The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 12 11 PCT-44-4t 4 4 Qum& 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 DECEMBER 11, 2001 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2001-148 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-022 1. 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 November 27, 2001. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-415, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29963 AND STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-013 Applicant........... La Quinta Construction Location ............. Northwest corner of Kirk Court and Avenue 58 Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; subdivision of approximately 13.4 acres into six estate single family lots that are 2.16 acres in size and larger; and initiation of a street name change from Kirk Court to Coral Mountain Drive. Action ............... Continue to January 8, 2002 B. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant .......... Barton Properties Location ........... Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street Request ............ Request to increase the number of single family lots on an approved subdivision map from 97 to 130 on approximately 38.4 acres. Action .............. Resolution 2001- and Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-719 Applicant........... Puerta Azul Partners, LLC Location............ 57-325 Madison Street, north of Avenue 58 Request ............. Review of architectural and landscaping plans for four prototype resort villa units with two facades each, and a 5,274 square foot Great House (clubhouse) Action ............... Resolution 2001- D. Item ................. SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant .......... Lundin Development Company Location ........... Northwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street Request ............ Request to amend the text of the development standards and design guidelines for the Specific Plan and amend the site plan design adjacent to Avenue 50 for a 100,500 square foot shopping center. Action .............. Resolution 2001- PC/AGENDA E. Item ................. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-082 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City -Wide Request ............ Consideration of an Amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element -Table CIR-2 on Major Arterials. The minimum intersection spacing shall be 2,600 feet for commercial frontage as previously required Action .............. Resolution 2001- F. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-433, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-066 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711 Applicant .......... RLF Development Location ........... Southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Request ............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment; review of design guidelines and development standards for a 120,000 square foot shopping center; consideration to allow a gas station; and review of development plans to include a supermarket and associated retail tenants, bank and drugstore. Action .............. Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , and Resolution 2001- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. RIGHT OF WAY VACATIONS 2001-07, 08, 09, 010 Applicant .......... KSL Land Corporation, the Keith Companies, Blaine and Susan Grimes, La Quinta Arts Foundation Location ........... Portions of Avenida Bermudas, Calle Amigo, Lots 16 and 17 of Tract 2667, and Avenue 48 Request ............ Determination of La Quinta General Plan consistency of the proposed right of way vacations. Action .............. Resolution 2001- VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of December 4, 2001 X. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 23, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to excuse Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Interim City Engineer Steve Speer, and Planning Consultant Nicole Criste. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to reorganize the agenda to take Public Hearing Item #E first. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: B. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of November 13, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, be amended to reflect the comments made by Commissioners Butler and himself regarding the status of the pool. Page 5, amended to reflect his comments on the inadequate amount of parking. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Environmental Assessment 99-387 General Plan Amendment 99-063, Zone Change 99-091 Specific Plan 99-039 and Site Development Permit 99-659; a request of Point Happy Ranch LLC for: 1) Certification of an Environmental Impact Report; 2) Change of General Plan Land Use Designation from Medium Density Residential to Office Commercial for five acres of the 43 + acre site and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 11.55 acres for 62 villas; 3) Change of Zone Designation from Medium Density to Office Commercial for five acres of the 43 + acre site and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; 4) Specific Plan for design guidelines and development standards for a senior care residential project and two commercial buildings on the 43 + acre site; and 5) Review of architectural and landscaping plans for senior care units consisting of 62 one story high independent living villa units in duplex to 4-plex configurations with a two story club building, and 310 rooms for assisted living, independent living and continuing care in two 2 to 3 story high buildings, a one story high maintenance building, two commercial office buildings (two stories high) with a total of 44,000 square feet of floor area and a 9,500 square foot one story high project administration building, for the property located on the west side of Washington Street, south of Highway 11 1 . 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the palms trees shown on the site plan represented what was actually there. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Butler asked what the elevation difference was between the project and the existing homes. Staff stated the elevation was 67 feet and the top of the existing berm is 76.5 feet. The elevations proposed are in accordance with the grading plan. Discussion followed regarding the grading and pad elevations of the site. 4. Commissioner Kirk questioned why he had not received the Draft Environmental Impact Report and asked if it was normal to receive the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) this early in the process. Staff stated the Commission had asked to receive the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 Final EIR before making a recommendation. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a public hearing on the Draft EIR and if comments would be taken on the Draft as well as the Final EIR. Staff stated the comment period had ended and therefore comments could not be taken on either. Commissioner Kirk asked why the drainage was not being retained on site. Interim City Engineer Steve Speer explained that at Washington Street and Singing Palms it is the high point. Anything north of Singing Palms drains to the channel and anything south of the Singing Palms drains south. This site, as it is high enough, could drain into the existing storm drain and they are conditioned to purchase the capacity to do this. Commissioner Kirk asked if the EIR looked at the alternative of building this site out with the current zoning and General Plan designation and if this would create more or less traffic generated as opposed to the proposed land use. If the applicant did not request these changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code, presumably they could come forward and build out the project under the current General Plan and Zoning and that would have some kind of an impact; is that greater or less than what is proposed at this time. Staff stated this proposal will generate more traffic than the existing zoning; about 1,600 more trips a day. Commissioner Kirk asked if the proposed villas would be 60 feet from the existing homes. Staff indicated where they were to be constructed. Commissioner Kirk asked if the property were to be developed under the existing zoning, how close could the homes be built to the existing properties. Staff stated 20 feet. Commissioner Kirk noted the proposed villas are 40 feet further from the existing homes than they could be under the existing zoning. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to again explain the traffic as what was stated seemed inconsistent. In the Alternative Section 6.0-5 under the existing General Plan Alternative, it states the number of trips would be a 29% decrease and on Section 8 it states something different. Interim City Engineer Steve Speer explained that if the project was built out in accordance with the existing zoning and General Plan it would be a decrease of 700 trips per day. The all residential Low Density was another alternative, but would be less than what the current General Plan allows. The current General Plan designation would allow 1,766 trips a day and the proposed would allow 2,494 trips. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 6. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the third overriding consideration in the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it could be removed as it was not worded correctly. Commissioner Kirk pointed out that in Exhibit B under C. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, Utilities and Service Systems there is reference to a golf course that should be removed. 7. Commissioner Butler asked when the zoning is changed on a piece of property that is unique because of the use, how do you make a distinction between the two as a comparison, because this type of use obviously would have fewer vehicles. Staff stated the traffic study accounts for this and the parking count is lower under the Zoning Code. Commissioner Butler stated Commissioner Kirk's comments seem to state that it appears the traffic study does not show this and he questions this. He asked about the emergency access being used for vehicles moving furniture, etc. Staff stated this would be corrected to read "emergency access only". Interim City Engineer Steve Speer went on to explain the traffic study. Discussion followed regarding the traffic study. 8. Commissioner Tyler questioned a "second non -visitor gated access on the north property line". Staff clarified it gave access to the house on the hill. It did not open to the shopping center to the north. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the parking. The assumption that the people living in the villas will not be driving seems erroneous and therefore the parking may not be adequate. Staff stated the applicant could address this. Commissioner Tyler questioned how the minimum lot size could be 1,500 square feet and the minimum living area including garages is 1,650 square feet. Staff explained this was probably where they were proposing a smaller attached unit, four-plexes. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a need to condition the project to have a deceleration/acceleration lane to help with the traffic. Staff stated a deceleration lane would make sense, but acceleration lanes do not function well on Arterial streets. Washington Street will eventually be three lanes to help with the traffic. 9. Chairman Abels asked staff to explain the access to the project when traveling north on Washington Street. Staff stated that if you were coming from the south, you would have to make a u- turn at Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1. By adding the third south -bound lane, it will allow more room to make the turn. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 10. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Robert Sundstrom, Sundstrom Companies, the general partner of the Point Happy LLC, gave a presentation on the project. The emergency access would be for emergency vehicles only. The access on the north is to allow a more direct access for the house on the hill so it does not have to go through the security gates and also to have a second point of access for the delivery trucks. The lot size should be 1,650 square feet to match the unit size. 11. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked what would happen to the DuPont house. Mr. Sundstrom stated that currently it is proposed to be retained by the owner of the property. 12. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public participation. Ms. Amy Heglund, 46-285 Washington Street, stated her concern was the traffic and questioned whether adding another lane to Washington Street was enough to handle the added traffic. Second, the environment; what will happen to the wildlife habitat? 13. Mr. Robert Daniels, 46-485 Cameo Palms, stated his concern is the lighting. What areas would be lit? Also, if these structures are going to be as tall as indicated they will block his view of the mountains which will affect him aesthetically. This is an assisted care facility which will have nurses, doctors, technicians, deliveries, etc., and many more people than in a retirement community which will greatly affect the traffic. 14. Mr. Haig Shannazarian, 78-350 Crestview Terrace, stated he concurred with Mr. Daniels' comments and will set the stage for their community to be squeezed out by changing the density classifications. 15. Mr. David Lagman, 46-885 Highland Palms, stated his concerns were that seniors do drive, and the medical and bio-hazardous waste that could be going down the street, and lastly the office complexes will have speech therapy, physical therapy and doctors. This will greatly increase their traffic. 16. Ms. Rebecca Shields, 46-886 Highland Palms, stated she has been a La Quinta resident since 1982 and believes this project will greatly increase the traffic due to all the support staff that will be G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 needed. Another concern is the wildlife that will be affected by this project. Even with a deceleration/acceleration lane it will still affect the traffic at this site. 17. Mr. David Orme, 78-510 Singing Palms, stated he objects to this project because the mountain behind this project is unstable. In addition, it is his understanding this area is a bird sanctuary and it should be investigated before this project goes further. Also, the traffic will be greater than what has been stated. 18. Mr. Robert Cox, 78-315 Crestview Terrace, stated he has lived in La Quinta for 25 years and chose this location to have a quiet neighborhood. The neighborhood was not designed for high density. Also, if the project is to be six feet higher than they are, how can they guarantee the water will drain to Washington Street? 19. Mr. Akan Pollock, 78-435 Sandflower Place, thanked the Commission for taking the time to consider their concerns. Some of his concerns are the drainage, the security of the area, and traffic. He would like to request that a gate be installed to maintain their security. 20. Mr. Hovak Najarian, 78-395 Palm Garden Place, stated his concerns are the elevation differences, the height of the wall, the height of the buildings, noise, and the traffic. 21. Dr. Sebastian Campagna, 78-340 Singing Palms Drive, stated his concern was three story commercial buildings will back up to his property. Second, where is everyone going to park. This is a 310 room hospital. This should be a low density project that will not destroy this area. 22. Mr. J. David Howard, 46-910 Highland Palms, stated his concerns had been expressed by the other speakers. 23. Mr. James Carpenter, 78-550 Singing Palms Drive, stated he finds it appalling that they would consider opening a commercial business behind his home. 24. Mr. Greg Cockerill, 78-355 Crestview Terrace, stated his concern was where the construction entrance will be. As he envisions it, all the construction traffic will have to go down his street as it will not be allowed to enter from Washington Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 25. Ms. Margaret Najarian, 78-395 Palm Garden Place, stated her lot is low and will be greatly affected by the wall that will be constructed. They have been there for 25 years and watched the development of the area. Please consider the quality of life of the residents of La Quinta and not just the money. 26. Ms. Karen Elem, 46-945 Highland Palms Drive, stated she is concerned with the parking as the church parking is now flowing over into their neighborhood. This project will also affect their community and they will be overrun with cars. 27. Mr. James Amencha, 78-390 Cameo Dunes, stated his home will back up to the villa garages. With the traffic as it is, it is almost impossible to get out of the Plaza La Quinta Center. He would invite the Commission to come to their community and see what they are talking about. 28. There being no further public participation, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Chairman Abels recessed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m. 29. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to continue the public hearing to January 8, 2001, with the following items to be addressed by staff: A. Review the view analysis from the project. B. A new traffic study be completed. C. Determining the location of the construction entrance. 30. Staff informed the Commission that the EIR has a mitigation measure that does not allow any lighting of the hillside area and it requires low level lighting throughout the project. In addition to the mitigation measures, the Zoning Code does not allow for any glare or lighting to extend off the property boundaries. With regard to rock fall, there was a rock fall analysis prepared and is a part of the EIR. Staff will look into the bird sanctuary as it was not addressed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife or Fish and Game. In regard to the access, there will be a left turn access. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 31. Commissioner Tyler thanked everyone for attending and providing their comments. In regard to the noise and hours of operation for the construction of the project, as expressed by the residents, he wanted to assure everyone they are uniform for the entire City and not unique to this project. 32. Commissioner Kirk concurred with Commissioner Tyler and pointed out that the applicant has done a nice job with the architecture and site planning. There may be some issues with viewshed, traffic, and other components expressed by the community, but this is a good project and he commends the applicant on his proposal. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2001-717; a request of KSL Development Corporation for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a Merchant Builder Welcome Center in PGA West to be located at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Avenue 54 at the entrance of PGA West. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if any of these modular units were part of the ones vacated inside PGA West. Staff stated the applicant would have to answer that. Commissioner Tyler stated that if this was to be a temporary use, it should be given a time limit. 3. Commissioner Butler asked what the original use was for this site. Staff clarified it was originally zoned commercial and then approved for a tract map. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked how much turf was proposed for the site. Staff stated the applicant could address this. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Bill Dodds, KSL Corporation, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to the turf area, they are proposing G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 5,000 square feet. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated he is reluctant to approve modular units, but if it looks as good as the corporate office, he has no objection. In regard to a time period, does the applicant have a suggestion? Mr. Dodds stated they needed flexibility in regard to this as they still have over 800 units to sell and estimating 200 units a year, that would be a four year buildout. 7. Commissioner Kirk also commended KSL on their corporate offices and stated the landscaping hopefully would soften the look. Mr. Dodd stated the site will be heavily landscaped. 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. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-143, approving Site Development Permit 2001- 717, as amended: A. The permit shall expire November 27, 2005, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. C. Site Development Permit 2001-718; a request of Sedona Homes, Inc. for review of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units with three facades each located at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 in Tract 30125. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about the elongated detail that protrudes above the roof line as it should have a window. Also, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 the condition of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee requiring wrought iron gates should be added. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lance Alacano, representing Sedona Homes gave a presentation on the project. 4. 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 Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-144, approving Site Development Permit 2001- 718, as amended: A. Condition #4: Side entry gates shall be wrought iron. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. D. Village Use Permit 201-013; a request of La Quinta Grill for review to allow the use and review of development plans for three office buildings adjacent to an existing restaurant site located on the east side of Avenida Bermudas, between Calle Cadiz and Calle Barcelona. 1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest due to the proximity of his residence and left the dias. 2. 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. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked why the power lines refer to 92KV. Interim City Engineer Steve Speer stated staff was trying to point out that all existing aerial lines need to go underground except for those attached to 92KV poles. 4. Chairman Abels asked why the Eucalyptus tree is being removed. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 Commission. Mr. Stewart Woodard, AIA, representing the applicant, stated the intent was to retain the type of architecture that currently exists with the restaurant, bring it into scale with the restaurant, and to retain as much of the landscaping as possible. Most, if not all of the trees would be retained. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if the existing single family residence would be razed east of the restaurant. Mr. Woodard stated the older structure would be torn down. Commissioner Tyler asked if the perimeter wall would be retained. Mr. Woodard stated it would be retained. 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. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-145, approving Site Development Permit 2001- 718, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-435 and Tentative Tract Map 30331; a request of Santa Properties and Development, LLC for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and review of a request to subdivide 5.1 acres into seven residential lots located on the north side of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson Street. 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 Butler asked staff to explain the pad height and elevation of the lots. Staff explained the pad heights and how the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 height to which the lots would be filled. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked staff what would be constructed on the west side of this tract. Staff stated it was the approved Oliphant tract. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a full turning movement with a signal on Avenue 50 from the exit of Tract 29053. Staff explained the signalized turn movement would match up with the Palmilla project on the south side of Avenue 50. Commissioner Tyler asked what the distance was from the exit for Tract 30331 and the signal. Interim City Engineer Steve Speer stated it was 190 feet. Commissioner Tyler asked if the cul-de-sac met the Fire Department requirements. Staff stated the Fire Department did not have any issues. 4. Commissioner Kirk questioned why there were mitigation measures for Air Quality when no impacts were identified. Should the policy be that there only be a mitigation measure for areas where we have impacts. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated yes, mitigation monitoring is required to mitigate impacts, and if there is no impact there is no need for a monitoring plan. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated those are no longer included in the Monitoring Plan, however with Air Quality there is in the General Plan EIR a statement of overriding consideration because the air quality impacts for buildout were in excess of acceptable standards, therefore, additional mitigation was suggested to be included in the PM 10 Plan to help reduce the impacts. Staff can eliminate those suggested mitigation measures if it is the Commission's desire. Commissioner Kirk stated that since there were no impacts, they should be removed. Also, under Cultural Resources there are impacts that should be mitigated and are not. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated a Phase II study was conducted which mitigated the impacts. No mitigation measures were needed because the study showed the site to be negative. Staff will change the check mark to no impacts. At the time the Initial Study is completed the studies are not completed therefore, the impacts are identified. Once the studies were completed, the areas that are mitigated are identified in the studies. Commissioner Kirk questioned the inconsistencies between the staff report that states there are no impacts and the Checklist which lists potentially significant impacts unless mitigated. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated this is an issue from a practical standpoint of which comes first. He would G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 agree that to the extent the Checklist should always agree with the substance of analysis for the underlying Checklist. He also understands staff's view point that when you complete the Checklist you do not have the studies to confirm or deny what mitigation is needed. His recommendation would be that since the Initial Study is the initial study, including both the Checklist and the substance of the analysis, that if in fact the analysis concludes no impact the box should be checked accordingly. It is not a difference of opinion, these are the ultimate conclusions and what drives the box in the Checklist. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lloyd Watson, engineer for the project, gave a presentation on the project and stated they agreed with the conditions as recommended by staff. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if they were intending to allow parking on both sides of the street or restrict one side. Mr. Watson stated parking on one side. 7. There being no further 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. 8. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-146, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-435, as modified: A. Eliminating the Air Quality measures from the Monitoring Program. B. Amending the Checklist for both Air Quality and Cultural Resources to reflect no impact. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-147, approving Tentative G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2001 Tract Map 30331, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of November 6, 2001. B. Chairman Abels reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the City Council on December 5, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held December 11, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. on November 27, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-23-01.wpd 14 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 (CONT. FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2001) CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-415, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29963, AND STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-013 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CONSTRUCTION REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2) SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 13.4 ACRES (THREE LOTS) INTO SIX ESTATE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT ARE 2.16 ACRES IN SIZE AND LARGER; AND 3) INITIATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM KIRK COURT TO CORAL MOUNTAIN DRIVE LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF KIRK COURT AND AVENUE 58 PROPERTY OWNER: BAUMANN AND RIEDEL FAMILIES ENGINEER: COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERS GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: HERMITAGE STREET (PRIVATE) IN PGA WEST WITH SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES BEYOND SOUTH: ACROSS 58T" AVENUE, VACANT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS (FORMERLY A GUN RANGE) EAST: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS WEST: VACANT AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE STPC29963 Cont-48GREG BACKGROUND: The 13.4 acre site is vacant and consists of three single family estate lots fronting onto Kirk Court, an unimproved cul-de-sac street that takes access from Avenue 58, an existing two-lane public street (Attachment 1). These parcels were created under Parcel Map 8834 in 1980 and are generally located approximately 3,000 feet west of Madison Street. On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the project to December 11, 2001, at the request of the applicant. CONTINUANCE REQUEST: On December 3, 2001, staff received a letter from the project engineer requesting a continuance for this project to January 8, 2002 (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDATION: Move to continue the Public Hearing for the above -cited cases to January 8, 2002. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Letter dated December 3, 2001, from Mr. David B. Turner Prepared -by: l l 1i draeo ;, ousde Il, Associate Planner STPC29963 Cont-48GREG Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 1i6ti 8 (PGAOk West 11a•/'/o21 1 T A 02"60 renvm r osmoao TRA 020.073 PPA/A�R�7 PPA�AR�2 e l7J g Ao/ r no SO North i 11 12 13 14 ,3 1 10002 9 78 AC 22002 33002 kl 9 78 AC 9 78 AC 19 55 AC PARSi PAR PAR PARS I I O 1U e I I 7 4 633AAC I 4 68OAC 6AC GR 5 AC GP 1 4. 01 AC RT I 481AC AR I i smm 33001 MI1907 aao 9 m 5 8 t h Avenue o DATA: PU 19J/6-27 PY 19 1-2 Case: TTM 29963 07 PG,24 H f. 0 TPA I LL J 020A80 TPA 0204PS O 19 04 AC I 15 � 25 I SMAC I 21 lA U91TA ITV LIMBS 29 PM 19/71 PARCEL MAP N0, 6377 PM 76/65-66 PARCEL MAP NO. 8634 I Sent By: COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERS ; 7603604204 3;Dee-3-01 1:27PM; Page 2; 2 4 Coachella Valley &18ineep8 Attachment 2 Monday, December 03, 2001 Greg Trousdell City ol'La Quinta 79-495 Calle Tampico PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92263-1504 Re: Tentative Tract Map 29963 Amendment No. 1 Dear Mr. Trousdell: IJ ' .11 ® 32001 J 'vt ..v' �t i PLANNING DEPART F Pursuant to our phone conversation, we understand that the above referenced project is scheduled before the City of La Quinta Planing Commission at 7:00 PM on December 11, 2001. We are requesting a continuance of this proie.ct for thirty (30) days to the January A, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting to amend the map as discussed. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the above referenced matter, please don't hesitate to call the at the (760) 360-4200 at your earliest convenience. Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, C:OACHE A VALLEY ENGINEERS David Turner Principal DBT:tans 77-899 WOLF ROAn, SUITT, 102 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 TELEPHONE (760) 360-4200 FAX (760) 360-4204 JNoo15J 12-03-01 12:32 RECEIVED FROM:7603604204 3 P.02 PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 (REVISED) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR EA 2001-417 AND SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 38.4 ACRES INTO 130 SINGLE FAMILY (FORMERLY 97 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS) AND OTHER COMMON LOTS LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET PROPERTY OWNER: CHARLES AND NORMA FAUSEL ENGINEER: HACKER ENGINEERING, INCORPORATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED AN REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THIS PROJECT. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 2001-417) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 3, 2001, UNDER RESOLUTION 2001-91. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS, OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA Page 1 of 4 SOUTH: ACROSS 58T" AVENUE, DATE PALM GROVES AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA EAST: ACROSS MONROE STREET, SCATTERED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND OTHER VACANT PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA WEST: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT OFFICES AND AFFILIATED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION FACILITIES IN THE MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE BACKGROUND: The subject property is currently located outside the City limits and located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. This site is pending annexation into the City and has been used for farming activities in past years. On April 3, 2001, the City Council approved pre -annexation designations of Low Density Residential (General Plan Amendment 2001-074) and RL (Zone Change 2001-098) allowing up to four units per acre for this site and properties to the north. Rural infrastructure improvements exist (two traffic lanes) along the frontage of the site with high voltage electric transmission lines on both sides of Avenue 58. On July 3, 2001, the City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved a 97-lot residential subdivision for the property by adoption of Resolutions 2001-91 and 2001-92, allowing typical lot sizes of 1 10' wide by 1 19' long (13,090 square feet) fronting onto private streets with site access occurring on Avenue 58 and emergency only access allowed on Monroe Street (Attachment 1). The Planning Commission's review of the project occurred on June 12, 2001 (Attachment 2). On September 11, 2001, the Planning Commission approved the conceptual parkway landscape plan for the original by adoption of Resolution 2001-016, subject to conditions. Perimeter wall locations were also identified on the applicant's plans. To date, no house plans have been submitted for the tract. PROJECT REQUEST: This Map Amendment proposes 130 single family lots on private streets measuring 36 feet wide (curb to curb), an increase of 33 lots over the original plan. Typical lot sizes are 70' wide by 121.5' long (8,505 square feet) and larger depending on location within the development. The proposed lots that back up to Avenue 58 and Monroe Street are classified as "through lots" even though vehicular access will be restricted STPC30092#ibarton/54GREG/12-3 Page 2 of 4 �U� to internal streets (Attachment 3). Project access, via private street connections, occur on Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. Access gating on Street Lot "J", where it intersects with Monroe Street, is restricted to emergency use only, while access on Avenue 58 is for residents and guests. Parkway Lots "A" through "C" on the tract's south and east boundary are being established for landscaping, meandering sidewalks and a multi -use trail as required by the General Plan Circulation Element and Subdivision Ordinance. Easements for utility improvements are shown on the Map exhibit as well, including 10-foot wide easements on each side of all private streets. The internal street system design has been revised so that cul-de-sac streets are on the west half of the development while interconnecting through streets serve approximately 70 percent of the proposed lots. Other project changes are the elimination of clubhouse facilities and the relocation of the retention basin to the perimeter of the project (Lot 131). A CVWD well site (Lot 132) and temporary lift station (Lot 49) are sited at two locations on Monroe Street. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 28, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Regulations can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council certification of a Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-417, Revised) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1), subject to findings and conditions. STPC30092#lbarton/54GREG/12-3 Page 3 of 4 Attachments: 1. Approved Tract Map Exhibit 2. Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2001 (Excerpt) 3. Proposed Tract Map Exhibit Prpare�i lay: ei, reg Ttousdell, Associate Planner STPC30092#lbarton/54GREG/12-3 Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Page 4 of 4 f fj (1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417, REVISED APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 to day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) for Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1) located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows: APN: 761-720-020 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 3rd day of July, 2001, adopt Resolution 2001-91 certifying Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, a 97-lot single family subdivision with private streets in a RL Zoning District; and 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 2001-417, Revised) and has determined that although the proposed residential development 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 recommend to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 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 2001-417 (Revised). ,. �05 PAGREMEA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) for TTM 30092, Amendment #1 December 11, 2001 2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment 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 Tentative Tract Map Amendment 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 revised Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment 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 Tentative Tract Map Amendment 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- 417 (Revised) and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. J 0 Ij , P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) for TTM 30092, Amendment #1 December 11, 2001 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) 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 2001-417 (Revised) reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 1 1 to day of December, 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 'J " P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 1. Project Title: TTM 30092 (Barton Properties) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: NW Corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe St. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barton Properties, 11611 San Vicente Blvd., S-605, Los Angeles, CA 90049 (310-826-4658) 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Original application involved development of 97 single family and common lots on 37 acres at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. Application has been modified to include 130 residential lots of about 8,000 square feet each. The application also includes lettered lots for streets, a well, and a retention basin. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant (previously agriculture) South: Across Ave. 58, date palm grove and residential East: Across Monroe St., vacant and scattered residential West: IID Corporate facility 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) i 'J 5 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.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 & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings 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. A I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11 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. �1 I?- o I Signature Date CHOA- l 06`71 Igoe I CITY OF LA QUINTA AnteName G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the 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\BartonCklst.WPD 3 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) 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) 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) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X K9 J 1 X X X X K9 X X \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 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? (Application materials) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) 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, p. 5-2 ff.) 12 It X X X X X X X \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 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? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001. 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)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM Tech, 10/19/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.) 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 and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) 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.) X 91 X FN X P P X IN \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 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. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) 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) 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 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) MEMO MEMO MEMO soil soil MEMO MEMO NONE \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 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. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) 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- 59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) 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 4-59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13 ) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) X X X X X X X X X :\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc. dated 4-4-01) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General Plan EIR, p. 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, p. 4-157 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) KII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) K9 X X X 91 rN X 9 X \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 9 ) 1 >Lj 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. ) (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) (V. 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, p. 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, p. 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? (Application Materials) 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, p. 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 10 X X X X X f3 X X X X X X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) (VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) KVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a► Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X X X X X X X KI Q J i 2 \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 11 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER Analysis. X X 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. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside were used in reviewing the potential impacts of the proposed project. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. City EA 2001-408 covers this site and 240 acres to the north. 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; SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992; Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta; City of La Quinta Municipal Code; "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 18, 2000; "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 19, 2000; "Phase 1 Archaeological/Historic Resources Assessment for TTM 30092", prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2001; "Noise Report #01 106 for TTM 30092," prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc., April 4, 2001; "Geotechnical Investigation for TTM 30092," prepared by Sladden Eng., Feb. 9, 200 1 ;"Preliminary Drainage Calc. - TTM 30092," prepared by Hacker Eng., April 13, 2001. :\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 12 Revised Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for Tentative Tract Map 30092 Introduction This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address changes made to Tentative Tract Map 30092. The original application was reviewed under EA 2001- 417, an environmental assessment to supplement EA 2001-408 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 (City Council Resolution 2001-34). Since the original approval and environmental review, the applicant has increased the number of residential lots from 97 to 130. II. c► The proposed parcel is not currently under Williamson Act contract. Development of the site will result in the loss of land available for agriculture. Residential subdivisions are being developed to the north of the site and the project area is an isolated parcel. Lands to the south and east continue to be farmed. The loss of this site for agriculture is not expected to be significant based on the conclusion of this assessment and EA 2001-408. III. a), c) & d) Air quality in the Coachella Valley and the City is primarily affected by vehicular emissions. The development of this project could generate up to 1,300 average daily trips'. These trips could generate the following emissions. The Table below also includes the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for each potential pollutant. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 67.15 2.58 13.77 - 0.29 0.29 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 1,300 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. "Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Volume 1" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Single Family detached housing (210) used. x r; G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ Barton RevAdd.WPD 1 The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The non -attainment status results in potentially significant impacts associated with new development, particularly during the construction of new projects. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. In addition to these standards, SCAQMD suggests mitigation for PM 10, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures: 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, unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer. 6. Any piece of land to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 7. Watering of any portion of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an ongoing basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Any portion of the site that is 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, grass seed or chemical stabilizers. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 2 i jt 1 With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed project will not be significant. IV. a) Biological resource analysis has not been performed because the site has been actively used for farm activities and therefore is not likely to be a valuable habitat for native species. The land is not in an area of concern for known sensitive species and is outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe - toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The changes associated with the application will not change the potential impacts to biological resources. Impacts from development are not expected to be significant. V. a) & b) Cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject property'. The survey found that no significant resources occur on the site. V. c) The site has been previously assessed for paleontologic resources'. The area was within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla, but no vertebrate remains have been located. The mollusks found are abundant in this area, and do not represent a significant resource. As such, the on -site investigation and report found that the impacts on paleontologic resources are less than significant, and that no further analysis of the site is necessary. VI. a► i) & ii) The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State and is mapped in the Ground Shaking Zone IV. To ensure structures can withstand damage from earthquakes, compliance with the Geotechnical Investigation Report by Sladden Engineering dated February 9, 2001, and any other site specific soil analysis required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits shall be required. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. a) iii► This site may be subject to liquefaction due to groundwater being found within 25 to 30 feet requiring "remedial grading including overexcavation and recompaction." (Sladden Report). The modification of the application does not 2 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, October, 2000; Phase 1 Archaeological/Historical Survey, prepared by James Brock, MA, RPA dated April 2001. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, October 2000. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 3 affect this potential impact, and requires equivalent mitigation as the previous application. To develop the site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Grading activities and structure development shall comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Sladden Engineering for TTM 30092 including over -excavation, and other methods known to reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts on residential structures. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. Development of the site will replace the use of canal water for crop irrigation and may represent a positive impact insofar as water usage may be reduced when agricultural irrigation no longer occurs on the site. The proposed amendment to the project will increase water usage over that previously analyzed. Stormwater generated by development will be retained on -site which will encourage percolation and groundwater recharge. The proposed alteration to the project does not change the City's requirements for on -site retention. Additionally, City Ordinances require water conserving plumbing fixtures and landscaping. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c)-e) Site development of buildings and parking areas will create impermeable surfaces creating drainage pattern changes. The project site is located in a C Flood Zone. The project is required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100-year storm on -site. The revised drainage plan, prepared by Hacker Engineering, has been reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance with Section 13.24.120 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Tract conditions are recommended to ensure compliance assuring the flood control system is less than significant. XI. a) The development of the area will result in increased noise levels, but these are not expected to be significant, given that the ambient noise level is, and will continue to be low. Development on any portion of the site will include landscaping, berms and walls which will further attenuate sound in the area as required by Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Associates dated April 4, 2001. Amendment of the application will not change the potential impacts associated with noise. The impacts from noise are therefore not expected to be significant. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 4 XIII. a) The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. XV. a) The project area will continue to pay the mandated school fees as development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to schools. The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax from these residents' disposable income, will generate revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of municipal services. Builders within the project area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. The amendment of the application will not significantly change the impacts to public services. Increases in population resulting from the increased number of lots will be offset by increased revenues in property and sales tax. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. The Village of the Palms project determined traffic impacts for development would be less than significant'. Under EA 2001-408 (City Council Resolution No. 2001-34) it was determined that a traffic study would not be required, provided the sites were developed to comply with the LDR General Plan designation and Impact Mitigation Fees were paid. The amendment of the application will add only 330 trips per day to the regional road system. The application, as amended, still falls within the Low Density Residential land use category. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level. XVI. a)-f) The buildout of the site will require service from utility providers. The overall impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required at construction of any project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REVISED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 130 SINGLE FAMILY (FORMERLY 97 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS) AND OTHER STREET, PUBLIC UTILITY AND COMMON LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 38.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 111h day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Barton Properties for Charles and Norma Fausel for amendment to 130 single family and other miscellaneous common/utility lots on approximately 38.4 acres located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as: APN: 761-720-020 SW 1/4 of Section 22, T6S, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 31 day of July, 2001, approve Tentative Tract Map 30092, a single family development of 97 lots and other miscellaneous common lots by adoption of Resolution 2001-92, on a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, the Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has prepared a revised Environmental Assessment for this Map Amendment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2001-417) was certified by the City Council on July 3, 2001, under Resolution 2001-091. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation to the City Council for approval of said Tentative Tract Map Amendment: AAResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties December 11, 2001 Page 2 The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that the subdivision will result in the creation of 8,500+ sq. ft. residential lots to be developed in accordance with the existing Pre -Annexation Zoning (Low Density Residential) and General Plan (Low Density Residential) designations as established. Project density is approximately 3.6 units per acre within the allowed maximum density of four dwelling units per acre. Tract access for residents is limited to 58'" Avenue, a Primary Arterial thoroughfare. 2. The design and improvements for the Tentative Tract Map Amendment are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that all proposed single family lots meet and exceed minimum required dimensions and sizes requirements and perimeter Arterial streets will be constructed. The design of private streets servicing the residential lots are consistent with standards as contained in the General Plan Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0) and Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13). 3. The design of the Map, and its proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidable injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the site is vacant and has been previously disturbed by farming activity, to the degree that the site itself does not support any wildlife species. 4. The design of the proposed subdivision map and related improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are readily accessible. The health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the recommended conditions, which serve to implement mitigation measures for the project, including emergency only access on Monroe Street. To contain on -site stormwater, a retention basin has been proposed at the southeast corner of the project. Site grading is consistent with adjacent parcels and any on -site work will require dust control measures pursuant to Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. 5. The design of, and type of improvements for, the Map will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the subdivision, as the proposed subdivision has been reviewed for these issues with no concerns identified. The Tract's design includes provisions for lot A:\ResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties December 11, 2001 Page 3 access and utility and other public easements as determined necessary during review of the proposal. Landscape lots adjacent to perimeter arterial streets will provide aesthetic and traffic noise buffers in compliance with City requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001- 417 (Revised) assessed the environmental concerns of this Map; and 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1), for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11" day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: A:\ResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California _ 027 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties December 11, 2001 Page 4 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\ResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092 (AMENDMENT #1), BARTON PROPERTIES DECEMBER 11, 2001 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1) shall comply with the requirements and standards of § §66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Map approval shall expire and become null and void on July 3, 2003, unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of TTM 30092 (Amendment #1) and certification of EA 2001-417 (Revised). 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following agencies and departments: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 r Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 2 The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing five or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing five or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (NO1) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map 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. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way. 2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Main Entry: As required for final configuration of the private gated entry as approved by the City Engineer. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54 } Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 3 2) Residential: 37-foot width. Width may be reduced to 33 feet with parking restricted to one side and 29 feet if on -street parking is prohibited provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant makes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. C. CULS DE SAC - Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet B. Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 , 3 1, Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #l, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 4 facilities (e.g., sidewalks, multi -use trails) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map. 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 16. 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. 17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS) AND PARCEL MAPS) 18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, 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. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 t�i J y� Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 5 IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "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. 20. 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. 21. 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 converted to AutoCad, plans. produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the Cord PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54 3 u Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 6 GRADING 22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish written acknowledgment from CWQCB of receipt of applicants Notice of Intent (NOI). 23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 24. 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. 25. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 26. 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. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54 '� i! Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 7 27. 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. 28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 29. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 30. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 31. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates Cond PC Tr. 30092 # 1;Greg54 3 r Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 8 shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 32. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 33. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. DRAINAGE 34. Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the State NPDES General Construction Permit. 35. Applicant's SWPPP shall be approved prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. 36. Applicant's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall include provisions for all of the following BMPs: A. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 �} Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 9 B. Temporary Sediment Control. C. Wind Erosion Control. D. Tracking Control. E. Non -Storm Water Management. F. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. 37. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. 38. All project BMPs shall be maintained throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 39. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 40. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual - lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2.5 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 41. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 42. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 43. 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. 44. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be five feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 3 d Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 10 45. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 46. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 47. 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 tentative map 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&R's for meeting these potential obligations. 48. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 49. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all aboveground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water f1� �� Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 ; J U Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment # 1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 11 valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 50. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground, unless otherwise allowed by General Plan Amendment 2000-073. Power lines exceeding 34.5 Kv are exempt from this requirement. 51. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 52. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a landscaped half median, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. 2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86- foot improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a landscaped half median, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. 3) Developer shall enter into a secured agreement for the deferred installation of a traffic signal at the main entrance off Avenue 58 at such time that signal warrants are met. Developer shall pay its fair share based on an "after the fact" traffic study. Developer may assign secured agreement to the HOA. Signalized Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54 v Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTNT 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 12 intersection costs to be divided based on percentages of use to the participating developments. B. PRIVATE STREETS - Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association. C. CULS DE SAC - Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-foot curb radius. D. MULTI -USE TRAIL - The applicant shall construct a multi -use trail along the Avenue 58 frontage within the required 32-foot wide setback. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. A split rail fence shall be constructed to separate the multi -use trail from the pedestrian sidewalk and perimeter wall in accordance with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning Ordinance. The multi -use trail, trail signs, and the split rail fence shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first residence. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 53. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 54. 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). Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 r� Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 13 55. 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. 56. Knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 57. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 58. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5"/6.00" 5.5"/6.50" 59. 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. Cond PC Tr. 30092 # 1;Greg54 Al. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 14 60. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 61. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - No turning restriction. B. Emergency Access on Monroe Street - No public access allowed; left turns are restricted. 62. Applicant shall provide for future gated entrances to the development at all points of ingress and egress. LANDSCAPING 63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas and medians shall be prepared by a landscape architect and be prepared based on the water conservation measures in Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the Coachella Valley Water District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 64. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, and common lots. 65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 � 4 7.- Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 15 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. 66. 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. 67. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section 9.60.240 (E3) of the Zoning Ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES 68. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. 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- Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 , 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment # 1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 16 Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 73. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks (except for multi -use trails). The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 74. 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. 75. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 76. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the Coachella Valley Unified School District based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance by the City. 77. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 78. Prior to final map approval, parkland fees (Quimby Act) shall be paid as required by Section 13.48 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 79. Within ten days of the review by the Planning Commission, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Community Development Department a Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54 4 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment # 1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 17 check made out to the County of Riverside in the amount of $64 to permit the filing and posting of EA 2001-417 (Revised) after the City Council's review. FIRE DEPARTMENT 80. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. 81. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants. 82. Gates entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel lanes. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35'-0" setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where one way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40-foot turning radius shall be used. 83. Gates, if any, shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 84. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. 85. 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. 86. The minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum clearance of 13'-6" in height. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54 45 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. December 11, 2001 Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS 87. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking purposes. 88. All mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) are hereby included in this approval. 89. Separate pedestrian gates shall be provided at each site access location. 90. Prior to submitted the Final Map for plan check consideration, the following corrections and/or information shall be provided: A. Lots 131 (retention basin) and 132 (well site) shall be designated as lettered lots. B. Two copies of the draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's). The City Attorney shall approve the document prior to approval of the final map by the City Council. C. A minimum of three street names shall be submitted for each private street shown on the Map exhibit. A list of the names in ranking order shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. D. Bureau of Reclamation easements that traverse the project site shall be disclosed. E. No permanent improvements may be constructed within the 50-foot easement area of the Avenue 58 agricultural drain or the 10-foot easement area of lateral 123.45-0.75 without the written consent of the Coachella Valley Water District. Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54 4 � ATTACHMENTS m Attachment 1 IN THE c r of u Ot wA Comw of mesa. swr or cAGi'oRNN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30092 THE SOUTHWEST OWTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTJON 22. T.M R.?& W BERNODINO MER"N 3H iMiINEEtINi, Illt. 89 ..D..I, 97 M.." PW ,,.l As .Fam ar IF .... AG PWL AL »y uac Ae MMoff MR Nummanno C00% LD SLGWAK Q APRIL 2001 `•K.M. ow our LA a Onew wwe ►logo A R B.Q=l um a MG CO.MM► M me rAvdM Iq�pf�O11EE IJ.i n & LQIrDMMQff DETALJ ow 4. lO7D Nlpl 11D1 p tGYe i IO.0 4U Attachment 2 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 12, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meetingA the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ch ' man Robbins who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Pr t: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert rr, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. jrtaff present: Community en irector Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jens anning Manager hristine di lorio, Engineering Assistant Hec uzman, and Executi Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. 111JIMIRMATION OF THE AGEN onfirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: •` A. Chairman Robbi sked if there were any corrections -_ of May 22, 20 Commissioner Tyler asked t twill e corrected ay General Plan "Ame. ere being no er correctio was moved and se y Commissioners irk to approve a minutes as cor nanimously approv B. Departm e. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. BL C HEARING: A. Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and Tentative Tract Map 300921 a request of Barton Properties, Inc. (Charles and Normal Fausel), for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the subdivision of approximately 37.08 acres into 97 single family and other common lots for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street 40 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2001 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted changes requested by the Public Works Department to Conditions #48.A.2, 3, and 57.E. The applicant was requesting changes to Condition #4 and #40. Staff stated they were both standard conditions and is not recommending those changes be made. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked why this was being processed prior to annexation. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it expedited the application. Once the annexation had been completed, the project could start. 3. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether or not the site was subject to liquefaction. He then asked if this annexation would square off the City boundaries at Avenue 58 and Monroe, Street. Staff stated yes. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were 36-feet wide rights of way. Staff stated that was correct for a public right of way. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Hacker, Hacker Engineering, representing the applicant, questioned Condition #40 and asked if they would be penalized for using the extra foot of freeboard on the retention basin. It was his understanding that staff had approved this request. There would be no lot retention. In regard to the liquefaction zone, he is unaware of it being in this zone. Staff stated it may be that the note needs to be changed on the tract map. If this was true, a condition would be added. Engineering Assistant Hector Guzman stated five feet of water is the standard with the freeboard and therefore the plans conform. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 7. There being no .further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-087, certifying Environmental Assessment 2001- 417, as submitted. , j Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-088, approving Tentative Tract Map 30092, as amended. a. Condition #48.A.1 & 2: Add "construct a 'landscape' half median". b. Condition #48.A.3: Developer shall enter into a secured agreement for the deferred installation of a traffic signal at the main entrance off Avenue 58 at such time that signal warrants are met. Developer shall pay its fair share based on an "after the fact" traffic study. Developer may assign secured agreements to the HOA. Signalized intersection costs to be divided based on percentages of use to the participating developments. C. Condition #57.B. Emergency Access on Monroe Street - No public access allowed; let turns are restricted. d. Add Condition #84. Revise the Tract Map exhibit map to reflect the Geotechnical Investigation Report regarding liquefaction. A. Zoning Code Amendment 2000-066 a request of the City for review of applicability and impact of the current Water Efficient Ordinance on development proposals. 1. Staff requested this item be continued of August 28, 2001. 2. It was mov)ktl. seconded by Tyler to August Unanimous) r e Commission meeting bets to continue this item roved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATE L: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding the Planning Commission The Commission determined they would be darl B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the C 2001. ner meeting dates. August 14, 2001. ouncil meeting of May 15, -REVISED Attachment 3 TENTATIVETRACT MAP NO. 30092 THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC770 V 22. tel, R.7& S B.B.M. a^^ A.P.N. 781--720--019 MM ory u a ate] DW. AA PAVEl1EEME N► ME MME� 'WE� of ra¢ va¢ awr oast rL sasc pour PfKTE caMPacrm AGUMN 5 am am Axw �f_! u TYPICAL STFM SECTXM TYPICAL LOT DRAINN—APE 0 PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-719 REQUEST: BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPE RESORT VILLA UNITS WITH TWO FACADES EACH AND A TWO STORY 5,274 SQUARE FOOT GREATHOUSE (CLUBHOUSE) LOCATION: 57325 MADISON STREET (MADISON, NORTH OF AVENUE 58) APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL HOLDINGS REPRESENTATIVE: STEVE MCCORMICK, RNM ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, AND GLENN WALTERS, DESIGN WORKSHOP PROPERTY OWNER: PUERTA AZUL HOLDINGS ZONING: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) A Sculpture Park on the relatively flat 19.64 acre site, located on Madison Street, north of Avenue 58 (Attachment 1) was approved by the City in 1993. Improvements remaining since the closure of the facility include: a single family house and another building, a swimming pool, a lake, an interior concrete driveway and walkway, remnant sculpture pieces, and an entry gate. A General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan, and Tentative Tract was approved by the City Council on May 15, 2001 for this property. The Specific Plan allows an enclave of 127 detached resort villas with centrally located common amenity areas; pools and spas; and a recreation and vacation leasing facility identified as the "Greathouse". Application Under Consideration: Site Development Permit 2001-719 mffolrel�• The Puerta Azul Specific Plan allows the clustering of 4-6 units around a common courtyard/driveway with one car garages and private walled backyards. Proposed are four Colonial Spanish genre resort villas prototype elevations; three units are one story and one unit is two story with each floor plan having two elevations (Attachment 2). The one story units have interconnecting hip and gable roofs and heights ranging from 16' 8" to 18' 1 " with a concrete "S" the and chimney projections that have ceramic tile accent. Tower element front door entry features are highlighted with ceramic Talavera the trim; Plan 2 has a circular or round entry option. Covered wood trellis patios are supported by precast stone columns. Walls are "Coconut Colada" colored stucco with a grey stucco base trim; light brown wood one car garage roll -up doors continue the use of the wood element. Multi -pane windows are recessed and trimmed with the accent grey stucco. Proposed for the two story units are interconnecting hip roofs at 22' 10" with a concrete "S" the and chimney projections that have ceramic tile accent. The second level proposes two bedrooms, a bath, and a deck with metal railings. Walls , garage doors, window design and detail are similar to the one story elevations. The proposed four prototype resort villas includes the following space: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 2 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 2 Bedroom/Den 3 Bedroom 2 Bath 2 Bath 2 Bath/Den 2 Bath Livable Space (s. f.) 1315 1502 1504 1725 Garage Space (s. f.) 258 263 254 270 Covered Patio (s. f.) 128 447 313 77(deck) The Greathouse Proposed is a two story 5,274 square foot facility a "Great House" which includes a first story public area providing a reception area, kitchen, library, office, exercise room, and great hall, and second story one bedroom manager's apartment. The Colonial Spanish genre structure is rectangular in shape and uses an interconnecting hip roof with parapet roofs at the entry with heights ranging from 17 to 22 foot (with a 6' 1 1 " bell tower for a total of 28' 1 1 "' on the center of the structure). The roof is covered with concrete "S" style red tile. Walls are "Coconut Colada" colored stucco with a grey decorative cornice. Parking for the manager's unit is proposed to have a roll -up garage door with light brown wood. An arcade with stucco columns is proposed along the facade. Under the arcade, multi -pane windows are recessed and trimmed with the accent grey stucco surrounds; windows outside the arcade are proposed to have decorative black wrought iron grille work. Landscape Plan The Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material for the first phase of the project consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters, and Madison Street frontage (as required by Specific Plan approval). Proposed for the landscape setback along Madison are Chilean Mesquite and Date Palm trees, and shrubs such as Red Bird of Paradise, Texas Olive, and Bougainvillea are proposed. Street trees proposed within the project include Chilean Mesquite, Jacaranda, and Desert Willow while Date Palms line the interior east side of the project. Shrubs proposed within the project include Dwarf Myrtle, Texas Ranger, Red Bird of Paradise, Texas Olive, and Bougainvillea. The proposed landscape plan does not exceed the maximum water allowance. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at two meetings (Attachment 3). Prototype units were reviewed on November 7, 2001 and the Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001-046 recommending approval. The Greathouse was reviewed on December 5, 2001 and the Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001- 052, recommending approval subject the following design revisions: 1) Walls to be smooth trowel plaster finish; 2) The roof shall be random mudded roof tile; 3) Base color of the columns (grey) shall be deleted; 4) Multi -pane windows shall be true divided lite; 5) Delete the wood for the garage door and replace with composite material. Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2001-414 for the Specific Plan 2001-053. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and no additional documentation is necessary. rnr�Wr•�.� This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on, November 30, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code. As conditioned, there are no issues with this request and findings required to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. • ►1", -:IA-9-AIIKOIi 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ approving Site Development Permit 2001-719 as conditioned. OWIF-11TWEI� 1. Location Map 2. Building Elevations and Landscape Plans for The Greathouse and Proto Type Resort Villa Units 3. Minutes of the ALRC meeting of November 7, 2001 and Draft Minutes of the ALRC meeting of December 5, 2001 4. Letter received Prepared by: '4ux, ---� 11- 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 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR FOUR NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A GREAT HOUSE LOCATED AT 57325 MADISON STREET CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001- 719 APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL HOLDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 11 th day of December, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Puerta Azul Holdings to approve building elevations and landscaping plans for four prototype resort villa units with two facades each and a Greathouse. The project area is located on Madison, north of Avenue 58, more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 761- 090-008; and, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Department Director has conducted, and adopted under Resolution 90-27, and has determined that the proposed project is within the scope of EA 2001-414 and that no further environmental review is necessary. WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 7th day of November, 2001 and the 5th day of December hold public meetings to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for four prototype resort villa units with two facades each and a Greathouse located on Madison, north of Avenue 58. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify approval of said Site Development Permit. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Site Development Permit: PCRESO.SDP 2000-685 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-719 DECEMBER 11, 2001 1. The prototypical plans are consistent with the General Plan in that they are related to residential uses which are permitted on the residentially designated property. 2. The prototypical plans and the Great House are designed to comply with the City's Zoning Code requirements and are in compliance with Puerta Azul Specific Plan 2001-053. 3. The architectural design of the prototypical plans, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements is compatible with the surrounding development to the south and with the quality of design prevalent in the City and has been recommended for approval by the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee. 4. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access and amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. 5. Project landscaping, including, not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, with conditions, has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2001-719 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution subject to the attached conditions. 1J 6 PCRESO.SDP 2000-685 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-719 DECEMBER 11, 2001 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 11th day of December, 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 PCRESO.SDP 2000-685 11 �.1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-719 DECEMBER 11, 2001 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall make the following changes to the building elevations of the Greathouse: a) Walls to be smooth trowel plaster finish; b) The roof shall be random mudded roof tile; c) Base color of the columns (grey) shall be deleted; d) Multi -pane windows shall be true divided lite; e) Delete the wood for the garage door and replace with composite material. ')3 AAPC COA SDP 2001-719.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 rn rn 0 z 52nd JAVENUE 53rd AVENUE 54th AVENUE v Z Z AIRPORT BLVD. PROJECT LOCATION 58th AVENUE ��c ATTACHMENT #3 rILC wri Archilectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 7, 2001 representing Rancho Capistrano, stated there is no detail as there is no exposure on that side. Staff stated there is a stucco popout on the top of each window. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this was the elevation that would face the adjoining unit. Mr. Wilkinson stated that was correct. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the Date Palm Trees would be used in areas of low traffic in case there would be crown drop. He also stated trees need to have more space or they can cause problems later on. He would like to see the trees far enough away from hardscape so potential cracking of hard surfaces is minimized. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the Bottle trees were messy and a different variety should be used. 6. Committee Member Thoms asked about plant material for the trellis as there needed to be some type of material that would grow on the columns/trellis. 7. Committee Member Cunningham stated architecturally it fits with the site and he agrees with staff's recommendation. 8. Committee Member Thoms recommended using a two piece the that would look better. It is not mortared or clay but rather an upgrade to give a better appearance. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-045 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-720, subject to the conditions as revised: A. Condition ##3: Trees shall be planted a minimum of four feet from hardscape or buildings. B. Condition #/4: The Bottle tree shall be replaced with a different variety of tree. Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2001-719; a request of Puerta Azul Holdings for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for four prototype resort villa units with two facades each located at 57-325 Madison. Y I G AWPDOCSIAnC\Min 1 l .7-01.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 7, 2001 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to identify the location. Staff stated it is the old sculpture park and this project was approved last year. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the small unit and was it within the allowed requirements. Staff stated it is a resort use and under the Specific Plan it is allowed. They will not be time share or factional units. 3. Mr. Steve McCormick, RNM Architect Planners for the project, gave a presentation on the project and handed out a new rendering of the project. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated it was a fresh approach with the use of clustering and curbing streets creating a village atmosphere. Staff explained the tract map has been approved. 5. Committee Member Thoms asked if the garage doors were constructed of wood. Mr. McCormick stated they would be roll up doors but made of a wood material. Committee Member Thoms asked how this project is monitored to keep it from becoming a residential community. Staff stated it is monitored under the Specific Plan and Code Compliance. It is governed by the CC&R's. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern over the lack of parking and asked for a definition of the "Great House" Mr. McCormick stated it is a clubhouse and the plans were being revised and would be submitted at a later date to the ALRC. Committee Member Bobbitt asked where the retention basins would be located. Staff explained. 7. Committee Member Thoms stated it was a nice project. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the partial two story was within the height limits. Staff stated it was and Mr. McCormick stated there would be about a quarter of the number built. 9. Committee Member Cunningham stated they should look at a wood composite material for the roll -up doors. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by I I G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\Min l 1-7-01.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 7, 2001 Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-046 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-720, subject to the conditions as recommended. C. Site Development Permit 2001-718; a request of Sedona Homes for review of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units with three facades each located at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. 1. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant would like to address the Committee. Mr. Lance Alacano, representing Sedona Homes, gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the material to be used on the gates and suggested metal be used on both gates. Mr. Alacano stated they had decided to use metal on all gates. 4. Committee Member Thoms stated he is not a favor of this type of architecture and asked if they would be using clay roofs. Mr. Alacano stated it was the smooth stucco with clay tile roofs. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2001-047 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-719, as amended. A. Side yard gates shall be wrought iron. D. Site Development Permit 2001-717; a request of KSL Development Corporation for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a merchant builder welcome center in PGA West to be located at the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 1. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant had any comments. Mr. Bill Dodds, representing KSL Development Corporation, gave a presentation on the project. He agreed with staff's recommendation but was looking at a plaster or other 4 API nXAMII-7-rll wnd Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes December 5, 2001 B. Site Development Permit 2001-719: a request of Puerta Azul Holdings for review of building elevations for a two story 5,274 square foot Great House (clubhouse). 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. 2. Committee Member Thoms asked staff to explain the stucco base. Staff explained it was the colored band at the base of the building. 3. Committee Member Cunningham suggested the applicant use random mudded tiles for the roof because the building is seen from the street and it would make a more dramatic statement. Also, it needs to have a trowel finish and the color break up on the banding could be a problem. The windows need to be true multi - pane and a composite garage door. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the ceramic tile on the top of the bell tower and over the doors. 5. Mr. Steve McCormick, representing Puerta Azul gave a presentation on the project. He explained the color base would be on the columns for about a foot above grade. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated the colored banding would add to much to the building and should not be used. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the plant material on top of the arcade. Mr. McCormick stated it was not a planter, but a bougainvillea plant growing up. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if the date palms were to be used, they must be healthy and not stressed to ensure they will not drop their crowns. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-052 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-719, subject to the conditions: A. Condition #1: Prior to issuance of building permits, revise the building elevations as follows: a. Walls will be smooth trowel plaster finish; G:\WPDOCSWRLC\Min12-5-Ol.wpd 3 `l Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes December 5, 2001 b. The roof tile shall be random mudded roof tile; C. Base color on the columns shall be deleted; d. Multi -pane windows shall be true divided lights; e. Delete the wood and replace with composite for the garage door. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on January 2, 2002. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1:12 a.m. on December 5, 2001. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPD0CS\ARLC\Min12-5-0l.wpd 4 ATTACHMENT #4 Ll 1<LEI" BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT INC. December 5, 2001 Fred Baker Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 777-7125 Mr. Baker, ULU u 6►LUU I U Pr ANNING L, E AR I am responding to a notice of public hearing for the proposed project on the old La Quinta Sculpture Park site (APN 761-090-008). My partner, John Gogian, and I own the Lions Gate subdivision which borders the south side of the new project. We would like to state our support for the project. The layout of detached homes, architecture, building heights, and landscaping will certainly be beneficial to the area and the city. Our only concern is that of the locations within the project of the (2) story units. I had a phone conversation with Dennis Zimmerly of Pacific Land Management, the representative for the project. He assured me that the (2) story units are to be located in the interior portion of the new project and that none would border our subdivision. We agreed that layout was in the best interest of both projects. Again, we support the new project as it has been presented and portrayed to us and look forward to its completion. Sincerely, Neil erne President cc: Joan MacPherson, Dyson & Dyson Dennis Zimmerly, Pacific Land Management e 41910 Boardwalk, Suite A-10 • Palm Desert California 92211 • (760) 776-4840 • Fax: (760) 776-4842 • CA. # 390365 • AZ. # 141156 PH #D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 50 REQUEST: AMENDMENT OF THE TEXT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND AMENDMENT OF THE SITE PLAN DESIGN ADJACENT TO AVENUE 50 FOR A 100,500 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 18, 1999, IN CONJUNCTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-060, ZONE CHANGE 98- 089, SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034, PARCEL MAP 29052, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST AND NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21166. ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL / VACANT LAND (APPROVED FOR RESIDENTIAL TENTATIVE TRACT 29053) SOUTH: TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) / RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION UNDER CONSTRUCTION s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd EAST: COMMERCIAL / VACANT LAND IN THE CITY OF INDIO WEST: RL / VACANT LAND (APPROVED FOR RESIDENTIAL TENTATIVE TRACT 29053) BACKGROUND: The original Specific Plan approved by the City Council on May 18, 1999, provided principals and guidelines for a shopping center of approximately 111,000 square foot of floor area, consisting of a combined 71,350 square foot market and drug store, 6,000 square feet of in -line stores, and five pad buildings with 33,600 square feet and 530 parking spaces located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 (Attachment 1). Parcel Map 29052, approved at the same time, divided the 12.5 net acre commercial site into seven parcels from 18,438 square feet to 339,802 square feet for sales, leasing, or financing purposes, with a 33 acre remainder parcel to the north and west for residential Tentative Tract 29053. Tentative Tract 29053 was approved at the same time for 103 single family lots. The seven commercial parcels coincided with the buildings proposed with the original specific plan. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The proposed amendment consists of design changes to the site plan, drainage facilities and text changes. The text changes include updating the text based on completed work, etc., and discussion of the proposed site and drainage changes (Attachment 2). As noted, the originally approved size of the center was approximately 111,000 square feet. Minor changes as a result of subsequent plan development reduced the square footage to 104,781 square feet. With this amendment, the square footage of the floor area will be further reduced to 100,460 square feet. Albertsons/Sav-on, the major tenant will be reduced from 60,080 to 57,560 square feet in size. The original six retail buildings will range from 2,200 to 8,500 square feet (previously 6,000 to 11,000 square feet) with a total of 42,900 square feet (previously 44,701 square feet). Two of these buildings are proposed to be restaurants with drive-thru pick-up, and a third a gas station, possibly with a car wash. The total number of proposed parking spaces will be 474, down from the previous 519 spaces. The project has been designed to have the shopping center retention basins adjacent to the Jefferson Street frontage. The original approved plan provided the retention basins in back of the required 20 foot landscape setback. Under this proposal, the majority of the 20 foot wide setback behind the meandering sidewalk will become part of the slope area of the retention basins. Because of this, no berming a Zoning s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd Code Section 9.100.040 allows only incidental storm water which falls on the setback to be retained in the setback and not retention basins for the entire site. A site plan design change is proposed in the southwest corner of the project adjacent to Avenue 50. Previously, there were two separate buildings, accessed by and west of the main Avenue 50 driveway. Parking spaces surrounded the two buildings. The revision proposes to place the two buildings (Pad "A" and "B") in a "L" shape, near the west and north property lines. Pad "A" building is proposed to have a 32 foot setback from the north property line, whereas Zoning Code Section 9.90.040 requires a 50 feet from the property line because the property to the north is zoned residential. The storm water retention basin for the adjacent residential tract is immediately abutting the north property line and is approximately 60 feet wide in that area. Therefore, the closest residential lot is approximately 96 feet from the Pad "A" building. Parking will be in front of the revised buildings and along the west property line. The applicant is proposing two new driveways with the revised plan. One right -turn in and right -turn out drive way is shown in front of the two building pads, approximately mid way between main driveway and west property line. A new second "exit only" driveway is proposed behind or west of the pad "A" building. This driveway is connected to a drive aisle around the rear of both building pads. With the revised square footage of the project, 474 total parking spaces are required per current parking requirements. The plans indicate that 474 spaces will be provided. Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on November 30, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comment with any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Three of the four findings necessary to recommend approval of the specific plan amendment can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution. Those findings being that the amendment is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with zoning on adjacent properties, and is suitable and appropriate for the property. The finding that the specific plan amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the specific plan cannot be made in that the request to use the General Plan required 20 foot landscape setbacks along Jefferson Street for retention basins is prohibited by the Zoning Code Section 9.100.040137. Staff does not support this request because the _I o s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd Zoning Code was amended in 1998, specifically to preclude this due to negative visual effects. The use of the required 20 foot setback for retention detracts from the streetscape views from the street, eliminates berming because of the depression needed for the basin. Berming is needed to provide screening of the parking lot surfaces. Therefore, Staff recommends that it not be permitted as noted in Condition #19D. Furthermore, this amendment proposes two new driveway accesses on Avenue 50. The westerly most driveway behind the two revised buildings should be used for emergency use only. This will reduce traffic hazards on Avenue 50 from closely spaced accesses and weaving of traffic from lane to lane which creates confusion. Condition #33F recommends the driveway be used for an emergency exit only. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council, approval of Amendment #1 for Specific Plan 98-034, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 text (for Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Submitted by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPALS AND GUIDELINES FOR A 100,500 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034, AMENDMENT #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 11 th day of May, and the 11 th day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of an amendment to the Specific Plan design and development standards and design guidelines for a 100,500 square foot shopping center, located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 501h Avenue, more particularly described as: Portions of Section 32, TSS, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Specific Plan 98-034 was certified by the City Council on May 18, 1999, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 98-060, Zone Change 98-089, Specific Plan 98-034, Parcel Map 29052, and Tentative Tract Map 29053. No changed circumstances or conditions exist and no new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166; 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 Amendment: 1. The Specific Plan, as amended, is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated for community commercial uses, is under the floor area ratio maximum of .30, and will meet the daily needs of a multi -neighborhood area. "J i i P:\STAN\sp 98-034 amend #1 pc res .wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 2. The amended Specific Plan, subject to conditions as recommended by Staff, will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development allowed under the Specific Plan is compatible with existing uses and development standards contained in the Specific Plan will ensure high quality development. 3. The amended Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility with zoning on adjacent properties in that the project principles and guidelines ensure that the proposed adjacent residential uses will not be negatively impacted and will service those uses. 4. The Specific Plan property is suitable and appropriate in that it easily assessable to surrounding neighborhoods, and is adjacent to two arterial streets. 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 to the City Council approval of the above - described amendment 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 11" day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California PASTAN\sp 98-034 amend #1 pc res .wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California j 5 P:\STAN\sp 98-034 amend #1 pc res .wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 GENERAL 1. Specific Plan 98-034 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The developer 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 Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of a any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from these jurisdietions the above listed agencies. +f When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for prior to obtaining City approval. of the 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq., and 13.24.170, La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Quality Resources Control Board's ("SWQRCB") Order No. 99-08-DWQ. fie' aIASTAM;p 98-034 am# 1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 1 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 5. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee program in effect at the tirne of issuance of building permits.- 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). J I '•\STAN\sp 98-034 am#1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 2 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 0 119,0011'. =most. IMM@ or. I WIMOA 10111of. is - _ _ -_ _ -::: - `ita OT-, LIM; %-ILy Engineer may accept raster -image files of the rinap. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 6. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan and a "Site Utility" plan are required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. I P:\STAN\sp 98-034 am# 1 pc coa.wpd Printed Decernher 7, 2001 Page 3 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the Building Official and the City Engineer. 7. The City flay maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may �etrii°e purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 8. When final plans aie approved by the C36ty, Tthe applicant shall furnish a complete set of the accurate AutoCAD files of all the -earplet r, approvedoff-site and residentiftf street and drainage improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a utilize standard AutoCAD format mefl l iterns so they may be fully retrievableed irjte through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built constmeten conditions. +f Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer ffa-y will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 9. Prior to the conditional approval of this Specific Plan, or the issuance of any permit(s), tT-he applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements andfof satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the , seettred agreement to construction of such improvements andfer the satisfyaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 10. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this tentative parcel map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28, LQMC. '•\STAWsp 99-034 am# 1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 4 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 11. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments. 12. ff When improvements and obligations are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any permits being issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, applicant shall provide cost estirrates for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such a -Estimates shall conform comply withr to the unit cost schedule of unit cos-, adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs estimates shall meet the approval of be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1/2" x 11" reduction of each page of the Parcel Map, along with a copy of an 8-1/2" x 11" Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by the City Council until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service to all lots within the development. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security fs will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. cable improvements. Defevelopment-wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance trntif by the City Council until the City receives confirmation from the t P:\STAMsp 98-034 am# 1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 5 of 1 i Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to all lots within the development. 13. When ff improvements are phased through an with multiple final maps or o administrative approvals (e.g., a Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, & landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of any permanent buildings approval of in the first phase of the development, or as unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, and -satisfiprior to the completion of hornes trr occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter tf�re phase, and subsequent phases tinless a construetion phasing plan is or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In ff the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the or as specified in an approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of btiilding all permits, and/or final building inspections, or otherwi withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, tintil the applicant makes satisfactory progress on the improvernents or obligations or has made othef arrangements satisfactory to the eity- or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050, LQMC. 15. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 16. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. !4 ':\STAN\sp 98-034 am#tl pe coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page G of 1G Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on any final map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 17. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 18. The applicant shall endeavor t1D minimize differences in elevation between the adjoining properties. at abtitting properties and between separate traets and lots within thus development. 10111111112611 9 =Mr. If mill IWAAr. a - to a... UlawON —— of 011 - - submit and receive approve' of a fugitive dust Control Plan Prepared in accordance with :: _r 6.16, LEIME3. The Applicant shall ftirmish soeurity, in a form acceptpermit.- (SUPERSEDED BY .: to the city, on an arnotint stifficient to guarantee Compliance with the provisions of the CONDITION DRAINAGE 19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120, LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: A. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain it J P:\STAN\sp 98-034 am# 1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 7 of I i Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. B. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. C. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. D. The retention basins shall not encroach into the required 20 foot wide landscape setback adjacent to Jefferson Street. ISO- _ = - in -- - ---- - -= an UTILITIES 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110, LQMC. 21. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 22. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. IAST.1Msp 9X-034 am# 1 pc coa.wpd Primed December 7, 2001 Page S of 1 G Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 23. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060, 13.24.070 & 13.24.100, LQMC for public streets. 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan in accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance, Chapter 9.180, LQMC. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements found necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts of this development. 26. The applicant shall revise the Jefferson Street frontage to provide 17 additional feet of width for dedicated turn lanes (left and right) at Avenue 50. 27. The applicant shall revise the commercial entry drive throats to provide a minimum 90-foot uninterrupted length, or shall provide a combination of a dedicated right turn deceleration lane and the drive throat that will equal a total of 90-feet. for the 'on of the portion of the development. 28. The access point located nearest to the most westerly property line on Avenue 50, shall be designated for Emergency Vehicle ingress and egress only. 29. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. '•\ST,W1sp 98-034 amd I pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 9 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 30. Street right of way geometry for Standard knuckles turns and corner cut -backs shall conform vvithh to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 32. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for f20-year life} pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: (or approved equivalents for alternate materials). Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. A. PARKING LOTS 1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. 2) The angle point of the 26-foot drive aisle located at the northwest corner of Parcel 1, shall have an inside turning radius satisfactory to the Fire Marshal, and/or sufficient to accommodate a standard dual axle 13.5-foot wheel base fire truck. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 33. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: PASTAMsp 98-034 am# 1 pe coampd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 10 of l i Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 A. Primary Entry (Jefferson Street, 320-foot S. of N. P/L): Left/Right turn in, Right turn out. B. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Street, 530-foot S. of N. NO: Right turn in, Right turn out. C. Primary Entry (Avenue 50, 610-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Left/Right turn in, Right turn out. D. Secondary Entry (Avenue 50, 400-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out. E. Secondary Entry (Avenue 50, 810-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out. F. Secondary Entry (Avenue 50, 930-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Shall be reserved for Emergency Vehicle, Right turn out, and shall have positive access control satisfactory to the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer. G. The access shown to the north, for the future residential tract shall remain. 34. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 35. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 36. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 37. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 38. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time I of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The P:\STAN\.sp 98-034 amg 1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 11 of 1 E Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 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. 39. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential tracts are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 40. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 & 140, LQMC. 41. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 42. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 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. 43. 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 long public streets. 44. Only incidental storm water will be permitted to be retained in landscape areas. PASTAN\sp 98-034 am# 1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 12 of l i Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 - _ _ 45. Landscaping shall be provided in the area in front of the Albertsons taekys/Sav-on building, as approved in the applicable Site Development Permit application. 46. Landscape berms adjacent to Jefferson Street along 20 foot landscape setback shall be provided per Zoning Code Section 9.100.040A7. PUBLIC SERVICES 47. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 48. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 49. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified erwti engineers, geotechnical engineets, surveyors, and such er other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate saffieienrt construction supervision. to be able to ftirmish and sign 8=drate record dravvings. 50. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, atd specifications and other applicable regulations. After tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized wWhere retention basins have been m-e constructed installed, testing shall include a 4 sand filter percolation tests, as approved by the City Engineer. .�. '•\STAN\sp 98-034 arng 1 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 13 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 51. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. 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 AutoCAD or raster - image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built eenstruct conditions. MAINTENANCE 52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160, LQMC. 53. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on -site required improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. unless and tintil expressly ieleased from said responsibility by the eity. acceptable to the 6ity for maintenance of retention basins, cornmen areas perimeter walls and landsea ` FEES AND DEPOSITS 54. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180, LOW. The applicant shall pay the Gity's established fees for plan checking and constructi inspection. Fee ametints shall be these in effect when the applicant make-S application for plan checking and permit,-t- 55. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth moving activities, applicant shall pay a fringe -toed lizard mitigation fee of $600.00 per acre to the City of La Quinta. WIIII -rum" 1W.MV1. -- - -- - -- :\STANV sp 98-034 am#t l pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 14 of 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 FIRE MARSHAL 56. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD Standard W-33 shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with the fire hydrants. 57. Applicant/developer will provide written certification from the appropriate water company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 58. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant/developer will furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location, and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 59. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 60. The drive aisle paving at the rear of Pad "A" and "B" shall be designed to handle a live load of 65,000 pounds over 2-axles. SIGNS 61. A separate sign program document shall be prepared, based upon the specific plan approval, with adequate detail provided to ensure compliance with applicable code requirements and design compatibility with the center. The document shall be P:\STAMsp 98-034 am# I pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page 15 of I E Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 Lundin Development Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended December 11, 2001 submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of the first building permit for the center. ENVIRONMENTAL 62. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit or any earth moving activities, whichever comes first, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Department demonstrating compliance with those mitigation measures of SP 98-034 and EA 98-375. MISCELLANEOUS 64. The approved Specific Plan text on file in the Community Development Department, shall be revised to incorporate in the appropriate chapter and section the all conditions and mitigation measures, with final texts (4) submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of final approval by the City Council, or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 65. A vehicle turnaround shall be provided north of the required emergency access located at the west end of the project on Avenue 50, to the satisfaction of the City. IASTAMsp 98-034 am41 pc coa.wpd Printed December 7, 2001 Page IG of 1G PH #E PH #F STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-433, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-082, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-066, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711 REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CERTAIN STANDARDS RELATING TO INTERSECTION SPACING IN THE GENERAL PLAN; SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 120,700 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE; AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE SUPERMARKET, BANK, AND DRUGSTORE BUILDINGS. LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET. APPLICANT: RLF DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA 2001-433) WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Bartlett. WPD BACKGROUND: Site Background The project site is located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. The project site is generally vacant, and is bordered by the All American Canal on the south, Jefferson Street on the west, Avenue 52 on the north, and vacant desert lands designated for low density residential units on the east (Attachment 1). The site is designated for Neighborhood Commercial on both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance maps. Project Request In addition to the Environmental Assessment, the following applications have been filed: 1. A General Plan Amendment to change the City's standards for intersection spacing on Major Arterials. The current standard is 2,600 feet for Major Arterials. The proposed General Plan Amendment would reduce this standard to 1,060 feet for commercial frontage on Major Arterials. 2. A Specific Plan to establish development standards and design guidelines for the construction of a neighborhood shopping center, including a supermarket with attached shops on each side, a drug store with drive -through, seven building pads (including drive throughs at Pad A, D and E, and the Coffee building), and a gasoline service station and car wash (Attachment 2). 3. A Conditional Use Permit for the gasoline service station use. 4. A Site Development Permit for the site plan and building elevations for the supermarket, drug store and bank (Pad D) buildings (Attachment 4). Separate Site Development Permits will be required for the service station, coffee building, and pads A, B, C, E and F. The Site Development Permit details the architectural style of the supermarket, drug store and bank buildings, and the types of materials which will be utilized. The variations to the City's zoning standards are discussed individually below. Project Description The proposed project would allow up to 120,700 square feet of retail commercial development on the project site. The proposed uses include a supermarket, attached small retail stores, a drugstore with drive -through, bank building with drive -through, gas station and car wash, two fast food restaurant pads with drive-throughs, a coffee store pad with drive -through, and three miscellaneous retail sites (pads B, C and F). G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Bartlett. WPD The architectural style of the proposed project is generally "Southwestern." The buildings are proposed to be stucco, with flat roofs and large pillars supporting a shaded walkway area. Access is proposed from both Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Two access points are proposed on Avenue 52; one at the mid -point of the property line allowing right -in, right -out and left -in movements, and one at the eastern property line allowing right -in, right -out and left -in movements. Three access points are proposed on Jefferson Street: The southerly access (next to Pad D) is proposed to be signalized, and provide full turn movements at a signalized intersection, if the General Plan Amendment described above is approved. The center access point, located next to Pad C, will allow right -in, right -out access only. The northerly access point, next to Pad B, will be right -in, right - out only. General Plan Amendment Analysis The City has received a number of requests for modification of its roadway standards regarding minimum separation between intersections. The current standard is 2,600 feet for Major Arterials, and 1,200 feet for Primary Arterials. The proposed General Plan Amendment would maintain the residential standard on Major Arterials at 2,600 feet, but reduce this standard to 1,060 feet for commercial frontage on Major Arterials. In order to analyze this potential change in General Plan standards, an analysis was commissioned( Attachment 5). The analysis found that the proposed change would generally not cause a hazard, although it should not be implemented at the following locations: 1. Washington Street from Highway 1 1 1 to Avenue 48. 2. Highway 1 1 1 west of Washington Street. 3. Washington Street from Country Club Drive to 1-10 (this area is now being considered for deletion from the Plan, but was in the original planning area). The analysis found that two issues are critical in assuring that the reductions proposed do not pose a hazard, or affect roadway capacity: 1. The ability of the City Engineer to review individual requests to assure safe operation and intersection requirements; and 2. That traffic signal operations in areas where minimum intersection spacing occurs on Major Arterials be interconnected and optimized, and intersection geometrics be determined based upon City level of service criteria. Assuming these items are implemented, the analysis found that the change in standard would not pose a public health and safety hazard, and would not impact roadway capacity. G:\WPDOCS\PC SO Rpt\Bartlett.WPD Further, the change is supported in the existing General Plan in Policy 3-1.1.1, Goal 3-2, Policy 3-2.1.9, Goal 3-3, Policies 3-3.1.1, 3-3.1.2 and 3-3.1.4, which all support the design of an efficient and safe roadway system. The General Plan also clearly allows for ongoing review and revision of standards, as new information becomes available, or conditions change in the City. The General Plan Amendment can therefore be found consistent with the adopted General Plan. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee: The ALRC reviewed the proposed landscaping and building elevations at their meeting of November 7, 2001, and recommended approval subject to conditions (Attachment 3). Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 30, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Site Development Permit can be made, as noted in the attached resolutions with the exception of: A. Specific Plan 1. Development Standards The Specific Plan includes a number of development standards and allowances which require modification. The following discussion addresses these issues chronologically in the document. Where necessary, a notation has been made regarding concurrent changes required of the Site Development Permit. Trash Enclosures The site plan and associated exhibits include the location of trash enclosures for all the proposed structures. These locations, however, are not convenient to the buildings which they serve, particularly in the case of the fuel station and coffee pad, pad F, C, G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Bartlett.WPD D and E, where trash must be taken either across traffic lanes or across parking lots. Further, no trash enclosure is shown for the supermarket. A condition of approval has been added for both the Specific Plan and the Site Development Permit which requires that the project be redesigned to provide trash enclosures adjacent to the structures which they serve, with the help of Waste Management of the Desert (SP Condition #81). Land Uses Permitted Page 7 of the Specific Plan, under Section 2.2, Land Use Summary, lists the permitted uses within the project. The uses listed in the second paragraph include both permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the zoning ordinance. The purpose of Conditional Use Permits is to analyze site -specific land use issues for uses which may not always be appropriate in all locations. By eliminating the need for a Conditional Use Permit for these uses, the City will not have the ability to review such issues if the uses are proposed in the future for the site. A condition of approval has been added which requires the deletion of the second paragraph, and its replacement with "uses as allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial district in the Development Code." (SP Condition #77) Landscape Design The Specific Plan states that the retention basin will be landscaped on its slopes only, and that it will be used as a commercial nursery (section 8.3 and 12), and could be converted to building space. None of these options is recommended. First, the site occurs in a high wind area, and must be stabilized. Second, retention basins cannot be filled with plants which will reduce or eliminate the water storage capacity for which they are designed. Finally, the area of the retention basin could allow for an additional 10,000 square feet of retail space, without the required added parking. A condition of approval has therefore been added which requires the redesign of the retention basin landscaping, to include some type of soil stabilization and to prohibit its use as a plant nursery, and the amendment of the text to eliminate references to either a commercial nursery or an additional building (SP Condition #80). Signage The Specific Plan does not provide sufficient detail to approve a master signage program. Further, the graphics provided show monument signage totalling 10 feet in height, while the text states that monument signs shall be 8 feet in height. The signage plan also shows two monument signs on Avenue 52, and two on Jefferson, which is twice as many as allowed under the Development Code, and does not appear necessary given the high degree of exposure of the site. A condition of approval has been added which requires submittal of a master signage program and individual sign permits. The condition further states that the project shall be required to conform to signage standards in the Development Code (SP Condition #82). r- G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Bartlett.WPD Section 6. Circulation Plan The Specific Plan includes extensive references to the City's golf cart route system. This system, although currently under review, has not been approved by the City Council. A condition of approval has been added which requires that this section be amended to eliminate all references to the golf cart circulation both on and off site, and to replace it with a statement that the project will conform to a golf cart route program if one is adopted in the future (SP Condition #83). Section 7.3, Parking Lot Lighting The lighting text in this section does not address the City's Development Code standards. A condition of approval has been added that requires all lighting within the project to meet City standards (SP Condition #85). Section 11.2. Parcel Plan The last sentence of this section states that the project can be reconfigured, as long as "major drive aisles are maintained." The same statement is made in Section 12.0, Adaptability. This provides too much latitude for redesign of the site without Planning Commission or City approval. Conditions of approval have been added which require the deletion of this language (SP Condition #87). B. Conditional Use Permit The Conditional Use Permit application is required under the code for gasoline service stations. As a potential land use on the site, the granting of the Conditional Use Permit appears warranted, insofar as the use will be buffered from residential development, is to be located at a major city intersection, and is compatible with the neighborhood commercial shopping center in which it is located. No site plan or architectural renderings have been submitted for the site, however, and a condition of approval is included which requires that a separate Site Development Permit be submitted once a tenant has been identified. C. Site Development Permit 1. Building Design The elevations for the drug store site propose a much less substantial structure and level of detail than the supermarket site. The covered walkway areas have been eliminated, and the pillars considerably reduced. It is recommended that all buildings on the site, particularly the drug store site as the second largest anchor, be designed to provide the same substantial structure as the supermarket building. A condition of approval has been added as recommended by the ALRC (SDP Condition #74). 17 �% G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Bartlett.WPD Also related to the drug store site is both the location of the entrance, and the inconsistencies in elevations. The site plan shows a corner entrance, which is typical of a Walgreens or Rite -Aide standard building. The architectural style that has been chosen for the center, however, relies on symmetrical design. It is recommended that the entrance to the building be squared, and that the same symmetrical design as has been applied to the supermarket building be applied to this one. A condition of approval has been added as recommended by the ALRC (SDP Condition #72). 2. Landscape Design The landscape plan is limited to Palo Verde, Mesquite and Acacia for trees, and a mix of drought tolerant shrubs and succulents for ground cover. Little turf appears to be proposed. The primary area of concern in the landscaping plan is the retention area, which is proposed to be landscaped only on the perimeter, leaving the slopes and bottom in vacant desert. A condition of approval has been added which requires the redesign of the retention basin landscaping, to include some type of soil stabilization (SDP Condition #73). CONCLUSION: The General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Development Permit, as conditioned, represent an appropriate use of the parcel on which they are proposed. The Specific Plan and Site Development Permit, as conditioned, are compatible with surrounding development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can be made. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 2001-433. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-082. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2001-054, subject to the findings and conditions. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-066, subject to the findings and conditions. 5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2001-71 1, subject to the findings and conditions. -� G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Bartlett.WPD Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan Document (Commission only) 3. ALRC Minutes for November 7, 2001 4. Elevations (Commission only) 5. Urban Crossroads letter Prepared by: Submitted by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager G:\WPDOCS\PC SO Rpt\Bartlett.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-082, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-066 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-433 APPLICANT: RLF DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 1 1 th day of December, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-433 for General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows: APN 760-290-005 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 2001-433) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 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 2001-433. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettEAReso-433.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-433 RLF Development Adopted: December 11, 2001 reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 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- 433 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettEAReso-433.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-433 RLF Development Adopted: December 11, 2001 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-433 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 2001-433 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11 th day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettEAReso-433.wpd 1 2. 3. as Environmental Checklist Form Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001- 054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066, Site Development Permit 2001-71 1. Pueblo Plaza Shopping Center. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125 Project Location: Southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: RLF Development 77043 Iroquois Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial 7. Zoning: Neighborhood 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.) General Plan Amendment to shorten the distance between signalized intersections on Major. Specific Plan to establish development standards and design guidelines for the construction of a neighborhood shopping center on 15.15 acres, including supermarket, drug store and seven ancillary pads. Conditional Use Permit for the location of a service station at the northwest corner of the property. Site Development Permit for the development plans of the supermarket, drug store and bank building. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Avenue 52, Low Density Residential South: All -American Canal, Low Density Residential West: Jefferson Street, Low Density Residential East: Low Density Residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable .1 4r_ G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared 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. Signature Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Date 0 V 1 0 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 2 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 P G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD I �t 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) II. 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) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X /:/ X X X X X 917 X ,WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 4 —' .t 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) J. 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? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological Associates, July 2001) 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)? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological Associates, July 2001) 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? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological Associates, July 2001) 71. 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: X X X X X X rm 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) X X X ,WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 5 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) 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? ("Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 7 Lot Residential Subdivision...," Sladden Engineering, August 2001) 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) JII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) 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) 'III. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ,WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 6 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) 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) C. 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) X X X X X X X U. 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 MEA, Exhibit 6- X 4, page 6-17) X X X 0 \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 7 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6- 4, page 6-17) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17) 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) (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) (111. 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. ) [IV. RECREATION: X X M X K/ P X X X X X 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? X (Application Materials) MPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 8 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) X XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) KVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) 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: X X X X X X X X X X X X X \WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 9 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (VIII EARLIER Analysis. X X X R. 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. )URCES: aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. 'AQMD CEQA Handbook. sneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. ty of La Quinta Municipal Code iltural Resources Assessment of a 15 Acre Parcel Located Southeast of the Intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52.... -chaeological Associates, July 2001. ,WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartletEACkIst.WPD 10 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-433 III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of motor vehicles. The 120,700 square feet of commercial development could generate approximately 5,180 trips per day'. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 133.79 5.15 27.44 -- 0.57 0.57 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 5,180 trips/day and average trip length of 5 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75*F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR. As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be significant. 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 PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit such a plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition." Rate calculated for shopping centers, at 42.92 trips per day. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartlettAdd.WPD 1 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. 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, or chemical stabilizer. 8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, and the retention basin landscaping shall be completed with the first phase of development. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 11 All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout will not be significant. V. b) A cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property2. The assessment found no surficial deposits, but identified the area as a high wind z " Cultural Resources Assessment of 15 Acre Property...,"" Archaeological Associates, July 2001. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartlettAdd.WPD 2 zone which can regularly cover or uncover artifacts. As a result, the report recommends the imposition of the following mitigation measure: 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on the project site. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site 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 of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking 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, and additional mitigation measures have been included in the Air Quality discussion above. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The development of the project site will require some domestic water, although as a commercial development the use of water on the site will be much less than residential development. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on - site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts associated with groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c)-d) 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 project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Specific Plan includes a provision for the use of the site's retention basin as a plant nursery. This use will significantly reduce the capacity of the 0 ,F G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartlettAdd.WPD 3 retention basin, will potentially negate the standards imposed by the City, and could pose a significant hazard to adjoining property in the event of a flooding hazard. In order to mitigate this impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. The retention basin shall be used for passive open space only, and shall not be utilized as a plant nursery at any time. XI. a) The current noise environment at the project site ranges from 50 to 60 dBA CNEL, with higher levels in areas close to both Avenue 52 and Jefferson. The proposed project will not be a sensitive receptor, but will be located next to future sensitive receptors to the east. The proposed project will generate noise from compactors, trash enclosures and other stationary sources, in addition to the traffic noise which will occur on -site. The proposed site plan shows that the loading docks, compactors and trash enclosures will be located closest to the residential lands to the east. This potentially could impact residential units to the east in the future. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: 1. An 8 foot wall shall be constructed along the entire length on the eastern property line. The wall shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits for any building on the site. 2. Any mechanical equipment located on the east side of the proposed market and Shops A and B shall be operated only from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 3. All deliveries occurring on the east side of the proposed market and Shops A and B shall occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No deliveries shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. No loudspeaker system (such as those operated for drive -through windows) shall be permitted at Pad F. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval, a noise analysis which demonstrates that the noise levels east of the property line shall meet City standards after construction of the supermarket building, Shops A and B, and Pad F. XI. c) Noise levels will also be affected by construction activities on the site. Should the residential development be occupied prior to, or during the construction of the shopping center, the residents could be adversely impacted by construction noise. In order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartlettAdd.WPD 4 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located as far as practical from adjacent, occupied residential units. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with noise at the subject property to a less than significant level. XIII. a) The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will generate property tax and sales taxes which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. XV. a) The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to schools. The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax will generate revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of municipal services. The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. The proposed project site is designated for neighborhood commercial development, and as such was analysed in the City's General Plan EIR. The potential impacts associated with traffic generation from the site have been addressed in that document, and incorporated into the City's roadway standards, which the proposed project will be required to implement. The City has also initiated an Impact Fee Program, designed to offset improvement costs on City roadways. The project will be required to participate in this program. These requirements will serve to reduce the potential impacts associated with traffic generation at the site to a less than significant level. XV. d) The proposed project includes the amendment of the City's General Plan to reduce the separation required on Major Arterials for intersection spacing. The current standard is 2,600 feet for Major Arterials. The proposed General Plap r- 1 i) G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartlettAdd.WPD 5 3 Amendment would reduce this standard to 1,060 feet for commercial frontage on Major Arterials. In order to analyze this potential change in General Plan standards, an analysis was commissioned'. The analysis found that the proposed change would not cause a hazard at the project location, although it should not be implemented along certain segments of Washington Street, and on Highway 1 1 1 west of Washington Street. At the project site, the standard is determined to be safe, assuming the following mitigation measure is implemented: Traffic signal operations in areas where minimum intersection spacing occurs on Major and Primary Arterials shall be interconnected and optimized, and intersection geometrics shall be determined based upon City level of service criteria. The implementation of this mitigation measure at the project site will reduce potential impacts associated with design features to a less than significant level. Letter dated November 30, 2001, John Kain of Urban Crossroads, Inc. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartlettAdd.WPD 6 LO 0 0 O O N 0 CO ti W 0 W) b 0 N L7oUocq 0 � A 0 O N F z O z a � A U W d F d A U� zA aU OU b w b v cl Q a Q Un a bA to O O O N c� z F 00 rA to U o 0.o �O o� �O aa.a raon z z w wx .� 0 z z cc �- �, ►. „ a ) W ObJo u U U U U A O F � o a v� vi o W F A U� zA Q a� �w Ox UV a o con a U. w a U i u W Cd vA Cs4 0 F � 0 U U �O a wz � a � o z~ Q oz UQ F Con U � En a ��a cz F cl m O O a E w F a U� ZA dW aU � W ox UV w o U � N a 0 a O U N O x w� �O 4° a w U a 0 F @ a. �7 W oWA �W o x a 3 r' 0 W F A U� zA aU OU U -d Q � a w CID U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U vi w U V U a a a a a a a ou b aio o 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 � a a ° ° o 0Q Q Q -o "o -0 U U U U Q m m PQ 0 O O Cs O Cd oo b a oi vWW� a 0 a 0 E iY A «3 0 O -114 y O � „ ;_.. � O � � Ll. � ice•, � � i CN w F+ G U� zA aU � W ox UU U o •U a O U N 'O a" x o� wz as �o a� w U O z O U cl cl N U •Y aW Q 0 bA to PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 APPLICANT: RLF DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11 th day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Specific Plan 2001-054, to allow a neighborhood commercial shopping center on 15 acres at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street; and WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-433) was prepared for Specific Plan 2001-054 and found that although the proposed project will have environmental impacts, all impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of Specific Plan 2001-054: 1. That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the parcel has been designated for Neighborhood Commercial on the Land Use Map. 2. This Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the commercial development will occur at a major intersection and will provide buffering to residential land uses to the east. 3. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project is to be located on land designated Neighborhood Commercial. 4. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSPRes.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #5 RLF Development Adopted: December 1, 2001 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 require compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the proposed Specific Plan; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-054) assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2001-054 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 1 1 th day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSPRes.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 1. Upon the City Council's conditional approval of this Specific Plan, the City Clerk shall prepare and record with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that the conditions of approval for the development of this property exist and are available for review at the City Hall. 2. The developer 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 Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Coachella Valley Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. & 13.24.170, La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Quality Resources Control Board's ("SWQRCB") Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that » G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Specific Plan. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC): 1. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2. Temporary Sediment Control. 3. Wind Erosion Control. 4. Tracking Control. 5. Non -Storm Water Management. 6. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 7. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 8. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMSER 11, 2001 9. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. Unless the ultimate developed right-of-way can be documented, the public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 120-foot ultimate developed right-of-way. 2. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 1 10-foot ultimate developed right- of-way. 11. Right-of-way geometry for property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 13. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the ROW-P/L. B. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the ROW-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Parcel Map. 3 t G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas shown on the Site Development Plan. 15. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access points shown on the Site Development Plan. 16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur. 17. Before the applicant may be permitted to vacate, or abandonment, any existing right-of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall submit a proposed alternate right-of-way or access easement to those properties, or shall submit notarized Betters of consent from all affected property owners; the final approval of which rests with the City. 18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Specific Plan and the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site improvements for this Specific Plan, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 19. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' D. On -Site Site Development Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal F. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal G. On -Site Lighting Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements; and show the existing street improvements out to at least the center line of the street adjacent to the site. "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. "Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 20. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040, LQMC. 21. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 3 G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 22. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 23. Prior to the conditional approval of this Specific Plan, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 24. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Specific Plan, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28, LQMC. 25. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments. 26. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any permits being issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3v G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 At the same time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for the security determination of the SIA, the applicant shall also submit one copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Parcel Map, along with one copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates for its own on and off -site improvements. Cost estimates for the security of telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements will not be required. Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by the City Council until the City has received confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service to all proposed buildings shown on the Site Development Plan. 27. When improvements are phased through an administrative approval (e.g., Phasing Plan, Site Development Permits, etc.), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of any permanent buildings in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The same submittal criteria shall apply to all subsequent phases as required for the first phase submittal. (E.g. detailed cost estimates, 8-1 /2" x 11 " reductions, etc.) 28. In the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, or other phasing method, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. r G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 7 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 GRADING 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 30. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 31. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on any final map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 32. 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. 33. The applicant shall minimize differences in elevation between the adjoining properties. DRAINAGE 34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-__ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 A. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water may be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 GP/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 g.p.d./1,000 sq. ft. Or nuisance water may be diverted to the landscaped areas. B. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. C. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. D. Pursuant to Section 13.24.120 (D), LQMC, the On -Site retention basin shall be sized to not only accommodate the on -site storm runoff, but also the tributary runoff from the adjacent streets. UTILITIES 35. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 36. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 37. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 38. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. 4 G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Off -Site Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access for Properties), LQMC. 40. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (T.M.) Plan in accordance with the City's T.M. Ordinance, Chapter 9.180, LQMC. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements found necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts of this development. 41. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 90- foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot, or alternatively provide a combination of a dedicated right turn deceleration lane and the drive throat that will equal a total of 90-feet. 42. 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. 43. Standard corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 44. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. 45. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option): Widen south side of street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from r; G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include: (a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk (b) 18-foot wide landscaped median from the roundabout to the east boundary of the Specific Plan The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction, and landscape median improvements, are eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. 2► Jefferson Street Applicant shall construct median openings and turn pockets to accommodate the turning movements authorized by these conditions of approval. 44. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" A.C./4.50" A.B. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5 "/6.50" or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. A. PARKING LOTS 1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-__ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 45. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Jefferson Street, 1 130 ± feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Left & Right turn in, Right turn out. B. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Street, 810 ± feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out. C. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Street, 490±feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out. D. Primary Entry (Avenue 52, 375 ±feet E. of the C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Left & Right turn in, Right turn out. E. Secondary Entry (Avenue 52, 635±feet E. of the C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out. This Secondary Entry shall be a shared access drive/road with the adjacent landowner and be centered on the easterly property line. The shared access drive/road layout shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In the event the adjacent landowner desires a security gate serving its property, the gate shall be located away from the property line sufficient distance with the following access road design features occurring on the adjacent landowners property: adequate stacking, a rejection turnaround feature, and a separate lane for guests. In the event the adjacent landowner does not reasonably cooperate with the applicant in assisting with the shared access drive/road requirement, the City may allow the applicant to implement an alternative design concept satisfactory to the City Engineer, including but not limited to, elimination of the shared access requirement. Nothing in this condition requires the adjacent landowner to pay for sufficient improvements to implement the shared access requirement in a manner that serves the development proposed by Specific Plan 01-054. However, reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. 46. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 47. [mprovements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 48. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 49. 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. 50. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential tracts are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 51. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscape Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. HN G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 52. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 53. 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. 54. 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 long public streets. 55. Although storm water retention in landscape setbacks are not expressly prohibited by the Municipal Code, Section 9.100.040(B)(7), seems to imply such in that only Iilncidental stormwater" is permitted to be retained in landscape areas. However, under the Subdivision and Regulations Section 13.24.130, ¶ 1, 3rd sentence, "[rletention basins" are permitted to be located within the Landscape Setbacks if approved by the City. PUBLIC SERVICES 56. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 58. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such Sr other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 59. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. After tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized where retention basins have been constructed, testing shall include sand filter percolation tests, as approved by the City Engineer. 60. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. 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 AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 61. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 62. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 64. 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. 65. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8-inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 66. Minimum fire flow 2500 GPM for a two hour duration. Fire flow is based on type VN construction and a complete fire sprinkler system. 67. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 68. All commercial buildings 5,000 square feet or larger shall be fully sprinkled. NFPA 23 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 69. Provide primary and secondary access for emergency vehicles. 70. An operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection. 71. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 72. 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. 73. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building. (Contact the Fire Department for an application.) 74. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 75. 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. GENERAL: 76 All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Site Development Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent shall submit amended documents within 30 days of City Council approval of the Specific Plan or prior to issuance of a grading plan, whichever occurs first. 77. The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, and shall be installed as part of the first phase of construction on the project site. Is G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 78. Page 6 of the Specific Plan shall be amended to reflect the turning movements allowed by the City Engineer on both Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. 77. The second paragraph of section 2.2 "Land Use Summary" shall be deleted, and replaced with the following sentence. "Land uses permitted within this Specific Plan are those uses allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial district in the Development Code." 78. Page 7 of the Specific Plan shall be amended to delete the asterisk allowing drive -through facilities at the gasoline service station. Drive-throughs shall be prohibited at the gasoline service station. 79. The last sentence on page 9 shall be deleted. 80. In section 4.3, Landscape Areas, Section 8.3 Retention, and Section 12.0, Adaptability, text and exhibits shall be modified to show a redesigned retention basin landscaping to include landscaping on the slopes and bottom of sufficient size and density to stabilize soils. The text shall eliminate all references to either a nursery or an additional building pad within the retention basin. 81. The project site plan (and all exhibits which use the site plan as a base map) shall be redesigned to provide trash enclosures adjacent to the building which they serve. The new site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to submittal of the final document after City Council approval. 82. No signage is approved as part of this approval. The project proponent shall submit a master signage program for Planning Commission review and approval. 83. All references to golf cart circulation shall be removed from the Specific Plan, including both text and exhibits. The text in section 6 shall be replaced with the following statement: "The project shall incorporate a golf cart circulation system, should such a system be adopted by the City in the future." 84. Section 6.4, Handicapped Accessibility, shall be amended to state that the project will meet City standards relating to ADA. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054 DECEMBER 11, 2001 85. Section 7.3, Parking Lot Lighting shall be amended to include the following sentence: "All lighting, including security lighting, on the project site shall conform to City standards. A lighting plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits." 86. The last two sentences of the paragraph under section 8.3, Retention, shall be deleted. 87. The last sentence of section 1 1.2, Parcel Plan, shall be deleted. 88. The last paragraph of Section 12.0, Adaptability, shall be deleted. 89. All mitigation measures associated with Environmental Assessment 2001-433 are hereby incorporated into this Specific Plan. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettSP-COA.wpd 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE STANDARDS IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN RELATING TO MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING ON MAJOR ARTERIALS FOR COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-082 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 th day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review a General Plan Amendment to change the minimum intersection spacing on Major Arterials for commercial frontage to 1,060 feet; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. Internal General Plan Consistency. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map would change the standards for Major Arterials that require minimum intersection spacing of 2,600 to 1,060 feet for commercial frontage. The proposed amendment was analyzed by a professional traffic engineer, and was determined to be a logical change in General Plan standards. The on -going review of standards in the Circulation Element is supported by the General Plan, as changing conditions warrant. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed amendment will not negatively impact public safety, insofar as the traffic engineer determined that the change will not affect roadway capacity. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the other standards of the Circulation Element, and provides the City with greater flexibility in developing a safe, comprehensive circulation system. 4. Property Suitability. The proposed amendment is city-wide. The City's roadway system and functional classification system support the change. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of the best methods to build out a safe and efficient roadway system, and this amendment continues to support that development. .4 Ja G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\Bart1ettGPA082.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- General Plan Amendment 2001-078 Adopted: December 11, 2001 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-433) assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 2001-082 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11 th day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\Bart1ettGPA082.wpd Q z_ 5 d a �I N I- C O O :3 a O N O co O N E 0-0 An L N EQ N E O c(�i CO cm-0 N C C a N O) vO EL < 0 U 4to E = co oCO o �> a- WW co a Y y� as ©LU g 0 o 0 ' 00 N y 0 00 CO yCMCh O N C i M m N CO M M CC W 7 E + O z a_ Q W a d> m ca Y O a)0 0 J 00 0 + .v CD N N >a M F N O M CC O N O 0Hocyi M m o z oc +a c0 >WW + G O•C i. U F- 0 M o wii N ag LO to C M v o> C•`) Q It O >- O CD O C M, Q< Z CD CD C C3 N a. W L N � >' c0 � Z W ©�' O 0 0 0 0 v= O ui� t U 0) O'a� O to W Q 0 [t CO v 0 0 N >• CD CV > U N f e— Q c0 CL C O cm j d J < CA a ) C: O of QW N N CL- O +1 N 00 ' w�- 0 O O N O O rnin 00 0 {� fi C N O V N U CU I — N qi O r c0 CO N a N c C^O a e N — O L > .O (M + C N 0 0 m @ -co ++ >•• rn N co; J CL' Q 0 +1U C CDC d O a a. 2 D E n c C cu o W o �n E vi c O t N CD 0 CO CC U O U > CL ` ni N •O r- It N O CO CO o CD N O CD > L m > N e- LL to .0 1 O > >� vv o U c a m CC Q) a U O � c O a+ 7 O N O O C U N c Cfi O _ y C Q +' m O y cY 3 U _ E N > cn E 1 >, U U-.., E N y O �O m U U E N E O y Q co CA N •c E co U o a'n c o Q a co +' c O_) cn O -0 U N CL O C O "O +� y t0 y y= CO N •n C M CO m U D N c C Y c0 c_ 41 .y cO L U � c c: O N O U N N 0 .O >y c0 —_ f0 L a O C N L O E O _O CV c0 C � (O •D L U � O F- `� N L L N y N CD c0 O aL C E U _ C a) C L 0r Y L O }' N +O- CV CEO co O +• N C9 N 4 ++ y ( O N a � N -cc c cn 0 c _ W O N N Qj L U N a-• O > -0 N O E c aU a� EE a n r C: +, E — E _ ++ CD C 'E X > L N > O E N c0 a`@+ X c0 -0 N > O O 7 U O d y L@ 0 N a L) N CD d L m @ E N Cm c O N y N a E O@ N '� c = N f0 O N E C *' Cu 0 0).- 0 co m cu •+, c > N N UO �, c0 �C U= C m E in a o O -0 ._ f6 ++ O N U L N > CO y 7 � U N cO 0).N .L .fl O W U U W:D> W N Cu a1 _ z PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-066 APPLICANT: RLF DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 th day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of RLF Development, to allow the construction of a gasoline service station at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street; and WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-8, in that Environmental Assessment 2001-433 was prepared; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for approval of said Conditional Use Permit. 1. The Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the proposed project furthers the City's General Plan goals for a full service community. The use is consistent with the goals and policies and intent of the General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2). 2. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that the project will conform to development standards and the standards included in Specific Plan 2001-054. 3. The proposed land use will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to, or incompatible with other land uses in that the project will integrate into the existing neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; P G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettCUPReso.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 to allow a gasoline service station of a portion of a 15 acre neighborhood commercial shopping center. 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-433) assessed the environmental concerns of this Conditional Use Permit. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this 11 th day of December, 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 J .I G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettCUPReso.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-058 RLF DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 5, 2001 1. 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 tentative map amendment or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. The development shall comply with Site Development Permit 2001-702, and all applicable Conditions of Approval. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettCUPReso.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF A SUPERMARKET, BANK AND DRUG STORE ON A PORTION OF A 15 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711 APPLICANT: RLF DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 th day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for RLF Development for review of a Site Development Permit to approve the development plans for a supermarket, bank and drugstore on a portion of a 15 acre shopping center at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APN's 760-290-005 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the City of La Quinta did, on the 7th day of November, 2001 recommend approval of the proposed project, by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-050, subject to conditions of approval; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and programs relating to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, and supports the development of a variety of retail uses within a Specific Plan. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with Specific Plan 2001-054, as conditioned, which establishes development standards for the project. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 4. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, complies with the architectural design standards for Specific Plan 2001-054, and implements the standards and guidelines included in that document. 5. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the landscaping standards in Specific Plan 2001-054 and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-71 1, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; and 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-433) assessed the environmental concerns of this Site Development Permit. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11 th day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711 RLF DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 6, 2001 1. The developer agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. & 13.24.170, La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Quality Resources Control Board's ("SWQRCB") Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five 15► acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC): 1. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2. Temporary Sediment Control. 3. Wind Erosion Control. 4. Tracking Control. 5. Non -Storm Water Management. 6. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. Unless the ultimate developed right-of-way can be documented, the public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 120-foot ultimate developed right-of-way. 2. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 1 10-foot ultimate developed right- of-way. 9. Right-of-way geometry for property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 10. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 11. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the ROW-P/L. B. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the ROW-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Parcel Map. A G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 12. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas shown on the Site Development Plan. 13. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access points shown on the Site Development Plan. 14. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur. 15. Before the applicant may be permitted to vacate, or abandonment, any existing right-of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall submit a proposed alternate right-of-way or access easement to those properties, or shall submit notarized letters of consent from all affected property owners; the final approval of which rests with the City. 16. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Site Development Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site improvements for this Site Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 17. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' D. On -Site Site Development Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal F. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal G. On -Site Lighting Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements; and show the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of Jefferson Street & Avenue 52. "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. "Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 18. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040, LQMC. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Site Development Permit 2001-711 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 19. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 20. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 21. Prior to the conditional approval of this Site Development Plan, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 22. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Site Development Permit, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28, LQMC. 23. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments. 24. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any permits being issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on and off -site improvements, including an estimate G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 8 r) / Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-711 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the same time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for the security determination of the SIA, the applicant shall also submit one copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Parcel Map, along with one copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates for its own on and off -site improvements. Cost estimates for the security of telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements will not be required. Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by the City Council until the City has received confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service to all proposed buildings shown on the Site Development Plan. 25. When improvements are phased through an administrative approval (e.g., Phasing Plan, Site Development Permits, etc.), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of any permanent buildings in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The same submittal criteria shall apply to all subsequent phases as required for the first phase submittal. (E.g. detailed cost estimates, 8-1 /2" x 11 " reductions, etc.) G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2001 Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 26. In the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, or other phasing method, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 28. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 29. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on any final map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 30. 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. 31. The applicant shall minimize differences in elevation between the adjoining properties. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-711 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 DRAINAGE 32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 33. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water may be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 GP/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 g.p.d./1,000 sq. ft. Or nuisance water may be diverted to the landscaped areas. 34. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 35. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 36. Pursuant to Section 13.24.120 (D), LQMC, the On -Site retention basin shall be sized to not only accommodate the on -site storm runoff, but also the tributary runoff from the adjacent streets. UTILITIES 37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 38. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 39. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 40. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Off -Site Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access for Properties), LQMC. 42. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (T.M.) Plan in accordance with the City's T.M. Ordinance, Chapter 9.180, LQMC. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements found necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts of this development. 43. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 90- foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot, or alternatively provide a combination of a dedicated right turn deceleration lane and the drive throat that will equal a total of 90 feet. 44. 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. 45. Standard corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 46. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. 47. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. C17 G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-711 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option): Widen south side of street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include: (a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk (b) 18-foot wide landscaped median from the roundabout to the east boundary of the Specific Plan The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction, and landscape median improvements, are eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. 2) Jefferson Street Applicant shall construct median openings and turn pockets to accommodate the turning movements authorized by these conditions of approval. 48. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" A.C./4.50" A.B. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5"/6.00" 5.5"/6.50" or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 65 G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-711 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 PARKING LOTS 1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 49. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Jefferson Street, 1 130 ± feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Left & Right turn in, Right turn out. B. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Street, 810 ± feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out. C. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Street, 490±feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out. D. Primary Entry (Avenue 52, 375±feet E. of the C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Left & Right turn in, Right turn out. E. Secondary Entry (Avenue 52, 635±feet E. of the C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out. F. This Secondary Entry shall be a shared access drive/road with the adjacent landowner and be centered on the easterly property line. The shared access drive/road layout shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In the event the adjacent landowner desires a security gate serving its property, the gate shall be located away from the property line sufficient distance with the following access road design features occurring on the adjacent landowners property: adequate stacking, a rejection turnaround feature, and a separate lane for guests. In the event the adjacent landowner does not reasonably cooperate with the applicant in assisting with the shared access drive/road requirement, the City may allow the applicant to implement an alternative design concept satisfactory to the City Engineer, including but not limited to, elimination of the shared access requirement. Nothing in this condition r� G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 requires the adjacent landowner to pay for sufficient improvements to implement the shared access requirement in a manner that serves the development proposed by Site Development Permit 0 1 -711. However, reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. 50. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 51. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 52. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 53. 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. 54. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential tracts are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. ,71 G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001 Site Development Permit 2001-711 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 LANDSCAPING 55. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscape Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 56. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 57. 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. 58. 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 long public streets. 59. Only incidental stormwater will be permitted to be retained in landscape areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right of way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. PUBLIC SERVICES 60. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 61. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 62. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such or other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-71 1 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 63. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. After tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized where retention basins have been constructed, testing shall include sand filter percolation tests, as approved by the City Engineer. 64. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. 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 AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 65. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 66. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 67. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. GENERAL: 68. 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 tentative map amendment or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. ki G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 17 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-711 RLF Development Adopted: December 5, 2001 69. No signage is approved as part of this approval. The project proponent shall submit a master signage program for Planning Commission approval. 70. Proposed buildings for the gas station site, or pads A, B, C, D, E or F shall be required to submit separate Site Development Permits. 71. All buildings on the site, and particularly the drug store building, shall be designed to include the covered walkways and heavy pillars proposed for the supermarket building. The design of the entire site shall demonstrate a consistent level of architectural detailing. 72. The entry of the drug store building shall be squared on the corner, and consistent with the supermarket building design. 73. The retention basin landscaping shall be redesigned to include landscaping on the slopes and bottom of sufficient size and density to stabilize soils. 74. The project site plan land all exhibits which use the site plan as a base map) shall be redesigned to provide trash enclosures adjacent to the building which they serve. The new site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to submittal of the final document after City Council approval. 7? G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\BartlettResoSDP.WPD 18 ATTACHMENT � OfHIIdHNNN� � aHffl#HHNHO Nflt"-fl" PHH�ffi 41, I I o© f ZS @nNgAV I ATTACHMENT #; Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 7, 2001 b. Condition #3: Landscape planters at the end stalls shall be no more than 15 feet in length. F. Site Development Permit 2001-71 1; a request of RLF Development for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of a supermarket and multiple ancillary buildings located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. 1. 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. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant would like to address the Committee. Mr. Tim Bartlett, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He corrected the staff report in that the material on the archway would be a racked stucco. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he liked the raked look and asked if it would be a different color. Mr. Bartlett stated yes to give it a wood look. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the distance between the columns and the store front. Mr. Bartlett stated 12 to 16 feet. They agree with the wrought iron detail as requested by staff. In regard to the drug store, there have an issue the store entry design as requested by staff. They would suggest squaring off the entry. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff what their objection was. Staff explained the center is a symmetrical design which does not lend itself to this design. Therefore, staff did not think this would blend in with the rest of the arcade. 5. Committee Member Cunningham stated there may be some issues on the overall architecture but he would not concentrate on one site. He believes that architecture done well works, therefore, he does not have a set standard for architecture he prefers for the City. This project is clean, contemporary and nothing should be added to it. 6. Committee Member Thorns stated he agreed that it should be kept simple. He would however, like to see the drugstore redesigned. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\Min 11-7-01.wpd 7 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 7, 2001 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the homes on the east and south would see. He agrees it does not need any architectural details added. In regard to the drugstore, it does need something, but you have to be careful not to interfere with the drive through and parking. 8. Mr. Dick Franz, developer of the site, asked if they could redesign the drugstore and bring it back. Discussion followed regarding design alternatives. 9. Committee Member Thorns asked that the island ends also be reduced to 15 feet. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/ Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-050 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-71 1, as revised: A. Conditions #2, #3 and #5: deleted. B. Condition #5: The entry of the drug store building shall be squared on the corner and consistent with the supermarket building design. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on December 5, 2001. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1:52 a.m. on November 7, 2001. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\Min 11-7-01.wpd 8 =C 05 2001 2:19PM URBRN CROSSRORDS,IMC. 949-660-1911 P.1 ti. November 30, 2001 ATTACHMENT # Ms. Nicole Criste TERRA NOVA PLANNING AND RESEARCH INC. 400 South Ferrell Drive, Suite B-205 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Subject, General Plan Policy Revisions, Major and Primary Arterials Dear Nicole: The purpose of this letter is to address the proposed changes to the City of La Quinta minimum intersection spacing standards along Major Arterials and Primary Arterials. On Major Arterials, the proposed change would allow a minimum intersection spacing of 1,060 feet for areas with commercial frontage. In addition, the minimum intersection spacing would be reduced to 500 feet at the White Water Channel and La Quinta Evacuation Channel. Urban Crossroads Inc. staff recommends that these proposed changes not be applied to the following locations where a new eight -lane roadway classification (labeled "Augmented Major") has been recommended: 1. Washington Street , Country Club Drive to the I-10 Freeway 2. Washington Street, Highway 111 to Avenue 48 3. Highway 111, west of Washington Street EC 05 2001 2:19PM URBAN CROSSRORDS,IMC. 949-660-1911 p.2 Ms. Nicole Cristo TERRANOVA PLANNING AND REASEARCH, INC. November 30, 2001 Page 2 Along these three roadway segments, the City of La Qulnta should make every effort to maintain a minimum intersection spacing of 2,600 feet. The new spacing standards for commercial frontage and locations at the White Water Channel and La Quints Evacuation Channel may be utilized where appropriate along the fallowing Major Arterials: 1. Washington Street, Country Club to Highway 111 2. Washington Street, Avenue 48 to Avenue 52 3. Jefferson Street, Country Club Drive to Avenue 54 4. Highway 111, Washington Street to Jefferson Street 5. Madison Street, Avenue 54 to Avenue 58 6. Harrison Street, Airport Boulevard to Avenue 64 7. Airport Boulevard, Puik Street to Grapefruit Boulevard (Highway 111) It is important to note that these are minimum intersection spacing standards, and actual intersection locations and geometric requirements are subject to review on a case -by -case basis by city staff. Adequate capacities will be maintained along these facilities as long as traffic signal operations are interconnected and optimized, and intersection geometrics are determined based upon City level of service criteria. On Primary Arterials, the minimum intersection spacing standard is proposed to be reduced from 1,200 feet to 1,060 feet. This change will not have measurable impact on the performance of the City's Primary Arterials. On the one hand, Primary Arterials are a significant part of the City's backbone circulation network. On the other hand, review of the City of La Quints General Plan Update Traffic Study (September 28, 2000) Indicates that the vast majority of Primary Arterials within the City limits operate well within capacity based upon long range future traffic projections. As noted above, intersection EC 05 2001 2:20PM URHHN CROSSRORDS,INC. 949-660-1911 p.3 Ms. Nicole Cristo TERRANOVA PLANNING AND REASEARCH, INC. November 30, 2001 Page 3 configurations and access proposals shall requlre City engineer review and approval. The interconnect of signals along key routes and provision of enhanced intersection geometries where necessary will maintain comparable capacities even with the changes in Intersection spacing standards discussed above. If you have any questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. John Kain, AICP Principal JK:pr 00497-01 Attachments B 1 #A DATE: CASE NO.: REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANTS: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 RIGHT OF WAY VACATIONS 2001-07, 2001-08, 2001-09, 2001-10 DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY VACATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PORTIONS OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO, CALLE AMIGO NEAR AVENUE 52, LOTS 16 AND 17 OF TRACT 2667, AND AVENUE 48 WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET KSL LAND CORPORATION, THE KEITH COMPANIES, BLAINE AND SUSAN GRIMES, LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION Pursuant to State law', street right of way or public easements being vacated by the City Council, the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the Planning Commission. Avenida Bermudas - (Street right of way)The land that includes the northern section of right way on Avenida Bermudas shown in Attachment 1 is being developed by KSL Land Corporation. This portion, specifically described in Attachment 2, will be part of the remote parking lot for the La Quinta Hotel. This section of right of way is not needed by other property for access or improved accessibility. Calle Amigo - (Street right of way)Due to the realignment of Avenue 52, as shown on Attachment 3, Calle Amigo contains a portion of right of way that is no longer required. This portion of right of way is specifically described in Attachment 4 and is not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility. Lots 16 and 17, Tract 2667 - (Public Utility Easement)Lots 16 and 17 were merged in 1992. As shown in Attachment 5, there is a 12' Public Utility Easement that runs east and west along the old lot line between the 2 lots. The easement is specifically described in Attachment 6. Since these lots are merged, the homeowner requests that the easement be vacated. Avenue 48 - (Street right of way)This portion of Avenue 48 right of way is located west of Washington north of the south boundary line of Section 30, Township 5 south, Range 7 east. In 1901 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors took action in response to a petition and acquired 60' of right of way along section lines in certain sections in the County. The 30' wide portion of right of way located south of the section line was previously vacated when Laguna De La Paz was developed. Government Code Section 65402 The La Quinta Arts Foundation is currently developing the land located on the north side of the section line that includes the 30' wide portion of right of way located north of the section line as shown on Attachment 7. The Arts Foundation is designing and implementing a street system that does not use the existing right of way along the section line, therefore; this 30' wide parcel of right of way is no longer needed and the Foundation requests that it be vacated. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: On December 6, 2001, staff mailed notices to potentially affected public agencies, informing them of the proposed vacations. If the utility companies respond with requests for easements to continue operation and maintenance of existing public utilities, a utility easement will be reserved, however, no negative comments are expected. FINDINGS: The proposed right of way vacations will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, because the street segments, 2001-07, 2001-08, 2001-09, and 2001-10 are currently unused by the public and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will have no physical environmental effect. 2. The proposed public utility easement vacation for lots 16 and 17 of Tract 2667 will not have no negative impacts due to the fact the common lot line has been eliminated by a lot merger and there are no existing utilities within this 12' public utility easement. The segments of right of way proposed for vacation meet the definition of a local residential street, which by definition is intended to provide access to abutting properties, with movement of traffic given secondary importance. These portions of the right of way are not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties, and are consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. 4. The right of way vacations will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2001-_ finding that right of way vacations 2001-07, 2001-08, 2001-09, and 2001-10 are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. !U� T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV00-07,08,09,10.WPD Prepared by: i HECTOR GUZMAN,'Assistant Engineer II Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager HG/hg Attachments: 1. - Vicinity Map 2. - Legal Description 3. - Vicinity Map 4. - Legal Description 5. - Tract Map 6. - Legal Description 7. - Vicinity Map �uv T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV00-07,08,09,10.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY VACATIONS OF A PORTION OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS, CALLE AMIGO, LOTS 16 AND 17, TRACT 2667, AND AVENUE 48 ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN CASE NO.: RIGHT OF WAY VACATIONS 2001-07, 2001-08, 2001-09, 2001-10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11 T" day of December, 2001, consider the request for right of way vacations of a portion of Avenida Bermudas, Calle Amigo, Lots 16 and 17, Tract 2667 and Avenue 48; and, WHEREAS, State Government Code Section 65402 requires that prior to streets being vacated by the City Council, the Planning Commission make a finding that the proposed right of way vacations are consistent with the City General Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings confirming that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City General Plan: 1. The proposed right of way vacations will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, because the street segments, 2001-07, 2001-08, 2001-09, and 2001-10 are currently unused by the public and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will have no physical environmental effect. 2. The proposed public utility easement vacation for lots 16 and 17 of Tract 2667 will not have no negative impacts due to the fact that the common lot line has been eliminated by a lot merger and there are no existing utilities within this 12' public utility easement. 3. The segments of right of way proposed for vacation meet the definition of a local residential street, which by definition is intended to provide access to abutting properties, with movement of traffic given secondary importance. These portions of the right of way are not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties, and are consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. 1�J4 T:\pwdept\staff\guzman\sv2001-7/10pc res.wpd Resolution 2001 _ Right of Way Vacations 2001-07, 2001-08, 2001-09, 2001-10 December 11, 2001 4. The right of way vacations will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does find the proposed Right of Way Vacations 2001-07, 2001-08, 2001-09, 2001-10 as shown on the attachment 1-7, are consistent with the City General Plan for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11T" day of December, 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 T:\pwdept\staff\guzman\sv2001-7/10pc res.wpd :7 XHIBIT " IENIDA BERMUDAS STREET VACATION i SCALE 1"=300' t CAI I� I� z W S. e}� i I I j I I I I CALLS TAMPICO _ I dIW dIN zp zAfit z E 7—PARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: Ha- �Lq &me IIS J. BER L.S. 88 AT . 12/31/0 ` m O as 6 79-799 OW Avenue 52 . La Quinla, CA 92253 D O K I C H Voke:760-771-4013 SCHULTZ FAX 760-771-4073 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS ATTACHMENT 1 NE CORNER SE 1 /4, NE 1 /4 SECTION 1, T. 6S., R. 6E. P.O.B. N 89'59'20" E 33.00' L Ltj N o N O � N Ib C14 coLD LL, QL T i"1 C4 CD 0 LQ 0 5 � 04 z z z N 89'59'20" E 33.00, a� �7T Pk-E0 1/4 CORNER g A SECTION 1 j z� d /� LANp s LEGEND �5 J. 6GAG ADJACENT LOT LINE �_ ® EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATE L.S. 6588 Exp. 12-31-03 tom. OF CALF -- ) 'J i11 AVENIDA BERMUDAS STREET VACATION CITY OF LA QUINTA i L\51328\MAPPING\BERM-VAC.DWG 2-22-2 E)MIBIT "A" AVENIDA BERMUDAS STREET VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT 2 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTH 89059'20" WEST, 33.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO AND 33.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 6, SOUTH 0000'40" EAST, 682.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89059'20" WEST, 33.00 FEET TO A POINT OF SAID WEST LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 00 00'40" WEST, 682.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: CHR"GH,588 D TEXP. cLAND\ F G L.S. 6588 Exp. 12-31-03 J'x 1 V CAL�F��?\ J 7 PAGE 1 OF 1 W513\28U.EGAMBERM VAC.doc 2/22/01 el 0 4 ATTACHMENT 3 CALLS w� / 25' w cn w AMIGO\ EXHIBIT "B" CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C1 01'28'03' 420.00' 10.76' I C2 04' 12' 1 S' 1145.00' 84.02' C3 0920'38` 775.00' 112.86' C4 23' 13'23" 450.00' 182.39' C5 2943'29 1200.00' 601.61' C6 93'25'01' 20.00' 32.61' C7 00' 15'06* 775.00' 3.40' N89'55'00'E 136.30' LOT 4 BLOCK 2 M B 19/75 �ib1^h, .Ile J�J P.O.B.- C3 C7 �•. 3 LOT 90 TR 28470-1 MB 263/76-90 , , , - , LOT A TR 28470-1 MB 263/76-90 SCALE 1" =40' 0 20 40 80 120 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION ) 0 7 PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: LAND he Keith Companies 111cc •865 Boardwalk, Suite 101, Pdm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-9844 KEQ No. 6687 3 ZJ D Exp. 06/30/04 DALE K LLEHER DATE: r LS 6687 EXP. 6-30-04 qrE OF Ca\.\F� • ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT "A" RIGHT OF WAY VACATION CALLE AMIGO A PORTION OF CALLE AMIGO, SHOWN AS LOT G OF DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT NO. 1 AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 19, PAGE 75, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT G, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY FROM WHERE A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 12005'44" WEST; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT G ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 775.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 112.86 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8020'38" TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND FROM POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 72019'51" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 420.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.76 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 028' 03"; THENCE SOUTH 67046' 11" EAST A DISTANCE OF 37.06 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT A OF TRACT 28470-1 AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 263, PAGES 76 THROUGH 90, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND FROM WHERE A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 26009'40" WEST; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1145.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 84.02 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4012' 15" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PORTION CONTAINS 1,686 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION BEING SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B" AND HEREBY BEING MADE A PART HEREOF. ��5l-LAND Page 1 of 1 0:\40702\40702016\survey\DESCLU BRIMDCBG IVE2. doc TKC # 40702.00.019 No. 6687 Exp. 06/30/04 Q S�glE OF CAA��\ P PA D UN THE SUPERVISION OF March 27 2001 A L H R DATE THE K ITH COMPANIES - PALM DESERT 760-346-9844 760-346-9368 ATTACHMENT o _�. _ N . .ti ti,, KJA a cz�._' All OV tit Lv _N64'0,ik3_3"W-G.6d' + wdD'65"00 "E_-J W_ Am w+ ATTACHMENT 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED PARCEL 1: That portion of Lot 16 of Tract No. 2667, as shown by map on file in Book 50, Pages 64 and 65, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California, described as follows: The 6.00 feet wide Public Utility Easement shown on said map affecting the Northerly 6.00 feet of said lot, excepting therefrom the Westerly 6.00 feet of said lot. PARCEL 2: That portion of Lot 17 of Tract No. 2667, as shown by map on file in Book 50, Pages 64 and 65, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California, described as follows: The 6.00 feet wide Public Utility Easement shown on said map affecting the Southerly 6.00 feet of said Lot, excepting therefrom the Westerly 6.00 feet of said lot. aw a1. 200 t 0 1 V 4AP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY, NO LIABILITY SUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 3T CCMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT -SPLIT ORAUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. ATTACH M E N1 IN I r 03 I 0 S F c v //�4E ASSESSOR'S MAP OK643 PG.09 , Riverside County, Calif. �' (�tG H JK/l Sent by: HACKER ENGINEERING 7602028267; 12/10/01 16:44; jgffaa #644;Page 1l1 r HAC 1 �t�0 R P 0 R b i f ER INGINIERING D December 10, 2001 W.O. # 001203 City of L3 Qulnta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico "Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Greg Trousdell Re: Tentative Tract 30092 Amended No.1 Dear Mr. Trousdell: iC i ��W DEC 1 1Y�' . PLANNING DEPAR T.Vr-� IT i We are writing to respectfully request on behalf of our client, Barton Properties, that Tentative Tract 30092, Amendment No. 1, be continued to the January 8, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, ram-^ r:). +V-, Michael D. Hacker, PE CEO cc: Steve Selinger (310) 826-3700 fax 1:%001203 Cant Planning Comm Request Ltr.dw "7 Hlgnwpy 111 s Sure 43 • Cathedral City, CA 922M • C760 202-1800 • F= (760) 202-8267 er0rle0r ft00kMr0up.0rg 12-10-01 16:44 RECEIVED FROM:7602028267 P.01