollowing pages. Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing )eterm ination (Fo be completed by the Lead Agency.) Un the basis of tnis intuai evaivauon: find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, nd a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, sere will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been lade by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will e pre pared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an NVII,?,ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially gnificant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately ialyZed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been 1dressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. .n ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects remain to be addressed. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ecause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR ursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier IR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, othing further is required. Signature August 10 2001 Date 3:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst Cora1Mt.wpd ,valuation of Environmental Impacts: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported b, 1e information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer i dequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like 1e one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explain( ✓here it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive -ceptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative s well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. I here are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporatioi T mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact.' ,he lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than ignificant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect ha seen adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis ar liscussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 1) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potentia mpacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document shoulc vhere appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. ') Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacte, hould be cited in the discussion. �) 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 is\WPDOCS\EA Chklst Cora1Mt.wpd 4 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan X Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X 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 X materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) I L 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) X b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) X 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 X quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? I I I I X (Project Description) G:\WPDOCS\EA CWst CoralMt.wpd IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US :Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited. to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means'? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed Delineation Map) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) 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: 3AWPD0CS\EA Chklst Cora1Mt.wpd 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 X known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X 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- X 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.) X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) X VII. 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) X 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) X X c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) X 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) X X f) Fora 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 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-11) AWPDOCSTA Chldst Cora1Mt.wpd h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer, volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 f) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. 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 coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assess. 5-5) X. MINE:RAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) ;:\WPDOCS\FA Chklst Cora1Mt.wpd KI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) d) Fora project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) Fora 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) KII. 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) (III. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) \WPDOCSTA CUM Cora1Mt.wpd 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) KV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) VI. 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 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) ✓PDOCS\EA Chklst CoralMt.wpd 10 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) KVII. 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 ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they ai None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the aboi adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier site -specific conditions for the project. None X X X X X X or other CEQA process, one or more effects Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a •e available for review. +e checklist were within the scope of and standards, and state whether such effects were Mitigation Incorporated," describe the document and the extent to which they address 1AWPDOMEA CUM Cora1Mt.wpd 11 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 \WPDOCS\EA Chldst CoraIMt.wpd 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-430 I. d► The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of itself. Buildout of the 40 acres, however, will generate light, since the buildout of the area could generate up to 160 dwelling units. The land use designation to be placed on the parcel will result in low density residential units, which generate low levels of light. The project will be required to meet the City's standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the site. These standards will mitigate the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level. II. c) This portion of the annexation area consists of 40 acres. An additional 342 acres occurs west and north of the subject parcels. The 40 acres are divided into 12 lots. The land is designated in the County General Plan for either 3A (0.4-2 units per acre, or Planned Residential Reserve, which allows 0 to 5 units per acre. Zoning on the parcels is either W-2 or RA (Residential Agriculture), which encourage residential rather than agricultural land uses. At buildout of the annexation area, which would be designated Low Density Residential, a total of 160 single family units could occur on the site. Current development consists of a few single family residences and vacant desert lands. The acreage is already subdivided, generally in parcels of 5 acres or less. An approved Specific Plan for residential and golf course development occurs on the north and west. This parcelization, and the approved Specific Plan, are not conducive to agricultural activities, insofar as the parcel size is too small to accommodate significant agricultural activity, and urban development is planned in the immediate future. The impacts to agricultural land uses from annexation of the area are not expected to be significant. III. c) & d) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Annexation will not increase air emissions, but the buildout of the project will. The proposed land use designation for the subject properties is low density residential, 0-4 units per acre. A maximum of 160 single family residences could be built within the area. Based on calculations provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, 160 units could generate up to 1,531 trips per day'. Based on this daily trip generation, the potential impacts associated with vehicle traffic generated from the properties can be calculated. As shown in the Table below, buildout of the annexation area will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition." Rate calculated for single family residential, at 9.57 trips per day. G:\WPDOCS\EA Add CoralMt.WPD Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (Pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) Miles/Day 1,531 X 6 = 9,186 PM 10 PM 10 PM 10 Pollutant ROC CO NO Exhaust Tire Wire Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 826.74 21,495.24 4,409.28 - 91.86 91.86 Pounds at 50 mph 1.83 47.45 9.73 - 0.20 0.20 Threshold 75.00 550.00 100.00 150.00 Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75 F, light duty autos, ctalytic. The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. Although no immediate project is proposed, the disturbance of the parcels for construction will eventually have an impact on air quality from PM 10. These impacts can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM 10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Exiting power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. G:\WPDOCS\EA Add Cora[Mt.WPD 7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation measures. 14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at the time of development. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout of the annexation area will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future are not included in the analysis. IV. a) Annexation of the parcels will not have a significant impact on biological resources. The parcels are isolated, and some have been developed. Prior to development on the parcels, City staff will review the area's potential as habitat for sensitive species, as part of individual project approvals. Should the parcels be identified as being likely habitat, the City's General Plan requires that biological resource analysis be performed. The resulting reports, if any, will include mitigation measures for any identified species. G:\WPDIJCS\EA Add CoraNt.WPD V. b) Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. Prior to development on the parcels, City staff will review the area's potential for cultural resources, as part of individual project approvals. Should on -site surveys be necessary, the City's General Plan requires that cultural resource analysis be performed. The resulting reports, I any, will include mitigation measures for any identified species. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The project area may be subject to liquefaction'. In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking and liquefaction, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with -the submittal of grading plans for specific projects. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure or liquefaction are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. c) 'The soils for this area will be examined through an on -site soil analysis required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects. 'These requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. b) All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. At the time the properties are developed, individual projects will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. Developers or land owners will also be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, all future projects will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. 'These existing City standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. IX.b) 'The County of Riverside currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. The (land use designation for the subject property is under the County General Plans 3A and Planned Residential Reserve. The City proposes a Low Density Residential designation for the properties, which is of similar character to that City of La Quinta General Plan, Exhibit EH-1. G:\WPDC)CS\EA Add CoralMt.WPD currently in place under the County. The lands to the north, west and southeast are planned for four units to the acre and golf course development, which is also compatible with the proposed land use designation. The annexation and ultimate development of the properties represents a logical extension of the City's urban boundary, insofar as properties to the west have been developed, and the City's growth will be accommodated in this area. The impacts to land use are not expected to be significant. XI. a) The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the site will result in an increase in noise levels, particularly noise generated by automobiles. The proposed land use designation will result in residential land uses on the site, which are considered sensitive receptors. The City requires the preparation of noise analyzes when projects are proposed adjacent to major roadways. At the time that individual projects are proposed, the City will review the potential noise impacts associated with the properties, and require analysis if it is necessary. The reports resulting from this analysis will include mitigation measures if required. XIII. a) Both annexation and construction of the subject property will result in potential impacts for police and fire services, and schools. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and offset the potential impact to police and fire service. The individual projects to be developed in the future will be required to pay school fees. The ultimate development of the annexation area is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XVI. b)- f) Although the annexation will have no impact on utilities, the ultimate buildout of the site will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. G:\WPDOCS\EA Add CoraIMt.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ASSIGN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 382 ACRES LOCATED IN THE GENERAL AREA SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, NORTH OF AVENUE 60, WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND EAST OF LAKE CAHUILLA. CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-079 CORAL MOUNTAIN, LLC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11" day of September, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of Coral Mountain, LLC. to review a General Plan Amendment to assign pre -annexation land use designation of Low Density Residential and Golf Course to approximately 382 acres, pending annexation to the City, located in the general area south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, and east of Lake Cahuilla, more particularly described as: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT #1 APNS: 761-100-003, 761-100-005, 761-100-006, 761-110-001, 761-110-002, 761-110-003, 761-110-004, 761-110-006, 761-110-008, 761-110-010, 761-110-013, 761-110-014, 761-440-003, 761-440-004, 761-440-008, 761-440-011, 761-440-012, 761-440-015, 761-440-016, 761-440-017, 761-440-018, AND 761-440-019 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend approval of said General Plan Amendment: Consistency with the General Plan Based on the total possible number of units for this project, the proposed land use designation is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the current General Plan. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed land use designation will not create any conditions that would be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. 3. Compatibility. As proposed, the land use designation is compatible with the land use designations on the adjacent properties currently located within the City of La Quinta. The surrounding development in the area is characterized by single family residences around golf course development. September 7, 2001 Page 1 4. Property Suitability, The proposed land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that there are a number of developments in the immediate area which have the same designation and the subject property is configured well for the proposed uses. 5. Change in Circumstances. The property is being annexed into the City of La Quinta. Therefore, the proposed land use designation is warranted because the situation and general conditions of the property have substantially changed since the current designation was imposed by Riverside County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2001-079 as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution effective upon annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11th day of September, 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 September 7, 2001 Page 2 - SIN „ LOA Meg oil!1i I _I r.WoNod MA �1"MINE PAP M'� �'PROP. GENERAL PLAN (City of La Quinta) o -100,110DIST CITY OF LA QUINTA Coral• 1I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE, ASSIGNING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 382 ACRES LOCATED IN THE GENERAL AREA SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, NORTH OF AVENUE 60, WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND EAST OF LAKE CAHUILLA. CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2001-102 CORAL MOUNTAIN, LLC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11th day of September, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of Coral Mountain, LLC. to review a Pre -Annexation Zone Change to allow the pre -zoning of approximately 382 acres, pending annexation to the City, located in the general area south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, and east of Lake Cahuilla, more particularly described as: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT #1 APNS: 761-100-003, 761-100-005, 761-100-006, 761-110-001, 761-110-002, 761-110-003, 761-110-004, 761-110-006, 761-110-008, 761-110-010, 761-110-013, 761-110-014, 761-440-003, 761-440-004, 761-440-008, 761-440-011, 761-440-012, 761-440-015, 761-440-016, 761-440-017, 761-440-018, AND 761-440-019 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend approval of said Zone Change: Consistency with the General Plan Based on the total possible number of units for this project, the proposed zoning designation is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the current General Plan. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed zoning designation will not create any conditions that would be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. 3. !Compatibility. As proposed, the zoning designation is compatible with the land use designations on the adjacent properties currently located within the City of La Quinta. The surrounding development in the area is characterized by single family residences around golf course development. September 7, 2001 Page 1 4. Property Suitability. The proposed zoning designation is suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that there are a number of developments in the immediate area which have the same designation and the subject property is configured well for the proposed uses. 5. Change in Circumstances The property is being annexed into the City of La Quinta. Therefore, the proposed zoning designation is warranted because the situation and general conditions of the property have substantially changed since the current designation was imposed by Riverside County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2001-102 as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution effective upon annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11 to day of September, 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 September 7, 2001 Page 2 sp,zone XJI-11�! B AVE � I Exhibit, EXISTING ZONING (Riv. Co.) SIB 28 T6SR7E 7661 100. 110 Am= ........... Sup LOWER COACHELLA VALLEY 4th [DIST Dist T.0�' 06/21/01 Thoma., 5530 Draiall JFG 13 1 2,100" Coral Mountain, LLC ATTACHMENTS < 0z AVE �ub,�ect � � i A AVE J- F City of La Quinta F] Sphere of influence AVE 5phere/Sul7jeGt Area ❑mInGorp. Riv. County Area A TT Exhibit ANNEXATION OF 342 ACRES OW 31 a A Pi WI I m Bkjw 28 T65R7E 761-100.110 I =SUB- Awsm ]F �Al zow LOWER COACHELLA YALLEY 4th DIST Dist Thm, Dmin 5530 D= ora121101 JrG Bros. ft. Dmu ipres 2,1001 Coral Mountain, LLC DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-694 CITY OF LA QUINTA PURKISS • ROSE - RSI REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY PARK NORTHWEST CORNER OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET The City Council at its February 5, 2001 meeting approved the park amenities to be included in Phase I of the Community Park design, and authorized the finalization of the Community Park design. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is continuing to work with the consultant with regards to the design of the park and the building elevations. Therefore, additional time is needed and staff is requesting a continuance of this item to September 25, 2001. Prepared and Submitted by: aAA1 - y 1 Christine di lorio, Planning Manager GAWPDOCS\PCStfRptCom Park.wpd Sap-11-2001 05:10pm From - T-099 P 001/002 F-844 BEST 13EST b. KRIEGER LLP + =&L Foti.w.A > m)TeO uwB.L•TT PARTi.ERSrI,P )NCL. NmG PROMSS,OwAL CORPC>Rn.T)O.wS LAWYERS w RTh uR F — FwCJ.Th• PFTL. 1. - ... DV.D J COCn xn Cwx.L n xw3 nxL. M R ,'1. - -Lr•wFT OD nnu wr.LY L .LTLMa Ory Lee �.iM1L AI�NAA i. T +n D Try Cw C D.P.. .:DLF n C.—O. D M Th FRF•Jw TD—WnT C JD.n O w..n..n• CRtC I.ANLR- _nrwn D nxc CRT• Th LRC_+ L wh'IDhuCC ��nw E aROwn DE--,M COTA •AMES P MORF.s ..EUSSA w w00 n.er...L_ T .<.DOLL✓ n E i.wrrCE -E T cCLu na E SE— ARTh ER nlC nwFw C)IrnT- .0...�T w—ftO...... Oxr.O n ryEwnw. T).wnD T rRwry FRrn C.L OrVN' C MtCwrLY COn LTT J....... T euCwMrw Cnwnr_s. n+fsTln Fa a. 0=wnx .. REYEb• ar_CE w DEnCn MAR- E G.ESs TR.C.E PhAN IE04:,E .�DYp w —Fnc —Te. Cf.En w Pk.cE PwtEAr vaGCORr ., nr RPn[ xRw F+-TLw w.Cnw �LDD D+ntF ^a wo.acar_ wEnDAL� n wi .. EY MiCn CLLC OYC.LCTTC r++NLG R TPYC nLTpnC n RT 1397h CODVRw C—h. TE.E. xn OFkmo. n04 Ei x CDTInM T-D J CFt).,rv- CrwTh•. n CLRnwwO RG—T� ..wT -Dn DxM1.c LLc c CLw Rc). M.Ch.E... ...DCLSOn• ,++RG�CA)TC z STAraD J+n.4 .- R-0.0 CnR.=TI.. « .rnRY OO..G.AS S Pn..._IPS• wYLE A snow P.J.. C P Pt =OYG+ CuOL L CRENG CRc FOR• n ...w.w_On Mc3 a - L2x M w.r mwn .cT1n C new GCNC Trnr,.r w.n r PT NF M1=try MwrrCO x wkTlhLi T+M o Thn .CTOA wOLF DCwn DCR._CT1a JOnw • - OC..n DAw.EL E O..l,ER SOry.. ROD.D CARVALnO JEFFRY /�FLRRC CnAR)CLC•.L:M7h n.....f.D .i i.O.Ob 20nn O P.nnn EY DORtnE LAWRE.CE nuGnEa —C.C-CA Y C.67-0 LYtrwen r 0-� C. -e.0 C Dw. huw 6F.An P n.CAEY �Dnn h we TTsc�w 2F[w Dw.csnY r-DnYaanERI �! AND. 0 ,PERT —T-w �cM xF.O Ec SEA .Af Fb C TI. R.ET N.0 wA Lr'L M[AOUR rRwnnc.w c w —Z N.0 nxcL D DDL.pw =CDT- = n.Th -•r HOOD N rRCM1 n wccnwry w O CY..Awr -.a n D am L.,.0 �R Jonw D nCC.nwOThxn —Y,0-3 aEh f — oeo DR.— M -GwI=- CL R..0 - COp �xThT � oRwnwn...ry k.ZOZA , t 0. &A.OLCi E ..C..FC,J G nCnAr wG..C; aDTRDL Euc.ZnL ei.T II...� .wog. x ?ROra: c.OrvxF CJf?ORwT•Ow September 11, 2001 VIA FACISI'_VIILE ONLY — 777-1233 La Quinta Planning Commission P 0 Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 .nJ.A.. wC'.s CAL For - - c POL7 JFr.CC Gi.A . ] 0 F+. •+OCGI FT G—FOR,.. li._: Sc TL.LPr—c 74v" :Ca zc TC.CCC.•.CR .n4G 3.,0 COwA ba--. ZDn OF CO—E_ Cn R•57:Pn Ed L wrt.w n.0 rAE. O nhfint�• w..,C T Tn0r 4. . DO.ALD F —MMER' G RI:.T nA L OYE. O DR.A. RE.JEF .wRFn O ,tVCn n.)BEhY , D--CL G STE.E..�.— Jcr)OGL. 44G _._. wOnTA.iO rOG. vev o�o� ,Ah Dot GO .D.G. OGD . �JJ CArw• fi1L Na 7NbU1 UWI RE Proposed Las Casuelas Restaurant in the Point Happy Shopping ('enter Dear Planning Commission Members This firm represents MadisorOTM La Quinta, LLC, developer of the Point Happy Shipping Center. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that The Florencio H Delgado uad Mary T Delgado Revocable lnter Vivos Trust, established .Tune 25, 1990 (the "'Trust"), which i:. developing the Las Casuelas Quinta Restaurant on Parcel 3 within the Point Happy Shopping Center, has not submitted to my client, for my client's review and approval, drawings and plans relating; to signage, exterior elevations and the size of the restaurant My client believes submission and approval ofthese drawings and plans are required under the Contract of Sale and Development Agreement between my client and the Trust, and under the Declaration of Fasemems, Covenants, Couditions and Restrictions applicable to the Point Happy Shopping Center My client intends to take whatever steps are necessary To enforce its ngf is to review and approvc the extcrior elevation, site plan and signagc for the proposed restaurant Accordingly, regardless of any action taken by the Planning Commission at this evening's hearin,;, please be tt1St3._1yTi cT•.ISx151 09-11-01 17:83 RECEIVED FROM: P•01 Sep-11-2001 05:11Pm From- L-AW OFFICES OF REST BEST & KRiEGER LLP T-099 P 002/002 F-844 La. Quinta Planning Commission September 11, 2001 Page 2 advised that my client is not waiving its review and approval rights under the Contraci of Sale, the Development Agreement or the Declaration Si ly, Daniel E Olivier of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 161110 ;1 cc. L Rick Wilkerson Rv1BL:S,DEOL,28151 09-11-61 17:03 RECEIVED FROM: P-02