The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 10 23 PCT4-ttt 4 4 Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California OCTOBER 23, 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 2001-131 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-022 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 October 9, 2001. B. Department Report - City Council/Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 14, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. regarding the General Plan Update. V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-715 Applicant........... Sean Kearney Location............ 78-775 Lowe Drive within Acacia Request ............. Compatibility review of architectural plans for a single family residence. Action ............... Resolution 2001- B. Item ................... SPECIFIC PLAN 87-011 AMENDMENT #3, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-064 Applicant........... Lathrop Development, Thomas Lathrop Location ............. North of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street Request ............. Review of design guidelines and development standards for a 25,240 square foot two story building; site development permit to allow construction of a 25,240 square foot two story commercial office building; and a conditional use permit to allow commercial retail and office uses Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- C. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418 AND 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 .............. Resolution 2001- and Resolution 2001- 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 October 9, 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 Robbins to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jensen, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, 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 September 25, 2001. Commissioner Butler asked that Pages 7 and 8, be corrected to read that Commissioner Kirk was present for all three votes. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: 1. None. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if there was still time to submit comments on the General Plan Update. Staff stated they would need them as soon as possible. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1: a request of Forrest K. Haag for RJT Homes, Inc. to modify development standards and text information for a private residential development on no more than 178 houses on approximately 73 acres located at the southwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. 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. Senior Engineer Steve Speer informed the Commission that in the course of plan checking the project, it was found that the retention basin did not comply with the Conditions of Approval. Staff asked the developer to explain this and they said the lake level was raised so they are unable to retain storm water in the lake and this caused it to spill down to the retention basins causing them to be larger/deeper. Normally, staff has not allowed the depth in a retention basin to go beyond five feet in depth. The one exception has been the Tradition which has a detention basin 35 feet deep with a water depth of ten feet when the 100-year storm is contained. 2. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify whether it was the depth of the water in the retention basin that is not more than five feet or the depth of the retention basin before adjacent grade in not more than five feet. Staff stated the intent is to not have more than five feet of water and not more than six feet deep at the closest point between the lowest point in the road adjacent to the retention basin. Commissioner Robbins stated he thought the retention basin at the Adams Park was deeper than six feet. Staff stated the upper bench of the Park slopes toward the retention basin which reaches six feet. It is greater on the west side adjacent to the street. 3. Staff stated that in order to make an exception to this project, it would take an amendment to the Specific Plan. In this case it is possible to consider deeper basins. The Public Works Department has put together criteria that if more proposals are submitted in the future, staff will have something to compare them against. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 Staff is asking the Commission to consider depth versus width and the issues associated with this. This applicant is asking for a water depth of nine feet in an 11 foot deep basin. Discussion followed regarding the depth of retention basins. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked how high the lake was raised. Staff stated two feet. 5. Chairman Abels asked staff to clarify the safety issues. Staff stated that to address some of the safety concerns, staff is recommending that if they go to deeper basins for every additional five feet of water, eight foot wide benches must be installed. Therefore, if you were to go off the edge the deepest the water would be is five feet. Staff is also requiring them to make them open spaces and possibly gated and padlocked during rainy seasons. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked where the square footage was measured from for the basin, or projected surface. Staff stated they are intended to be the size of the lot dedicated for the basin, so it would be the boundary of the lot. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked why staff was not allowing the use turf on the bottom of the basin. Staff stated they are more sensitive to water conservation and asked that the flat areas be a desert scape and the sloped areas be either turfed or planted with a ground cover and the bottom be some type of landscape material. 8. Commissioner Tyler stated the table on Page 45 of the staff report is asking for ten feet deep and the guideline states it should be a 30,000 square foot lot instead of the 20,000 square foot lot they are suggesting; can the applicant comply with this. Staff stated the applicant has stated they can comply with this requirement. 9. Commissioner Butler stated the staff report sites the percolation should be 240 hours for 20,000 square feet; does the developer have to show that the basin would absorb at that rate. Staff stated they are required to give the City soil testings and the City has set requirements to measure this with. Commissioner Butler asked if a developer does have an area where the percolates will absorb at this rate, can they reduce the size of the basin? Will the City set any standards on this? Staff stated the standard is contained in the Zoning Code and the only time an exception would be considered is in a Specific Plan. Staff is asking the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 Commission to help set those standards at this meeting. If we clear the safety and percolation issues, there is a trade off that could be beneficial. 10. Commissioner Robbins stated he had concerns in regard to the reducing the setback to ten feet in areas not adjacent to open space. He is not sure that is what the City wants, if this would set a precedent. 11. Chairman Abels asked the difference between bench and terraced area. Staff stated they were the same thing. 12. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chris Bergh, M.D.S. Consulting, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the request. 13. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant if this was an aesthetic issue. Mr. Bergh stated yes, as some of the houses near the lake would have to look down to see the lake. 14. Commissioner Butler asked if the water issue was within the water conservation boundaries. 15. Commissioner Robbins stated it was his assumption the project would have to meet the City's Zoning Code and would have the proper mix between water surface and other types of landscaping. 16. Commissioner Tyler stated many projects would like to use lakes to augment their retention basin to meet the 100 year flood condition. Is he correct that they are saying they are already at high water levels with the minimum levels? Mr. Bergh stated 40% of the retention is within the lake area and 60% of the balance goes to the retention basin. 17. Commissioner Kirk asked about the 10 foot setback. Mr. Forrest Haag, speaking for the applicant, stated there are 10 foot setbacks on the golf courses. It is perceived, on most projects with golf courses, that the rear yard area belonging to the golf course is owned by the property owners. In this project there are lots that front on to the cul-de-sacs and back up to one another. There are homeowners who want large footprint homes on small lots. They do not want the problem of taking care of a large rear yard, nor do they want a pool. According to their marketing information there G:\WPI)OCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 are people that do not want this large backyard. There are some homeowners who want the extended rear yard to look over a golf course, or in this instance a lake, and others who want no part of that. 18. Commissioner Butler asked if there was room in a 10 foot rear yard for a pool. Mr. Haag stated they can do an infinity -edge pool. Discussion followed regarding the economics of a ten foot setback. 19. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 20. Commissioner Robbins stated he has problems with the ability of these homes to be scrunched together. As a compromise he could support 30 feet between the back of one house to the back of the other. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated he supports staff's recommendation regarding drainage. He does, however, has a problem with the ten foot setback. He does not mind more density, but in the right location and this project is not a high density project. He agrees there are some people who would want the smaller rear yard setback, but he is not sure this is what they want in La Quinta. Therefore, he is against that portion of their request. He agrees with staff in that he would like to see some sort of compromise and perhaps Commissioner Robbins' suggestion might work. Another way may be to have the 20-foot setback as an average rather than a minimum so if there are architectural elements that jet into the setback, they can account for them and balance out the rear yard as an average. 22. Commissioner Butler stated he is satisfied with the retention issue, but the developer is the one putting himself at risk in regard to the density and whether the setback is ten feet or 20. He is uncertain whether or not the Commission should make that decision for them. He has no objection to the ten foot setback if the developer believes he can sell the product. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 23. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify that the only architectural projections being considered were those in the front yard setback. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Tyler stated he would not like to give up on the 20 foot setback. He had some concerns in regard to the conditions. Conditions #12 and #18 relate to the same issue and should be combined. 24. Commissioner Robbins stated one is a landscape requirement and the other is a natural retention requirement. 25. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition #5 of the Specific Plan is lined out and Condition #6 of the Tract Map is not lined out. Staff stated both conditions should be left in. Commissioner Tyler asked why there were new Fire Department conditions. Staff stated the Fire Department determined new ones were needed. 26. Chairman Abels stated he did not like the idea of 10 foot setbacks as this is not what was wanted in La Quinta. He would agree with the averaging at 20 feet. 27. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant if this was a siting situation and what the motivating factor was for the ten foot setback. Mr. Haag stated that in the evolution of the architecture and the development of the map, the architecture has been driven by the market. The engineering is trying to keep what the developer believes is a saleable product within the plan. Very few of these lots, less than 15, and somewhere between ten and fifteen percent of the lots require this ten foot setback. Commissioner Butler asked if these lots were all paired housing. Mr. Haag stated no, but odd shaped lots on maybe 10-15 lots need the 10 foot setback. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in regard to averaging, it would be difficult to enforce as the building permits are issued in groups which makes it hard to determine the average of the entire subdivision; second you preclude anyone from adding an addition because you would have to calculate what the addition's setback would be in relation to the entire subdivision. 28. Commissioner Kirk stated the averaging should be per lot. Discussion followed regarding averaging and determining the lots that can have the ten foot setback. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 29. Commissioner Tyler stated he is in favor of a curvilinear development; however, isn't there any alternative to the ten foot setback? Mr. Haag stated the developer wants his statement in the perimeter look and the interior amenities and replicated architecture. 30. Chairman Abels stated he concurs with the applicant's request as it is a matter of economics. 31. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-125, recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #5.A.1.: Remove the strike out. b. Condition #48: Change to read, "retention basins over 20,000 square feet." C. Condition #57: Rear yard setbacks for houses and guest houses not backing up to open spaces, shall not be less than 10 feet for 22 of the lots with those specific lots to be determined prior to the City Council public hearing and the remainder shall have 20 foot rear yard setbacks. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Kirk and Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-126, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29858 Amendment #2, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted/amended: a. Condition # 49: Change to read, "retention basins over 20,000 square feet." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 B. Conditional Use Permit 2001-063; a request of Sprint PCS for approval of the installation of a 68 foot high wireless antenna camouflaged as a Palm Tree (Monopalm prototype design) and related ground -mounted equipment for cellular telephone service within a self -storage facility on 3.77 acres located at 46-600 Adams Street, Storage USA. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 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 Tyler asked if this tower was totally enclosed within the project and asked why the project was required to have two parking spaces. Staff stated it was within the storage facility and the parking spaces were required by the Zoning Code. The parking spaces within the Storage facility are for RV rental parking spaces. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked the location of the other two approved sites. Staff stated the last one approved was AT&T at the Imperial Irrigation District facility. Commissioner Kirk asked if it had been determined to be legally possible to have multiple tenants on a tower. Staff stated it was legal and a condition had been added on to the AT&T tower. Commissioner Kirk asked if this applicant had been asked to have multiple tenants on this tower. Staff stated the applicant would have to address this as it would have to be ten feet higher to accommodate another user. 4. Commissioner Robbins stated his only concern was the proliferation of the monopalms throughout the City. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Linda Nobia, representing Telecom Wireless Solutions sole consultants to Sprint PCS, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to the antennas she stated this tower will serve only La Quinta. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked the radius of the antenna and if it could accept other applicants. Ms. Nobia stated yes, but it would not get as good a coverage. They would have to expand the lease area for additional equipment. They would be willing to accept a condition requiring it as long as they have the lease area to do this. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the proposed telecommunication facilities meet the current standards set by the FCC. Ms. Nobia stated yes. 8. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Tyler questioned why it should be condition to have the parking spaces. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked how the City could enforce a requirement to have an additional tenant on the tower. City Attorney Kathy Jensen stated that if they consent to the condition, it will be a lease situation and could be difficult to enforce. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant how they would enforce this. Mr. Don Williams, Telecom Wireless Solutions, stated they are getting ready to construct a co -location facility and could also do the same at this location. Most carriers would rather co -locate than do their own pole as it is cheaper. They do need a separation between the two facilities and this can be a problem. In regard to landscaping and parking spaces, they are happy with whatever the City decides. They do have an employee who checks the poles each month, but this does not require a parking space. They are happy to plant the trees, but need help as to where to put them as it is an entirely paved area. Their leased area is not big enough to put the pole and two trees. 12. Commissioner Butler stated he would want the palm trees next to the pole. Discussion followed as to possible planting alternatives. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-127, approving Conditional Use Permit 2001- 063, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #8: Add, "Trees shall be maintained and replaced if they die." b. Condition 9: Deleted and replaced with a requirement for a multiple receptor. G:\WPC)OCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 The Resolution shall be modified to add a new finding that the required parking spaces as required by the Zoning Code are not needed as the parking spaces provided within the Storage facility are sufficient and additional parking is not needed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ane reconvened at 8:37 p.m. C. Village Use Permit 2001-010; a request of Edwin G. Cosek (Andrew's Bar and Grill) for review of exterior remodeling plans for an existing one story commercial building (formerly Chez Moniques) on 0.17 acres to include outdoor patio dining, landscaping, signs and vehicle parking areas located at 78-121 Avenida La Fonda. 1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dias. 2. 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. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the old sign would be removed. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Tyler asked about the lack of parking. Staff stated parking would be available on the street and on site. Commissioner Tyler asked about the 25 feet on the west side of the building. Staff stated the area is proposed to be landscaped and the parking capacity can be addressed by the applicant. 4. Commissioner Butler stated he was concerned that with the restaurant to the west of this project there could be a parking problem. Staff stated they thought the parking was sufficient. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Calgerious, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the request and stated the seating capacity of the restaurant is 82 and is anticipate to be open within ten weeks. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Robbins stated he is in favor of the project as it should be an addition to the Village. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-128, recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2001-010, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission. D. Village Use Permit 2001-012; a request of Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC for review of 18 Casitas buildings, each containing eight units, for a total of 144 units on a portion of the Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan property located on the north side of Calle Tampico, between Desert club Drive and Avenida Bermudas. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 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 Robbins asked for clarification as to why all four sides of the elevation were not included. Staff stated the two fronts and two sides are the same. 3. Commissioner Tyler stated the emergency exit should be shown on the plans. Staff noted this is called out on the Specific Plan. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Daniel Brown, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the request. G:\WPDIDCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commission Kirk asked if the applicant concurred with the conditions. Mr. Brown stated he did and explained the green area shown on the plan shows how they would like to have the site look, even if it is more than 25 percent turf. Commissioner Kirk asked what the use of pavilion would be when it is proposed for the middle of the parking lot. Ms. Bridget Meyers, representing the applicant, stated they have been discussing this with several landscape architects. The vision is to use it for outdoor entertainment or exhibits for the pedestrian usage. Commissioner Kirk asked if Embassy Suites has ever marketed the casitas units without a hotel attached. Mr. Brown stated they would be constructed at the same time so it would not be an issue. They will be individually owned. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated he was concerned that the people who own the casitas units would be subject to the construction of the hotel. Mr. Brown stated they are planning to build the two at the same time so it would not be an issue. 7. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Robbins stated his only concern is the applicant's request for more turf and asked if the Specific Plan was conditioned to a set amount of turf. Staff stated the condition was added by staff at the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee meeting. The original Specific Plan requires it to meet the Landscape Ordinance. The applicant is requesting the elimination of Condition #4. Commissioner Robbins stated he would recommend reducing the evaporation ratio from 8 to 6 and let them do what they want with a certain amount of water. Discussion followed regarding the amount of turf and water to be allowed. Mr. Brown stated he was concerned this would not allow them to obtain the oasis look they are wanting. Following discussion it was determined the amount of turf would be limited to 33 percent. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated he has a problem with the casitas units resembling apartments rather than a true casitas unit and he would recommend additional features be added. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-129, recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2001-012, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted/amended: a. Condition #4: A landscaping shall be a maximum of 33% b. Condition #10: The emergency access on Desert Club Drive shall be specified on the plans ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. E. Site Development Permit 2001-714; a request of Madison Development LLC for review of development plans for one retail building located on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1, within Point Happy Commercial center. 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 Tyler asked about the window signs on Washington Street and if the Commission could prohibit this. Staff stated the Specific Plan would not allow it. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Vuksic, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the request. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-130, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-714, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-671, Amendment #1; a request of Toll Bros. For review of architectural plans for one new prototype residential unit to be located within the Norman Golf Course, on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street. 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, nor of the applicant, Chairman Abels closed the public participation. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-121 approving Site Development Permit 2000-671 Amendment #1, subject to the Conditions of Approval as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Staff informed the Commission that the City Council would be determining if there would be another joint hearing on the General Plan Update. Staff would notify the Commission of the date. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of September 18, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held October 9, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. on September 25, 2001. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPD(DCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01.wpd 15 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-715 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: SEAN KEARNEY ARCHITECT: JERRY W. SHERMAN, RESIDENTIAL CONCEPTS REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. LOCATION: 78-775 LOWE DRIVE, WITHIN ACACIA. ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EAST: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WEST: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: The residential lot is located within the Acacia development. The lot is specifically east of Seeley Drive and south of, and adjacent to Lowe Drive. It is a partially developed subdivision and therefore, subject to compatibility review. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a single story residential house on a vacant lot in a recorded subdivision. The house height is 15-feet 9-inches and contains 1,707 square feet of living area plus a two car garage. Exterior materials consist of a concrete roof the that is blue in color and tint, white stucco walls with gray trim accent, and a window treatment consisting of white metal. The elevations carry elements of the surrounding houses. Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee: The ALRC did not provide a recommendation due to lack of a quorum. G:\WPDCICS\PC Stf Rpt\SDP715 Kearney.wpd FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met with the exception of the following: 1. The lot landscaping is to consist of at least one specimen tree, i.e., a minimum 24-inch box 0.5 to 2" caliper trunk size) and a minimum ten feet tall measured at the top of box. RESPONSE: The applicant has not provided a landscaping plan. The applicant will need to submit a landscaping plan containing at least the minimum requirements for Community Development Department approval. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Site Development Permit 2001-715, subject to the following conditions: 1. The front yard landscaping shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code and the plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. 2. The subdivider 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 thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Attachments: 1. Building elevations and site plan Prepared and submitted by: $hn`!`tine di lorio, tanning Manager G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\SDP715 Kearney.wpd PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:: OCTOBER 23, 2001 CASE: NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 200-429 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-01 1, AMENDMENT NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-064 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 REQUEST: REVIEW THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 25,240 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY BUILDING; A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,240 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY COMMERCIAL -OFFICE BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, AND OFFICE USES LOCATION: NORTH OF AVENUE 47, WEST OF ADAMS STREET APPLICANT: LATHROP DEVELOPMENT, THOMAS LATHROP PROPERTY OWNER: MADISON PTM LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-429 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED NOT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) SOUTH: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HR) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) A:\PCstaff. Lathrop SP87-011. Amd. No. 3.wpd BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Property Description The currently vacant project site (Attachment No. 1), located north of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street consists of 1.78 acres (A.P.N. 643-090-016). The property is triangular in shape with dimensions of 152.79 feet on the south (Avenue 47), 558.,154 feet on the north, and 230 feet on the east. To the east of the site is a CVWD well site; with vacant property to the north and west. To the south, across Avenue 47 is vacant property within Lake La Quinta. Applications Under Consideration 1. Specific Plan Amendment No. 3, and Site Development Permit As required by the CR zoning of the property, a Specific Plan has been submitted (Attachment No. 2). The site is proposed to be added into the Washington Square Specific Plan 1987-01 1; thereby amending the Specific Plan. The Washington Square Specific Plan was approved by the City in 1989 and amended twice (1991 and 1997). The 1997 amendment allowed a 13.39 acre portion of the site to be created and Eagle Hardware to be constructed (now Lowe's Home Improvement). The Specific Plan calls for commercial mixed use development including general retail, office, hotel(s), restaurant, and cinema land uses with a total allowable square footage of 775,000 square feet on the 65.4 acre site. It is anticipated that the City will be receiving an application for a major revision and/or a new proposed Specific Plan for the entire 65.4 acres in the near future. Access/Circulation/Parking Site access is located on Avenue 47 at the west corner of the property providing an entry to the 102 space parking lot (with 11 covered spaces) and access to the front entry of the building. Parking spaces are 9' X 19', parking aisles are 26 feet, and parking driveways are 28 feet. The parking lot has a 5 foot landscape setback along the north and east perimeter, a 10 foot landscape setback along Avenue 47 is also provided. The parking lot is provided with large landscape planters. The distribution of large planters areas with pedestrian walks to the building entries creates an courtyard effect. The 102 spaces meets Zoning Code requirements for the proposed uses including commercial retail, office and wholesale storage. Also provided is future vehicular access to other Washington Square properties. The Washington Square Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to allow this vehicular access. Exterior Parking Lot Lighting Plan Site lighting consists of fifteen 18-foot high square poles, located generally on the perimeter of the parking lot, the shoe box will have flush lenses directed downward. Poles have 175 watt metal halide lamps. The photometric data from the illumination A:\PCstaff. Lathrop SP87-011. Amd. No. 3.wpd study, shows light in the parking area average of 2.33 foot candles. The Washington Square Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to allow relaxing the Zoning Code requirements for illumination of parking areas. Sign Plan A Sign Program was not submitted. Development Standards Proposed development standards do not deviate from the Washington Square Specific Plan as amended; and are consistent with the Zoning Code development standards for a Regional Commercial use. Architectural Plans Proposed is a two story 25, 240 square foot building with retail, office and wholesale uses; with the ground floor comprising 17,500 square feet of retail and wholesale space, and the second floor comprising 7,740 square feet of office space (Attachment No. 3). The rectangular building uses a variety of roof types including gable, hipped, and mansard. All will be covered with a concrete tile. Three tower elements with multi - pane windows, ranging in heights from 28 to 34 % feet, are highlighted with aluminum stucco reveals. Store fronts have anodized bronze aluminum frame windows with tinted glass. Decorative stucco cornice trim wraps around the structure. Staircases accessing a walkway deck to the second story, which is finished with coated "copper age" color pipe railing, are proposed for the rear elevation. Wall material consists of a light brown (San Simeon) cement plaster and highlighted with ceramic lava brown tile and Sunbrela brown fabric awnings. 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 each of the three perimeter lot lines of the site is proposed to have tall screening shrubs such as Clumping Bougainvillea, Bird of Paradise Bush, and Purple Hopseed Bush. The planter area between the oneway driveway will have Mediterranean Fan Palms and Date Palms with shrubs such as Hopseed Bushes, Autumn Sage, and Dwarf Oleander. Planter areas around the perimeter of the building are proposed to have shrubs such as Texas Ranger and Brittlebrush. The Landscape Plan is consistent with the Washington Square Specific Plan; however the Landscape Plan does not identify and locate specific plant types and quantities from the proposed pallette of materials. A:\PCstaff. Lathrop SP87-011. Amd. No. 3.wpd 2. Conditional Use Permit The applicant is also requesting approval a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which is required to allow a commercial use as a Conditional of Approval for properties within Tract 24230 (Lake La Quinta which included the entire quarter section). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment 2001-429 for the project. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW• The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of October 3, 2001 (Attachment 4). The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001-041, recommending approval subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this review. 1. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall identify and locate specific plant types and quantities consistent with the proposed pallette of material. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the south building elevation increasing the size of the portico columns and the quatrafoil to match the lower gable on either side of the main structure. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public agencies on August 13, 2001, requesting comments returned by August 28, 2001. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on October 10, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: All findings can be made that the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, Washington Square Specific Plan as amended, and Zoning A:\Kstaff.Lathrop SP87-011. Amd. No. 3.wpd Code. There are no issues, with the exception of the non -submittal of a Site Development Permit Sign Program. Staff recommends a Condition of Approval that requires a sign program be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of any sign permit. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2001-429) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending approval of Specific Plan 87-01 1, Amendment No. 3. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit 2001-064. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-708. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan 87-01 1, Amendment No. 3 3. Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscape Plan 4. Draft Minutes of the ALRC Committee, October 3, 2001 Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner 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 A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-429 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-064 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001- 429 APPLICANT: LATHROP DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13th day of March, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-429 for Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708, generally located north of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street within the Washington Square Specific Plan, more particularly described as: A . P. N 643-090-016 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 2001-429) and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit 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 for Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708, 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 Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 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 2001-429. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-429 October 23, 2001 Page 2 2. The proposed Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 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 Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-062 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 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 Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 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 Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708will 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- 429 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 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-429 October 23, 2001 Page 3 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 Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-429 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 2001-429 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of October, 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 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Specific Plan 87-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064, Site Development Permit 2001-708 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: North side of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lathrop Development 72-912 Willow Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial 7. Zoning: Regional Commercial 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.) Amendment to Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit are required to establish the parameters for the construction of a 25,240 square foot, two story office, retail and warehousing building on 1.77 acres. Site Development Permit is required to implement the design and allow construction of the building. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant lands in the Washington Square Specific Plan, Lowes Hardware Store South: Vacant lands, Lake La Quinta West: Vacant lands in the Washington Square Specific Plan East: Vacant lands in the Washington Square Specific Plan 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 416 Cklst.WPD 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics 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 Cull wal Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a :NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions jn the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. IE I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. IK I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ature G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside; a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance G:\WPDOC3\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would' the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) J. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district :may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X V X X R. FN VPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD 4 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) I T X 1V. 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. 5-211) 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) 0 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) 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.) X X X X X X X n X X VPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) 'II. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing, or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) X X X X X X X X X E2 X NPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD :1 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) 7III. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place; within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) C. 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 enviromnental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) /1 X In X X X X X X X X 1/ NPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD 7 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5- 3{ 5) K. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) ICI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) d) 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) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) ;II. 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 F_ 1/ X E, R. X M P X NPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD 8 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. ) (IV. 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) CV. 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) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ;VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, pg. 4-24) X WPDOCS\Env Asses\EA 418 Cklst.WPD 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011. AMENDMENT NO. 3 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 23rd day of October, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Lathrop Development for approval of guidelines and standards in a development plan including the distribution of land uses and development standards, for commercial and office uses, located north of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street in the Washington Square Specific Plan, more particularly described as: A . P. N 643-090-016 WHEREAS, said Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No.3 has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-429), and determined that the proposed Specific Plan will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan: 1. That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Regional Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. 2. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation. 3. That the proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of development plans under a Site Development Permit, which will ensure adequate Conditions of Approval. Resolution No. 2001- Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 3 October 23, 2001 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be certified for this project. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERR`r' HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California AAPC RESO SP 1987-011, AMD. 3.frm PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 3 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 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 permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. All Conditions of Approval for the Washington Square Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 2 shall be retained in full force and effect with the following additions/revisions: A. Revise Condition 21, 47' Avenue, paragraph A. to read as follows: At access locations shown in Specific Plan 87-011, Amendment #2, Figure V-1, along with an access point at the westerly end of Lot 286 of Tract # 24230 (as shown on Appendix "A" of the text of Minor Specific Plan, Amendment # 3). B. Add Condition 21, 47" Avenue, paragraph B. to read as follows: The applicant shall provide for a future 26 foot clear width two way ingress and egress access to the property contiguous to, and immediately to the north of the applicant's property. C. Revise Condition 29, B., 4. to read as follows: 47t" Avenue improvements (that portion contiguous to Tract # 27031 and excepting that portion contiguous to Lot 286 of Tract # 24230): Reimburse developer for those improvements installed on the North side of the centerline of 47"' Avenue, in the area defined above. Reimbursement shall include responsibility for 25% (twenty five percent) of the cost to design and construct the traffic signalization at 47t" Avenue and Washington Street. D. Add a provision under 4.3 of the Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 that allows illumination levels at finish grade in parking areas to be no more than 3 footcandles. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001- 064 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 23rd day of October, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Lathrop Development for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for commercial and office uses, located north of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street within the Washington Square Specific Plan, more particularly described as: A. P. N 643-090-016 WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-429), and determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for the commercial project is designated as Regional Commercial which is consistent. 2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code or amended as allowed in the applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified. Resolution No. 2001- Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 October 23, 2001 Page 2 4. The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided with adequate landscaping. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be certified for this project. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERR`f HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California AAPC RESO CUP 2001-064.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-064 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 G E N EBAL 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 in its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. The use of the subject property for commercial uses shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits and Conditions of Approval contained in Conditional Use Permit 2001-064, Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Site Development Permit 2001-708 and Environmental Assessment 2001-429, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 3. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of the effective date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit for the project. A time extension for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 D. AAPC COA CUP 2001-064.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 25,240 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001- 708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 23rd day of October, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Lathrop Development for approval of a development plans for a for commercial and office building, located north of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street within the Washington Square Specific Plan, more particularly described as: A. P. N 643-090-016 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 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-429), and determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the Site Development Permit: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for the commercial project is designated as Regional Commercial. 2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code or amended as allowed in the applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified. AAPC RESO SDP 2001-708.wpd Resolution No. 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-708 October 23, 2001 Page 2 4. The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided with adequate landscaping. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be certified for this project. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described Site Development Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of October, 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 AAPC RESO SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 GENE:BAL 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: U Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) u Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) u 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). A:\PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 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 Nall 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. Wa L401912WIN 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, Paving & Drainage" "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise A:\PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCT08ER 23, 2001 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. "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 developer shall have prepared under the direct supervision of qualified civil engineer a "Site Improvement Plan," including but not necessarily limited to the top of curb elevations, top of pavement elevations, drainage swales, and all information to show the compliance with Title 24 Handicap Access. 12. '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. 13. 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. 14. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LO.MC (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 A:1PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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: 20. 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 87-011 or unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. A:\PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOIBER 23, 2001 21. Storm water flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 22. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 23. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 24. 'the side slopes of retention basins shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall not exceed six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 25. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in dry wells, or as approved by the City Engineer. 26. 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, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILI'rl� 27. 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. A:1PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 28. 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. 29. 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. ORETUROM tim'as -u_z 30. '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). 31. Parking facilities shall conform to the requirements of LQMC Chapter 9.150 32. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices. 33. 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. 34. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 35. "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. A:\PC C:OA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 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. 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. 11FIREMWETAM3111MA idol 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 A:1PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 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. 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. 121i G i 45. Minimum fire flow 2125 GPM for a 2-hour duration. Fire flow is based on type \/N construction and a complete fire sprinkler system. 46. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. Or Larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 47. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the address side of the building, no closer than 15 feet nor farther than 50 feet from a fire hydrant. 48. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. 49. Glue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 50. Provide primary and secondary access for emergency vehicles. 51. 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. A:1PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708 LATHROP DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 23, 2001 52. Install a Rapid Entry (KNOX) key box for each tenant space. (Contact the Fire Department for an application). 53. Install portable fire extinguishers, in cabinets. 54. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review to run concurrent with the City plan check. MISCELLANEOUS 55. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall identify and locate specific plant types and quantities consistent with the proposed pallette of material. 56. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the south building elevation increasing the size of the portico columns and the quatrafoil to match the lower gable on either side of the main structure. 57. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, applicant shall submit a Sign Program for Planning Commission review and approval. A:\PC COA SDP 2001-708.wpd 0 ATTACHMENT DRAFI Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 3, 2001 window. Planning Manager Christine di lorio state the Specific Plan and Sign Ordinance which restricts the a unt of window advertising. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked w* material the window frames would be constructed of. Mr, Vuksic stated they were a sage green aluminum. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated he had no issues and thought it would be a good addition to the center. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agreed. 8. There being n6 further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee' Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-040 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-714, as recommended. D. Site Development Permit 2001-708; a request of Tom Lathrop for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 25,240 square foot two story building located on Avenue 47, west of Adams Street within the Washington Square Specific Plan 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. AS 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant would like Uto address the Commission. Mr. Tom Lathrop gave a presentation on the project. > 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the exterior would be a sand finish. Mr. Lathrop stated it would be machine sprayed, and noted some of the architectural details on the building. Committee Member Cunningham stated the gables portico in the upper center appears to be light in stature in relation to the balance of the building. The columns on either side do not carry down with scale. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked if the Committee wanted the columns enhanced and increase the size of the quatrafoil. Committee Member Cunningham stated yes. Mr. Lathrop stated this side of the building is pushed very close to Avenue 47 so you are basically within 20 feet of the building when driving by. Across the street is residential and he was not GAWPDOCS\ARLC\AL.RC 10-3-01.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 3, 2001 trying to make any type of a statement, but actually playing it down. Committee Member Cunningham stated he didn't want to add detail, but that the building seemed out of balance and should have something to balance the weight of the entire building. Discussion followed regarding the roof line. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it was a standard desert plant pallette. Some of the tree varieties are fast growing and are short rooted which tends to make them high maintenance. He would not use as many of this variety because they are high maintenance and can be a liability if not maintained. In addition, the date palms in front of the building should be bought at a younger stage because the older ones can be a liability in high traffic areas because of crown drop. The large planting areas for the shade trees are great as the trees will be healthier. Mr. Lathrop stated they were restricted on what plants they could use because of the Washington Square Specific Plan. Discussion followed on date palm trees. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-041 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-708, as recommended. a. Prior to issuance of building permit revise the south building Iftft elevation increasing the size of the portico columns and the LL quatrafoil to match the lower gable on either side of the main structure. E. Village Use Permit 2001-010; a request of Edwin G. Cosek (Andrews Bar and Grill) for review of exterior remodeling plans for an existing one story commercial restaurant building (formerly Chez Monique) on 0.17 acres to include outdoor patio dining, landscaping and vehicle parking areas located at 78-121 Avenida La Fonda. 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 if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Ed Cosek stated he was available to answer any questions. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\ALRC 10-3-01.wpd 4 PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2001 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-438 AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2000-694 - LA QUINTA COMMUNITY PARK APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: PURKISS-ROSE-RSI REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT OF AN 18.07 ACRE COMMUNITY PARK SITE WITH VARIOUS SIZE LIGHTED SOCCER FIELDS, TWO LIGHTED BASEBALL FIELDS, CONCESSION STAND, RESTROOMS, TOT LOT, SKATE PARK, PICNIC AREAS WITH BARBEQUES AN SHADE STRUCTURES. LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND WESTWARD HO DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-428 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED NOT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. ZONING: PARKS AND RECREATION SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GAWPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\CIP694Park.wpd BACKGROUND: The property is located on the north side of Westward Ho Drive and the east side of Adams Street (Attachment 1). The Redevelopment Agency purchased the 18.07 acre site on June 1, 1990 for a community park. Project History: June 1, 1990: The City of La Quinta's Redevelopment Agency purchased 18.07 acres on the northeast corner of Adams Street and Avenue 46 (renamed Westward Ho Drive) for $933,000 for the purpose of developing a community park site. October 1992: Purkiss-Rose-RSI (consultant) presented a Design Development Report on Community Park North. The name Community Park North was given to this project for identification purposes only. December 1, 1992: The City Council conducted a study session to discuss the Community Park North (park site), at which time staff recommended the design presented by Purkiss Rose-RSI be processed through the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. The Design Review Board, at their December 2, 1992 meeting, recommended approval of the park site plan to the City Council. At the December 8, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the park site plan was reviewed by the Commission and approved as submitted. January 19, 1993: The City Council accepted and approved the Design Development Report and Master Plan for the park site. October 5, 1999: The City Council and Redevelopment Agency approved an agreement with the Coachella Valley Water District to locate a half acre well site on the northwest corner of the park site. January 18, 2000: At the City Council meeting, it was determined the Community Park North Master Plan should be updated to reflect the needs of the community. At this meeting, it was also determined the word "North" should be removed from the name of the park. Hence, the identification label for the park from this date forward is the Community Park. February 1, 2000: The City Council authorized staff to negotiate a Professional Services Agreement with Purkiss-Rose-RSI to update the current Community Park Master Plan. March 7, 2000: The City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Purkiss- Rose-RSI to provide the Community Park Master Plan update. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\CIP694Pazk.wpd June 7, 2000: The first public meeting was held on June 7, 2000 in which approximately 350 people attended. This meeting was held to obtain public input regarding the amenities the community would like to see included at the park. Several amenities were requested by the public including a skate park, dog park, soccer fields, baseball fields and walking path. July 2000: The City Council appropriated $2,000,000 from the Parks and Recreation portion of the Development Impact Fees in the 2000-01 Capital Improvement Program to develop the first phase of the Community Park. The City also received notification from Assemblyman Battin's office that the City had been awarded $500,000 from the youth soccer/baseball facilities segment of the Safe Neighborhoods and Parks Bond Act (Proposition 12). These funds can be used only for the design and construction Of youth soccer/baseball facilities. October 25, 2000: The second public meeting was held with approximately 300 people in attendance. The amenities listed at the first meeting were repeated at the second meeting. A list of public desires and concerns from both public meetings was complied by Purkiss-Rose-RSI and is provided as Attachment 2. Concerns that were raised from residents adjacent to the park site include the affects the lights and noise from lighted soccer/baseball fields, and a request that the park site include amenities that meet the needs of several elements of the community. November 13, 2000: The Community Services Commission (Commission) reviewed the public meeting desires and concerns. From this list, the Commission provided a list of amenities the Commission would like to see at the Community Park. The minutes from the Commission's meeting are provided as Attachment 3. The Commission also recommended the following amenities be developed in addition to the Community Park site: the City to provide lights at the High School tennis courts instead of building additional courts and develop at least two pet parks: one near the Comr-nunity Park and one near the Cove. December 11, 2000: From these recommendations, Steve Lang of Purkiss-Rose-RSI developed three concepts for the Commission's review. The Commission reviewed the concepts as presented by Mr. Lang. The concept accepted by the Commission is provided as Attachment 4. At the February 6, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council provided direction to the Consultant to finalize the Community Park Master Plan with the essential elements and priority one amenities and directed staff to begin negotiations with Purkiss-Rose- RSI to provide Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimates. On June 5, 2001, the City Council considered an official name for the Community Park site. After some discussion, the official name for the park site was adopted as the "La Quinta Park". G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\CIP694Park.wpd The conceptual plans are provided for the Planning Commission's consideration at this time. The essential elements required for the park site, independent of amenities include: street improvements on both Adams and Westward Ho, including an additional full traffic lane, shoulder, curb, gutter and sidewalk; off-street parking areas; and a restroom facility. These amenities are identified in the City's General Plan and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. These documents are on file with the City Clerk's office, PROJECT PROPOSAL: General: The site is 18.07 acres with the following proposed amenities: Various size lighted soccer fields Two lighted baseball fields Concession stand with restrooms Tot Lot with age appropriate play structures and swing set Picnic area with barbeques and shade structures Skate Park Walking path with exercise stations Site Design: Soccer and Baseball Fields: The park site plan is provided as Attachment 5. The site plan provides for conceptual soccer fields. The actual fields will be laid out according to need by the youth soccer organization. There will be no permanent soccer goals on the park site. All goals will be removed at the end of the day by the youth soccer organization. There are two designated baseball fields that will have permanent backstops, dugouts, bullpens and bleachers. The lighting system for the sports fields will be the Musco TLC (Total Light Control) system. The TLC system allows for shields on each light fixture as well as the ability to adjust each light fixture individually. There will be 26 light poles with heights between 40 feet and 80 feet with fixtures from four to fifteen per pole, as provided in Attachment 6. The height of the poles is dictated by the amount of light needed on the field and to mitigate the spill and glare to the neighboring residents. As an example, the higher the pole, the more light with a better focused aim, thereby reducing spill from the light fixtures. The lighting system will be regulated by the Community Services Department via a computer controlled system. The youth sports organizations will submit a light schedule to the Community Services Department at the beginning of the sports season. City staff then sets the light schedule. The lights G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\CIP694Park.wpd are scheduled to come on 30 minutes before dusk and are scheduled to turn off no later than 10:00 p.m. per LQMC Chapter 11.44.060 (t). There will be a manual override switch installed in the concession stand which will allow the user groups to turn off the lights should the lights not be needed as scheduled. There will be no manual switch accessible to the user groups to turn on the lights. Currently, AYSO (American Youth Soccer Organization) uses the La Quinta Sports Complex Monday through Friday 5:00-9:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. during the months of September through February. The LQSYA (La Quinta Sports and Youth Association) uses the La Quinta Sports Complex during the months of March to July, and during the hours of 5:00-10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. The City sponsored Adult Soccer League currently uses the La Quinta High School Baseball Practice field for games on Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The Adult Soccer League will use the regulation field at the La Quinta Park once it is completed. There will be an amplified sound system at the facility. This is monitored by the Community Services Department. The user groups must apply to the Community Service Department for use of the sound system. The sound system at the La Quinta Sports Complex has been used in the past, only two days a year by LQSYA, for opening and closing day of the baseball season. The sound system has been used is during daylight hours. Tot Lot: The Tot Lot will be designed according to the current ASTM standards with age appropriate equipment and surfacing. This will include two play structures: one for ages 2-5 and one structure for 5-12 year -olds. The swings will also be designed for age appropriateness. The Tot Lot will meet current ADA standards. Basketball Court: There will be one regulation size concrete basketball court. Barbeque Area and Shade Structures: There will be a designated area for barbeques with a hot ash urn. There will also be picnic tables and a drinking fountain in the area. Skate (Park: An area has been designated for a skate park to be located on the park site in the future, as funding becomes available. G:\WPDOC:S\PC Stf Rpt\CIP694Park.wpd Walking Path with Exercise Stations: A eight foot wide natural color concrete broom finish walking path is located around the perimeter of the park site. Located at various locations along the path will be exercise stations with self guided directional signs. Bollard type lighting is proposed for the perimeter of the park site, along the walking path. The bollards will be 38 inches tall and emit a downward circular light pattern. Concession Stand and Restrooms: The concession stand is used by the sports groups during the same period of time as the field use. The sports groups are responsible for the cleanliness of the facility. The City of La Quinta contracts with a janitorial service to clean the concession stand and restrooms on a nightly basis. The concession stand meets all Riverside County Health Department regulations and an annual health permit will be obtained. There will be one male and one female restroom facility available to the general public from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Architecture: The proposed concession stand/restroom/office/storage facility consists of a rectangular shaped, one story 18 foot high building with multiple shed style roofs. The roofs will be covered with "S" tiles. The proposed walls consist of stucco bases with the remainder composed of slumpstone block. The office windows, proposed on the north elevation will be fixed single pane with aluminum frames and 2"X8" rough sawn wood surrounds. The concession stand portion of the proposed building, on the east elevation, will have storefront aluminum frame windows with pass-throughs. Metal roll down shutters are proposed for all windows. The proposed multi -panel doors will be of exterior grade metal. A metal roll up door is proposed on the north elevation. A proposed arcade is shown along both the east and south elevations and each will be supported by wood piers with decorative corbels. Above the north elevation arcade will be; a painted tube steel grille clerestory. Exposed wood rafter tails are also proposed. The proposed concession stand area will be shaded with a metal trellis. The color of the stucco finish, slumpstone concrete and metal doors will be compatible with the surrounding architecture. Parking: There are no parking requirements provided in the Zoning Code for recreational facilities. Based upon the Consultant's professional estimate, a total of 221 parking spaces along with 8 handicap parking spaces is needed for this site. It is anticipated that during special events, additional parking will be available at the La Quinta High School parking lot located south of the park site. The parking lot will be illuminated with symmetric square shaped full cut off luminaires with a anodized aluminum specular reflector with 400 watt metal halide bulbs on 18 foot high standards. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\C1P694Park.wpd Landscaping: The proposed landscape plan shows a variety of trees surrounding the ball fields. The tree types proposed are Fern Leaf Acacia and Silk Trees. The proposed parking lot tree is Mexican Palo Verde with Water Gum trees proposed in the end planters. Carrot:wood trees are proposed around the playground. Crape Myrtle are formally grouped as accent trees at the park entry. Shrubs and groundcover are proposed within the parking lot area. Signs: No signs are being proposed at this time. PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on October 12, 2001 and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, three letters has been received (Attachment 6). Any further comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comment and none were received. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) CONSIDERATION: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of September 5, 2001, and on a 2-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2001-037, recommending approval as submitted, subject to conditions, some of which have been incorporated into this review (Attachment 7). FINDINGS: Given that this is a Capital Improvement Project, staff is recommending the approval of this application using the site development findings under Section 9.210.010. Therefore, all findings can be met as noted in the attached Resolution with the exception of the following; 4. Architectural Design: Staff is recommending the concession stand architectural design as proposed by the consultant is appropriate for the site and compatible with the surrounding environment. Staff has attached correspondence from Crane Architectural Group (Attachment 8) describing the rational for the proposed architectural style. GAWPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\CIP694Pazk.wpd RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-438, subject to the Mitigation Program for CEQA Compliance; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of Capital Improvement Project 2000-694, subject to the recommended conditions; Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Community Desires and Concerns, June 7 & October 25, 2000 3. Community Services Commission Minutes, November 13, 2000 4. Conceptual Plan Approved by the Community Services Commission 5. Development Plans (Planning Commission only) 6. Letters Received Regarding Project 7. ALRC Minutes, September 5, 2001 8. Letter From Crane Architecture Regarding Concession Building Prepared by: Dodie Horvitz Community Services Director Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager G:\WPOOCS\PC StfRpt\CIP694Park.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ' A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-438 PREPARED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-694, WESTWARD HO PARK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-438 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of October, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-438 for Capital Improvement Project 2001-694, located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Westward Ho Drive, more particularly described as follows: APN: 604-061-006 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 2001-438) and has determined that although the proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-694 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. he proposed Capital Improvement Project 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 2001-438. 2. The proposed Capital Improvement Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\PCResoCIPEA438.wpd 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 Capital Improvement Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Capital Improvement Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 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- 438 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 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 2001-438 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 2001-438 reflects the independent judgement of the City. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\PCResoCIPEA438.wpd PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTE:iT: JERRY' HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PCResoCIPEA438.wpd Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-438 I.c)&d) The proposed project is designated in the General Plan for a park facility. Such a park facility is proposed. The proposed park will include lighting for three purposes: 1. Parking lot lighting to meet City standards to illuminate the parking lot adjacent to Westward Ho Drive. This lighting will not generate any light off -site, and will not create substantial light. No significant impact is expected. 2. Lighting along the perimeter walkway in the form of bollards, which will be louvered to direct lighting downward. This lighting will not generate light off -site, and no significant impact is expected. 3. Lighting for the basketball, baseball and soccer fields, as well as lighting for the skate park. This lighting will be placed on steel poles ranging in height from 40 to 80 feet, with multiple light sources on each pole, ranging from 4 to 15 light sources. The lighting analysis performed for the proposed park demonstrates that the light generated by this type of lighting will create light levels at the surrounding properties of 2.9 foot candles upon installation'. This analysis included the potential cumulative impacts associated with lighting at the La Quinta High School, which did not contribute any readable light level at the residential properties on the northern boundary. This represents a potentially significant impact without mitigation. The sports lighting poles will range in height from 40 to 80 feet and are made of steel. The steel structure of the poles could result on a visual impact on the vistas to the south. A mitigation measure has been added to require the painting of the poles in a buff matte color, to ensure that the potential visual impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Parks are exempt from the City's lighting standard, which requires that no light spill onto adjacent properties. The following discussion addresses the potential impacts associated with the ball field lighting located along the northern property line, adjacent to single family residential lots at this location. Although exempt from the standard, however, the lighting at the park still represents a potentially significant environmental impact on neighboring residents specifically along the northern property line. In order to assess the potential impact, analysis Musco Sports Lighting, Lighting Plan, 8/17/01. G:\WPDCCS\PC Reso1utions\CIP694EA438.wpd 1 was conducted regarding the lighting levels, the available data and the potential mitigation measures which the City may consider in evaluating the proposed project. The lighting levels represented on the lighting plan show the level of light which will occur at the adjacent property line at installation of the light fixtures. After 80 to 100 hours, the lighting level will lessen by 20%, because the bulbs lose intensityz. This lowering in intensity will reduce the light levels at the northern property line to 0.048 to 2.32 footcandles, depending on the location. (As a comparison, test were completed of light levels under street lights on Westward Ho Drive or Adams Street and resulted in a range of illumination from 2 to 4 footcandles.) Light fixtures will be shielded to limit the potential glare, and shielding will be adjusted after installation to reflect conditions on the site. The proposed park facilities will be used Monday through Sunday. It is estimated that the sports fields will be utilized 325 days per year. Night practices and games are usually on week nights and Saturday, while the Sunday usage is generally during the daylight hours. City policy restricts lighting to no later than 10 p.m.3. Lighting levels will therefore range from 0.048 to 2.32 footcandles from dusk to 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The level of activity, and the number of fields being used, will vary based on the organization. In order to further mitigate the potential impacts, the following measures shall be implemented. 1. All field lighting fixtures shall be on individual on/off and City operated timer controls. 2. Fields shall be lit only if in use. Lighting on fields which are not in use shall remain off. The City will inform all persons and organizations which reserve the fields that this measure is in place, and shall establish policies and penalties for persons or organizations which violate this measure. 3. All sports field lighting shall be set on automatic timer to turn off at 10 p.m., if not manually turned off prior to that time. 4. No lighting shall be permitted for the northernmost three fields on Sundays. 5. From August through February, when soccer games and practices occur after dusk, all other soccer fields shall be utilized before the northernmost three fields are lit. Only if the other nine fields are occupied will the lighting be turned on at the northernmost three fields. Musco Lighting, Preliminary Information Package - Section A, Light Structure System. Letter from Dodie Horvitz, Community Services Director, July 11, 2001. G:\WPDCCS\PC Resolutions\CIP694EA438.wpd 2 6. All sports park light poles shall be painted a neutral, matte color. 7. Upon installation of the light fixtures fine tuning of light shields will reduce light spills at the northern property line. These standards will mitigate the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level. III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the area. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. 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. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\CIP694EA438.wpd 3 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. 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 park will not be significant. IV. a) The park site has been impacted by construction on adjacent properties, and has been previously graded. Further, the site is isolated by surrounding development. The park occurs within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The City shall pay the required fees for purchase of off -site habitat, as required in the HCP. This will reduce impacts to the species to a less than significant level. V. b) A cultural resource survey and resource recovery were conducted for the subject property4. The field work consisted of 32 backhoe trenches and 12 test units. Five recorded sites which had been identified were tested, and considerable material recovered. The study concluded that the resource recovery effort, and the monitoring undertaken during grading of the property, had mitigated potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed park lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The site is not subject to liquefactions. Structures on the site, including the bathrooms, offices and lighting standards, will be required to meet the City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation 4 "Phase II Archaeological Investigations at Westward Ho Park," Archaeology Advisory Group, August 2000. "Final Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta General Plan," 1992. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\CIP694EA438.wpd 4 of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will implement requirements for a PM 10 management plan, which will control this hazard (please see Air Quality, above). The soils on the property will also be examined through an on -site soil analysis required prior to issuance of grading permits. These requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Vill. c)-e) The City requires that all construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The proposed grading plan for the site includes the use of the northeastern -most soccer field as a retention basin. The hydrology study prepared for the site indicates that soils are adequate to support percolation, and that the retention plan will be effective6. The park's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The creation of areas which are mostly sod will encourage percolation of water into the soil. The design of the park includes depressions where the fields are located, to assure adequate detention of storm water. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. XI. a) & c) A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed park project'. The study found that the existing noise environment at the northern property line ranges from 52.2 to 63.9 dBA Leq, and that construction and operation of the park will increase noise levels by about 2.1 dBA Leq. Short term louder noise levels will occur during games and practices at the park, but these will generally be during the less sensitive daytime hours, for short periods of time. The proposed park will also include a public address system, which is to be utilized twice every year, for the opening and closing of the season. The study found that the noise levels at the park are likely to be overshadowed by the noise emanating from traffic movements on Adams Street. 6 Short term impacts will also occur during construction of the facilities at the park. In order to mitigate construction impacts, the following mitigation measures are to be implemented: "100 Year Hydrology & Hydraulic Report for La Quinta Community Park," Huitt-Zollars, October 2001. "City of La Quinta Community Park Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, August, 2001. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\CIP694EA438.wpd 5 1. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 2. Construction activities shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code standards for construction times (Section 6.08.050). 3. All vehicle and equipment storage, stockpiling and other similar activities on the site shall be located along the Westward Ho Drive frontage, as far away from the existing residential units as possible. The study also recommends operational mitigation measures, as follows: 1. The park should be open only from the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. 2. All other soccer fields shall be utilized before the northernmost three fields are used. 3. Use of the public address system shall be limited to two times per year, during daylight hours only. XV.a) The use of the park will generate traffic, particularly from families coming to sports practices or games. This traffic will be sporadic, and concentrated during specific time periods. During much of the day, very little traffic will enter or leave the site. In order to determine the worse case scenario for traffic generation, the highest generation factor was used (Saturday) to calculate traffic at the site. As a result park can be expected to generate up to 226 trips per days on busy days. This will be divided between 113 entering and 113 exiting, in short time periods when practices and games occur. Traffic levels on Westward Ho Drive are currently light, and are concentrated on activity at the High School. The activities at the High School should not conflict with activities at the park, insofar as organized sports occur during school off -hours. Potential hazards associated with the concentrated activities at the park are not expected to be significant, however, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to ensure that traffic conflicts do not occur. 1. The Public Works Department shall monitor the traffic movements associated with the first days of organized play for baseball and soccer associations. Should hazardous conditions occur, the Department shall establish procedures and standards for traffic control at the site, and require the sports associations to provide traffic control personnel at the beginning and end of practice and/or game sessions, to ensure that safe ingress and egress occurs at the park. Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation" 6th Edition. For land use category "County Park (412)" per acre on a Saturday. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\CIP694EA438.wpd 6 XVll.81) The proposed project will not degrade habitat, or significantly impact cultural resources. The potential impacts to biological resources, limited to Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, will be mitigated by the payment of fees, as required in the Habitat Conservation Plan. The impacts to cultural resources have been addressed through the field testing and excavation previously undertaken. XVILb) The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the detriment of long term objectives. The land is planned for park facilities in the General Plan, and has been so for some time. The City had envisioned this site as a park, and is now implementing its plans. XVII. c) The proposed park's impacts have been mitigated. Analysis of the lighting for the park included the potential cumulative impacts of the high school stadium lighting, however, the lighting analysis demonstrated no light spillage along the northern property line. XVll.d) The potential impacts associated with lighting, noise and air quality, which could have a detrimental impact on human beings, have been mitigated to a less than significant level. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\CIP694EA438.wpd 7 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Capital Improvement Project 2000-694 La Quinta Community Park 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northeast Corner of Adams Street and Westward Ho Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Park Facilities 7. Zoning: Parks and Recreation 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.) Construction of park facilities on an 18.07 acre parcel located at the northeastern corner of Adams Street and Westward Ho Drive. Facilities will include a concession stand building with office space, restrooms, a tot lot, basketball court, a skate park, two baseball fields and various soccer fields. The basketball court, skate park, baseball and soccer fields are proposed to be lighted for night play. The site is currently vacant desert lands. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Low density residential, single family residential units South: Major public facilities, La Quinta High School West: Adams Street, Low density residential beyond East: Low density residential, single family residential units 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable G:\WPDC)CS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. +igatu�re Vv� L)( c t Date 1 M C 0 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. `Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit: CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials including Musco Lighting Preliminary Information Package) :I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) fIl. 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) Con flict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X M X // X G:\WPDCICS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd 4 V. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 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')? ("Phase II Archaeological Investigations at Westward Ho Park," .Archaeology Advisory Group, August 2000) X X X X X X X X R. X G:\WPDC)CS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd VI. VII 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.) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent .Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or propeny? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) X X X X X X X X X X X X M G:\WPDC)CS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd A d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project: result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project: area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff'.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) 0 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) X X X X X X X G:\WPDCICS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd 7 X. 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 Assessment 5- 5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ("City of La Quinta Community Park Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, August, 2001) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("City of La Quinta Community Park Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, August, 2001) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("City of La Quinta Community Park Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, August, 2001) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) X FA 91 M X X /1 R. X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd 8 (H. 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) KIII. 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. ) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (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.) X X // M 0 0 F.9 KI G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd 9 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, pg 4-24 ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are :sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing; entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the! project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) (VII. 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? // X X X X X X X 91 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd 10 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? KVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS. X V`I Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. No earlier analysis were used in this review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQ::VID CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Phase ]I Archaeological Investigations at Westward Ho Park, Archaeological Advisory Group, August 2000. City of La Quinta Community Park Noise Study, Urban Crossroads, August 2001. Preliminary Hydrology Study, Huitt-Zollars, October 2001 Musco Lighting, LLC, Preliminary Information Package - Section A, Light Structure System G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIP694CkIstEA438.wpd 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AN 18.07 ACRE COMMUNITY PARK SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND WESTWARD HO DRIVE CASE NO.: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 20010-694 LA QUINTA COMMUNITY PARK WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of October, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-438 for Capital Improvement Project 2001-694, located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Westward Ho Drive, more particularly described as follows: APN: 604-061-006 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 2001-438) and has determined that although the proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-694 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 Capital Improvement Project: 1. The project, as amended, is consistent with the General Plan Park and Recreation Element because it provides reasonable accessibility for residents within its service area. 2. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code in that it complies with development standards for setbacks, landscaping, and parking standards including lighting. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. G:\WPDCiCS\PC Reso1utions\Cap1mp694.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Capital Improvement Project 2000-694 October 26, 2001 4. The architectural design of the concession stand is appropriate for the site and compatible with the surrounding environment. 5. The site design provides an interior circulation with pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities and is compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. The landscaping design allows for extensive play fields and recreation areas for the surrounding community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Capital Improvement Project 2000-694. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 261h day of October, 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:\WPDCCS\PC Reso1utions\Cap1mp694.wpd OUNTRY CLUB DR.�N HOVLEY LN. E. z 0 0 z_ Q PROJECT SITE. 'ALM DESERT �NTFRS Tq T� 70 42ND AVE. � o cn Q 0 FRED Cr- WARING DR. MILES 0 a AVE. I Qw J z 0 I WESTWARD HO ()!� w w DRIVE z w 0 MTM VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE INDIO LAQUINTA COMMUNITY PARK' FIGURE 1 FAX NO. Oct. :6 2[00 05: �2'pm ATTACHMENT 2 f -prose _TSI La Quinta Park CommunitY Meeting June 7, 2000 s' 'es • Skate Park (Beginner, Intermediate, Shaded, Lighted) • Pet Park • More Sports Fields -.- Bike Park - • Community Center • Teen Facilities • Baseball Fields • Soccer Fields / Practice fields • Lighted Fields • Open Space • Sensitive Limited Lighting • Gated parking • Independent Fields • Plastic Play Equipment (heat concerns w/ metal) • Shaded Bleachers • Mist System • Park Waiting Area /Planned Pick Up Area • Small Outside Stage Area Art Opportunities • SchooUPark Co -development of Fields • Remove Wall at Retention Basin • Restrooms Con erns • Duplicate Tennis (already have tennis facility) • Space for Soccer, Baseball, Pet Park • Lighting • Noise • Safety/Security • Not Teen Friendly • Needs of Youth • Location of Fire Station Park Hours (late games) • Construction • Pump Site • Shade WU49c4spc AYGWuxtuxe I;kcr•A0W an11 Park nanning do 1 north mwbov Jsou)rvam 1h(1:CKon. t.a7Un"I" 928.52 VAX; (714) 671-: 16b i71511171 :5(i5b La Quinta Park Community Meeting October 25, 2000 The following are desires and concerns, in addition to those expressed at the June 7, 2000 community meeting, regarding the proposed park as discussed at Wednesday nights community meeting. D&sires • Basketball courts • Community park with typical community park amenities. • Family Ise park • Separate hours for skaters and bikers • Tot Lot • Picnic area • Retention basin wall should remain with possible access gate. CoaceWs • Police surveillance • Police access • Too many facilities on this site • Space for fire station and pump site not recreational use. Site was set aside for rec. use. • Last city owned parcel of this size. • Skate park and dog park can be moved to smaller sites. • Protection / buffers for bordering neighbors. • Use of grant funds as soon as possible. Value of funds greater today than 8 years from now. • Soccer community is growing. Currently 95 teams with 865 players. • Existing space for soccer and baseball is not adequate. • Fire station location vs. high school access a potential problem • Impact on east side neighbors. • Need lights in order to get more use from park for soccer and baseball. • Adams st. park fulfills community needs. Ed Wdo7:1: e00Z VT '�dQ 'ON Xd.� ATTACHMENT K COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2000 CALL TO ORDER k regular meeting of the Community Services Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Study Session Zoom of the La Quinta Civic Center. Chairperson St. Johns presided over the meeting. Commissioner Henson ad the Pledge of Allegiance. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Deborah Bechard Commissioner Mike Davis Commissioner Michelle Henson (Vice Chairperson) Commissioner Joan Rebich Commissioner St. Johns (Chairperson) ')TAFF PRESENT: Dodie Horvitz, Community Services Director I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes of October 9, 2000 B. Monthly Department Report for September 2000 It was moved by Commissioners Bechard/Rebich to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. Unanimous. ✓. PUBLIC HEARING ✓I. BUSINES$ jTEMS ,A. Community Park Public Meeting Review The Commissioners reviewed the Consultant's lists provided from the community meetings held on June 7 and October 25. The lists contain the desires of the community as well as the concerns. The Commissioners reviewed each item on the lists and after some discussion, formulated a list of amenities for the City Council's consideration. The amenities include: Skate/BMX Park Lighted Sports Fields: Soccer Baseball Concession Stand/Restrooms Playgrounds: Tot Lot Older Child Lot Swings Picnic Area/Bar-be-ques to be reserved for Parties and Bounce Houses Walking path around perimeter of the park with a par course and bicycle lane markings Walkway from the homes north of the park to the High School "Jumping Waters" amenity SACotmnunity Services\CSComm\minutesCSC\CSCMIN.11-13.wpd One basketball court -possibly lighted Tetherball Par Course Landscape along wall with neighbors Other amenities to be included near the Community Park: Remove wall separating retention basin and park site Grass Volleyball Court in the retention basis north of the park Amenities to be developed away from the Community Park: Light High School Tennis Courts instead of building additional courts Pet Parks: one near the Community Park and one near the Cove Staff will present this list of recommendations for City Council consideration at an upcoming City Council meeting. It was moved by Davis/Henson to direct staff to present information regarding the Community Park amenities for City Council consideration. Unanimous B. California Parks and Recreation Society's Conference After some discussion, Commissioner Bechard was elected to attend the CPRS Conference in Sacramento on 'March 14-17, 2001. It was oved by Commissioners Henson/Rebich to approve Commissioner Bechard attend the CPRS Conferer a in Sacramento on March 14-17, 2001. Unanimous. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS ti Vill. COMMISSION EWITEMS Commissioner Rebich anded the CVAG meeting in which the following issues were discussed: Valley Wide Massage Ovr finance Valley Wide Animal Campus Gambling pamphlet for Teersby Gamblers Anonymous Open House for Save -a -Pet `,., California Tax Credit for Low Incoe Housing Valley Wide Substance Abuse Cam*gn Commissioner Rebich discussed each issde,briefly. Commissioner Bechard reported that the Tiny To"lloween Carnival was a lot of fun. She enjoyed helping at the event. Chairperson St. Johns read a note from Marni Kunsman regarding the need for volunteers for the Tiny Tot Turkey Trot and Breakfast with Santa event. Chairperson St. Johns stated that she knows of a group at the High School that will volunteer for the Turkey Trot activity. Commissioner Davis asked if it would be possible to get larger recycling,bins to use. The current bins are small and on pick up day, the papers seem to fly throughout the neighborhood. S:\Cornmunity Services\CSComm\minutesCSC\CSCMIN-I I-13.wpd T ' "NS AsAr PQ%,. — z�r.e� ATTACHMENT August 23, 2001 To: City of La Quinta Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission City Council From: Phyllis J. Buford 45-535 Sunbrook Ln. La Quinta, Ca. 92253 I am a fairly new resident to this lovely city and truley do consider it to be a gem. We purchased our home just last year and have been looking forward to the new park on Adams, as it will be directly across the street from us. While we welcome the park, we do have concerns reguarding the lighting and noise. We have seen the plans for the park and there seems a need for quite a few lights, as there are so many different areas. We are hoping and requesting, that low light standards be adheared to as well as a "curfew" and/or time limit set. My home faces the proposed park and La Quinta High School, with nothing blocking the view or noise. When the High School has a night time function, the lights shine right into our home. You can imagine our concern at the prospect of all the additional lighting. I trust you will take this letter, as well as those of my many neighbors, into consideration before a final decision is made. Tha u, Phyllis J. ufor Sandi -Don Ruh 78970 Bayberry Ln. La Quinta, CA 92253-4121 Mayor John Pena Council Member Don Adolph And City Council Dear Mayor and Council, SEP 2 0 2001 September 18, 2001 n_ nil CJA 06✓ Thank you Mr. Pena and Mr. Adolph for your letters in response to ours, (regarding the lighting concerns at the new Adams Street Park). While we're sure it takes considerable time to respond to all the correspondence city officials receive, responses are important and appreciated! Thank you! We did attend -the June "Park Plans Meeting" and saw the well -organized and orchestrated soccer coaches and parents present their case. Along with the skate board Youth, we must admit they were much better organized than the area homeowners. You must have been very impressed because as a result of that presentation, much of Your original proposal was subsequently changed. More fields, more lighting, no community center, etc. The: "scientific research" news release we included in our original letter addresses the abuse of lighting in the desert and the affects it is having on the entire area. It is to that issue we ask for your very sincere consideration. Yes, youth require facilities for recreation and yes, our city should provide such. At the same time you MUST provide precise limits on the amount of lighting, the time facilities will be lighted, and much more concern (than in the recent past) to the impact excessive lighting has on neighborhoods and the entire desert area. Hopefully you will be very strong in your demands presented to Musco Lighting as well as the rules and regulations established for this venue's use. While not as vocal as other organized groups, there is a large number of constituents who are depending on you to do the right thing for our community and our entire area. We hope you will be leaders in protecting our few remaining environmental assets. Do not let La Quinta turn into just another L.A. Basin City. Do not compromise these fragile assets, for once done, they can never be recovered. We hope you take into consideration some of the suggestions in the previous letter and this one. Again, thank you for responding and for your sincere environmental considerations. Sincerely, 1 October 12, 2001 Community Development Dept. La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Capital Improvement Project 2000-703 La Quinta Community Park To whom it may concern: I live in Del Rey homes, about 2 or 3 blocks from the new park area and I would like to say that I am in favor of the new park and lighted soccer fields. I am a mother with a son and know the need for this facility. I cannot be at the meeting and just wanted to say that our household is in favor of the new park and its plans. Si.cerely, Cindy M is Morris 79-065Victoria Dr. La Quinta, CA 92253 ATTACHMENT #7 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 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. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why staff was requesting the change in the tree type. Staff stated to bring a variety of shade trees to the area. Discussion followed regarding the different tree types. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated the building design was choppy. Architecturally, in that section of town, all of the subdivisions are built with the red tile roof, and the two schools are contemporary. This building looks like a 1972 Clerestory look which does not tie in with any of the other architecture. The maintenance will be high due to the type of use it will have. The building needs to "defend" itself against weather and use. The group storage doors should be metal and have enough color on them to last and not burn out creating more maintenance. He did not like the gable chopped off in the front. It could have a simple hipped roof to keep in style with the surrounding neighborhoods or take a more modern look. He would like to see this tie in architecturally with the City Hall or High School look. A wood trellis is absolutely wrong. It should be metal. Maybe it could be a split -face block to keep it more natural. The roofline is wrong. A flat roof with a raised parapet would be better. The doors need to be a box steel to take the abuse. A series of vents that could be hosed from the ground would be more attractive than the proposed grill work. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he concurred with Committee Member Cunningham's statements. It has a look of the '70's and will be a maintenance nightmare. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-037 recommending approval of Capital Improvement Project 2001-694, as amended: a. Revise the plan to be more compatible with the High School, new school, or City Hall architecture. G:\WPD,DCS\ARLC\ALRC9-5-O l .wpd 6 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 5, 2001 b. Doors shall be made of industrial steel. C. Wood trellis shall be replaced with a metal trellis. d. Consideration should be given to using a different roof tile e. Prior to issuance of a building permit the landscape plan shall be redesigned to show another tree species that flowers during the winter months to be located along Adams Street and at the northeast corner of Westward Ho Drive and Adams Street. 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 Members Cunningham/ Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-038 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-712, as requested. G:\WPD0CS\ARLC\ALRC9-5-01.wpd 7 FROM FAX N0. 0 ATTACHMENT # ,MCRANE ARCR it - RAI GROUP IWI-nnovations In Architecture RICKARD J. CRANE, JR., AIA ARCHITECT City of La Quinta Re: Park Building at La Quinta Community Park I thought it would be helpful for those reviewing these plans to have an idea of what the building would look like in three Anensions, so t did the attached quick perspective. There scan to be some concerns over the design of the building. For that reason, I thought it might also be helpful if I slurred the thoughtt process that led me to this particular design. My fast two concerns were function and durability. In regards to durability, the materials we propose to use are the same as those we've used on park projects throughout Southern California and have provers to be durable. Replacing the wood trellis with one made of metal may be an appropriate solution give your climate but it isn't devoid of maintenance issues— it is at a location where kids nrost likely will congregate and its finish will be subject to chipping and the demands of continued maintenance. Functionally, it is importannt in a park restroom to provide cross -ventilation and natural fight while maintaining privacy. Clerestories are an ideal way to accorigilishinrg these goals. Placing louvers in the clerestory openings would eliminate much of the daylight they would otherwise provide. The last issue I'd like to address is the overall look of the building. The direction i was give by city staff following a preH n vwy design was to design a Spanish style building. One element typical of this style is the reduction of the overall building into a series of smaller building ummses. This was done on this design and may be what a member of the design review committee was referring to when he said the design was choppy. While my feelings on the matter are subjective, I believe that the individual building elements have been arranged and proportioned so that they act together to create a greater whole. Please feel five to contact me if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, klal Mark Thomas Blum er Architect 801 N. HARBOR BLVD., SUITE 201 • FULLERTON, CA 92832 . 714/526-0363 • FAX 7141525-9826 E-MAIL: aanAeedcom • WEB: hV:/Av* w.cmnewchlt c1uralgrp.c*m I Y 2d WdET:SO TOW 2T '1O0 • '01N x1ji : W0ad