The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 01 22 PCT-,i-tT 4 4 Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JANUARY 22, 2002 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2001-013 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-001 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11. 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 January 8, 2002. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 0 Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001- 080, AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-103 Applicant .......... TD Desert Development Location ........... Bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60, and Madison Street. Also, also a portion of the area east Monroe Street between Avenue 59 and Avenue 61. Request ....... 1. A) Certification of an Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 232; 2. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1; 3 Change the land use designation from: A) Medium Residential, Medium High Residential, and Golf Course, Community Facilities and Commercial as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community Commercial; B) From Agriculture to Low Density Residential for the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1; 4. Change the zoning from: A) Riverside County designation Specific Plan as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community Commercial; B) From Agriculture to Low Density Residential and Golf Course Bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1. Action .............. Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- PC/AGENDA VII. B. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001- 083, AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-105 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055 "THE GATEWAY" Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Location ........... The southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. Request ............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment; General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Tourist Commercial; and review of development principles and design guidelines for Tourist Commercial uses including hotels, and retail related uses, and residential development including townhouses and single family residences. Action .............. Resolution 2002-_, Resolution 2002-, Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002-_ C. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-724 Applicant .......... Family YMCA of the Desert Location ............ 49-955 Park Avenue Request ............. Review of architectural plans for a 2,626 square foot addition to the YMCA La Quinta Preschool. Action ............... Resolution 2002- D. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-725 Applicant .......... Carlos Gomez for Von's Supermarket Location ............ 78-271 through 78-297 Highway 1 1 1, within Plaza La Quinta Request ............. Review of development plans to increase the size of the Von's Supermarket from 36,827 square feet to 47,198 square feet. Action ............... Resolution 2002- BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ............ Request ............. Action ............... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-723 Rancho Capistrano Development Corporation North of Avenue 54 and east of Jefferson Street, within Country Club of the Desert .Review of architectural and landscaping plans for three new casas prototype residential plans. Minute Motion 2002- PC/AGENDA VIII. }A X. B. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-726 Applicant .......... Mike Mendoza, Project Designer Location ............ 47-550 Via Montana, north of Via Florence, within Lake La Quinta Request ............. Compatibility review of architectural and landscaping plans for a single family residence Action ............... Resolution 2002- C. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-727 Applicant .......... La Quinta Jefferson Fifty, LLC Location ............ North of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson Street Request ............. Review of architectural plans for three new prototype residential plans. Action ............... Minute Motion 2002- CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of January 15, 2002 ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Abels who lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to reorganize the Agenda as follows: Public Hearing Items A, F, G, I, B, C, D, E, and H. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: B. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 11, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 12 be amended to show that he voted No and Commissioner Robbins voted Yes. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1 -8-02.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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 1.) Certification of an Environmental Impact Report as described below for the project; 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 the 62 villas; 3.) Zone Change 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 senior care residential project and two commercial buildings on the 43 + acre site; 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 (Point Happy Ranch) . 1. No action was required and none was taken. F. Code Compliance Case 3859; a request of Christopher Kiernan for an appeal of a Public Nuisance Notice regarding a halogen light on the south side of the property line, on the hill in front of a residential structure for the property located at 46-201 Washington Street (Point Happy Ranch). 1. No action was required and none was taken. G. Environmental Assessment 2001-431 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No 232 General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103; a request of T. D. Development for 11 Certification of an Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 232; 2) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1; 3) Change the land use designation from: A. Medium Residential, Medium High Residential, and Golf Course, Community G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 Facilities and Commercial as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community Commercial; B) From Agriculture to Low Density Residential for the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1; 4) Change the zoning from: A) Riverside County designation Specific Plan as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community Commercial; B. From Agriculture to Low Density Residential and Golf Course Bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1, for the property bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60, and Madison Street. Also, a portion of the area east of Monroe Street between Avenue 69 and Avenue 61. 1. Chairman Abels asked for a motion to continue to January 22, 2002. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to continue the applications to January 22, 2002. Unanimously approved. I. Environmental Assessment 2001-436, General Plan Amendment 2001- 083 and Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 - "The Gateway"; a request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for review of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Tourist Commercial and review of development standards and design guidelines for Tourist Commercial uses including hotels, and retail -related uses, and residential development including townhouses and single family residences for the property located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to continue this application to January 22, 2002. Unanimously approved. B. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2001-415 Tentative Tract Map G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 29963 and Street Name Change 2001-013; a request of Dr. & Mrs. Bruce Baumann for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; subdivision of approximately 9.1 acres into four single family and one street lot for the property located at the terminus of Kirk Court, north of Avenue 48. 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 which school district the land was within. Staff stated it was within the CVUSD. Commissioner Tyler asked the significance of the 50-foot easement lines shown around each lot. Commissioner Robbins clarified they were building setback lines. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked that the map be amended to remove the irrigation line hooking up to a sewer line. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers representing the applicant asked for clarification on Conditions #8 and #21. Kirk Court is current a public street and they intend to leave the right-of-way as it is; just the extension where it will be gated will be private. In regard to Condition #21, Security Agreements, they are building a full 28 feet on Kirk Court and will have no property adjoining Avenue 58 and they request this condition be removed. Same with Condition #22 which requires them to build full width improvements for Kirk Court and they would like it to read, "construct 28 foot width of pavement." Mr. Turner stated that in the future it will be 36 feet, they are proposing 28 feet to be built now to allow two way traffic and the rest of the improvements would be developed when the adjacent property owners develop their land. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated if this entire 20 acres were being developed they would all have to participate in the full cost of the improvements. Since only half is participating, the City is asking them to bond for their half now, so the funding is available when the street is built. With respect to Kirk Court, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 staff is asking for two lanes of travel, or 28 feet, and the balance of the improvements will be added when the remainder parcels are developed. In regard to Condition #22 staff is asking them to either fully construct or satisfy its obligation. Staff is not asking for full street improvements, but that the condition is fully satisfied. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if it was customary to ask the applicant to bond for 50% of the improvements on a street that is adjacent to. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated yes, they have a burden for 50% of the cost. The City needs security and there are different ways of accomplishing this other than bonding, such as a lien. Mr. Turner stated they volunteered to develop the 28 feet coming into the site because they are developing 75% of the street improvements for Kirk Court. This will leave eight feet of pavement, curb and gutter to be installed. They thought the adjacent five -acre property owners on Avenue 58 should bond or develop the remainder of the street improvements. They are building 28 feet of the ultimate 36 feet for Kirk Court. This is more than their 50% share. They are building more of Kirk Court which should be a trade off. If this was allowed they would also ask that Condition #42.A. be deleted. 6. Commissioner Robbins stated he disagreed with Mr. Turner in regard to the amount of the costs as they were not doing all the curb and gutter to the next developer. Mr. Turner stated they will grade it and all they will have to do is the curb and gutter. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked what portion of the 20 acre parcel was owned by Dr. Baumann. Mr. Turner stated only the rear ten acres. Commissioner Tyler asked about the right-of-way on Kirk Court and whether or not it was a private street. Mr. Turner stated Kirk Court is a public street and indicated on the map where they were intending to construct a gate creating a private street to serve the four parcels. 8. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no problem changing the condition to allow them only to construct the 28 feet, but agrees with staff in regard to the bonding. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 10. Commissioners Kirk, Butler, and Tyler agreed. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-001, recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-415, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-002, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29963, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-003 recommending to the City Council that a public hearing be held to consider Street Name Change 2001-013. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties for certification of an Environmental Assessment and subdivision of approximately 38.4 acres into 130 single family and other common lots located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe 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 Tyler asked if this was within the City's Sphere of Influence. Community Development Director Jerry Herman G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 clarified it was annexed into the City November 30, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked about the temporary designation for the CVWD lift station. Commissioner Robbins clarified till someone builds a sewer it will be used. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #2 regarding the expiration date. Staff stated it is two years from the date of the City Council approval and the condition could be removed. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition 50 regarding the City's new standard in regard to the Kvs for power poles. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is only the power lines that are attached to the 92 Kv power poles that are exempt, and therefore, it would be changed to 92 Kv. Commissioner Tyler asked about the multi -use trail as it did not appear to go anywhere. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City has envisioned a trail system that goes east and west to create a trail system leading to Lake Cahuilla which has a trail head. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #62 as to whether or not is was needed as it does not appear to allow sufficient stacking. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that since these are private streets staff anticipates that a future HOA will want to gate the entrance and staff wants to ensure the street entrance is sufficiently designed to accommodate a gate. Since the map and language have been redesigned, staff would suggest the condition be deleted. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #89 as to whether or not it would apply to the emergency access on Monroe Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated as the condition is currently written there would be a pedestrian access at the emergency access. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Hacker, Hacker Engineering representing the applicant, stated he concurred with the conditions with the exception of Condition #52.D, regarding the multi -use trail. It would be a maintenance item for the HOA. They would prefer to dedicate to the City so that when the dedication of the additional right-of-way from adjacent property owners was obtained, this could then be constructed. At this time they would prefer to landscape the area. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if they were willing to bond for it. Mr. Hacker asked what type of trail it would be. Commissioner Butler stated mostly equestrian. Mr. Hacker stated they accepted the condition as written. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5. Commissioner Robbins asked about the purpose of having a dry well on each lot, as most of them will never be maintained and why isn't the retention basin sized to handle the run off. Mr. Hacker stated the retention basin is large enough to handle the run off, this is a backup solution only. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated it appears to be the drainage plan of first resort by the way the lots are laid out. Mr. Hacker stated the dry well is an option and will only be installed if they do not meet the drainage requirements. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked staff if this was allowed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the 100 year storm needs to be retained in the retention basin. The City does allow them to retain their nuisance water in privately gated communities in alternate methods. If they are for nuisance water it is up to the applicant. If storm water, the retention basin needs to retain it. Mr. Hacker stated he concurred. 8. There being no further discussion, the public participation of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated his only concern was that it is just another straight line development. 10. Commissioner Butler asked if the stacking on Avenue 58 was enough. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated two car stacking is 50 feet and will be enough and went on to explain the traffic flow. 1 1 . There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-004, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-417, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-005, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092, Amendment #1, as amended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1 -8-02.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 A. Delete Condition #62. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1; a request of Warner Engineering for Lundin Development Company for an amendment to the text development standards and design guidelines and an amendment to the site plan design adjacent to Avenue 50 for a 100,500 square foot shopping center located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission had the authority to waive the requirement for the berming. Staff stated it is a Zoning Ordinance requirement but, under a Specific Plan the development standard can be modified. Commissioner Tyler asked if the right - out at the emergency gate on the westerly driveway not being included in the Specific Plan was an oversight or a reluctance of the applicant? Staff stated they did not know, but they are conditioned to install it. 3. Commissioner Butler asked about any alternatives to the berming. Staff stated the applicant's alternative is landscaping to provide the screening along with a wall next to the fast foot restaurants. Commissioner Butler asked if the berming was a safety factor for traffic on Jefferson Street or aesthetics. Staff stated it was aesthetics. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked for background on the use of setbacks for retention. Staff explained the reasons and gave examples. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had a recommendation on the number of accesses that should be allowed on Avenue 50, beyond the emergency access. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff has been scaling the distances between the driveways and it came to 109 feet which is rather short. As a result, staff added Condition #38.E. eliminating the one access on the west end of the site on Avenue 50. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering representing the applicant, asked that Condition #48 be amended to delete the first two words and add "...shall be landscaped." Mr. Ray Lopez, Landscape Architect for the project, gave a presentation on the landscaping. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had been having any problems with the Palo Verde trees being pruned incorrectly because storefronts were being obscured by the landscaping in other centers. Mr. Lopez stated he had not seen any disappear but the problems have been with maintenance people not knowing how to prune the trees. It becomes a code enforcement issue. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated the trees can be butchered to the point of nonexistence. Mr. Lopez stated this is a problem. Commissioner Tyler stated there was a statement in the Specific Plan that the trees would reach maturity within 20-30 years and the plans show within five to six year. Mr. Lopez stated when mature, the Acacia species will be 25-feet and depending upon maintenance, fertilization, and watering they can reach that height in ten years. 8. Commissioner Robbins stated the retention basin at the southeast corner near Jefferson the retention basin comes right up to the base of the sidewalk, then the sidewalk, and then out toward Jefferson Street there is a wide band of grass, is there any reason the sidewalk needs to be so close to the slope. It seems it could be moved closer to the street. Mr. Lopez stated that would not be a problem. In that area, there is a slight berm. It could be meandered and berm Commissioner Robbins asked staff if that would resolve the issue. Staff stated they would need to see the plans first. Mr. Lopez stated they could get 1-4 feet in height in that section along Jefferson Street and meander the walkway. 9. Mr. Herb Lundin, owner of the project, stated that in regard to the fifth driveway it is to serve the customers for the end shops and staff determined the driveways to be safe. With regard to the distance it is a safe distance, there is stacking and will be a lightly used driveway, and will be a right turn -in and out. It is also consistent with the General Plan. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 10. Commissioner Butler asked the location for the gas station and whether or not additional accesses would be needed. Mr. Smith stated it would be located on Pad E and they were not requesting any additional accesses to service the gas station. 11. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no objection to the retention basin in the setback area. He would suggest the sidewalk on Jefferson Street be moved, meandered and as much berming as possible. He does not have any real concerns in regard to the driveway. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated he has no issue with the berming in the setback area, but has a concern with the process and fairness. If it is a City Code to have consistency in regard to Major Arterials in regard to aesthetics, then the Zoning Code should be changed to reflect this. He has a strong objection to using a specific plan to get rid portions of the Zoning Code that are problematic. This is a good project using the specific plan process to alleviate itself of an annoying requirement in the Zoning Code and for that portion he is not supportive of the request. In regard to accesses, he believes they should limit the number, and only allow two accesses on Avenue 50 with an emergency access. 14. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with most of his statements, but also believes the applicant has addressed the issues raised by the Commission. He does not have any concern regarding the number accesses and would support their request for the third access, especially since the gas station would not be requesting any accesses. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with most of the issues as they have been addressed. As to the third driveway, if it is eliminated it will increase traffic on the other accesses causing a greater circulation problem. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-006 approving Specific Plan 98-034 Amendment #1, as amended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 A. Condition #38.E.: Secondary Entry into Parcel 2 Parking area (Avenue 50, 810-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out. B. Condition #48: Storm water will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The meandering public sidewalk adjacent to Pad "C" shall be moved closer to the street in order to allow up to three feet of berming, east of the adjacent retention basin. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-437, General Plan Amendment 2001- 081 Zone Change 2001-104 Specific Plan 90-016 Amendment #1 and Tentative Tract Map 30357; a request of the Toll Brothers, Inc. for approval of an Environmental Assessment; a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change 14 acres at the northeastern corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; a Specific Plan Amendment modifying standards and guidelines for the construction of 490 single family residence, 60 fractional ownership units, an 18 hole golf course and a 14 acre neighborhood shopping center; and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide portions of the project area into 178 residential lots, lots for future residential subdivision, casitas development, golf course, maintenance and clubhouse facility lots, and other lettered lots for streets and other facilities. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if additional buffering should be considered between this project and the equestrian uses on the northern portion of this project. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 3. Commissioner Kirk asked at what point was this area to be zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Staff stated that when the land use analysis was made for the General Plan, it was designated at that time. Commissioner Kirk asked why the golf course was not being required to use canal water. Staff stated it was conditioned to use canal water. The Specific Plan had not been edited to meet the conditions. Commissioner Kirk asked if living fences were being allowed in specific plans. Staff stated yes. 4. Commissioner Robbins stated the canal should be referenced as the Coachella Valley Canal in the Specific Plan. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned the number of accesses in the Specific Plan in proximity to the round -about at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Staff noted they were right in, right out accesses only. Commissioner Tyler pointed out some inconsistencies in the Specific Plan. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing Toll Bros., gave a presentation on the project. He stated his concern regarding Condition #8, and asked that it be amended to add, "with the exception of flag logs, irregular cul-de-sac lots, and lots fronting on curve streets." Condition #13, they agree with staff's recommendation and ask that it be amended to add, "the improvements to those areas shall be adjacent to residential or commercial development as they take place." On Condition #19, they would like to request clarification on the lateral location. Condition #20 add, "....use as a primary source....". Condition #26, delete any reference to the tunnel. Condition #44.E., they are requesting to use a "100 scale plan" and last paragraph changed to read, "to allow perimeter walls not to be required on rough grading plan mandatorily." Condition #57, rather than keeping the pads within one foot, leave them where they are in natural grade and create slope banks on their property to deal with the impacts as well as the perimeter walls. Condition #71, they are requesting to use 20 scale plans. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant would object to having a condition that the golf course conform to City's Landscape Ordinance as far as water usage. Mr. Haag stated yes; it would be the first in the Valley. This is a flat -land golf course which makes it more difficult. Discussion followed regarding different golf courses. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 8. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Robert Cunnard, 80-225 Avenue 50, stated he was the landowner adjacent to the project on the west side. His concern was the existing 20-foot easement that runs the length of his property; what happens to this easement? Which side will the wall be on? Also, what will happen to the water standpipe that services his property? Will Avenue 50 be widened only in front of this site or will the entire length be widened? How will the dust be controlled during the grading? Mr. Forest Haag stated the easement is owned by Toll Bros and will probably go away. Mr. Cunnard stated it also serves the back part of his property. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the easement was part of the Kanlian property and is now part of the Toll Bros property and will go away with the development of the site. 9. Mr. Wells Marvin, 79-258 Cetrino, owns lot two at the Polo Estates, stated his concern was with the height of the houses to be constructed as it is not clear in the Specific Plan. He would like a limit of 20 feet. The Polo Estates houses cannot build above 18- feet. Also, the height of living fence. If it is placed at the level of the top of the canal it will block their view. If that fence is put at the bottom of the slope it will have no additional impact. He is also concerned about the vacant pads and suggested they be sodded and kept green or landscaped in some way to control the dust. Another concern is that there will be no maintenance facility built within a reasonable period of time. The street improvements need to be done on a time frame that is within 1-3 years of construction. Finally, there should be at least a golf cart entrance to the Neighborhood Commercial site. 10. Mr. Jack Kalvin, La Quinta Polo Estates, asked for a definition of a living fence. He would like to note he is opposed to a living fence and if it should be built, it should be below the canal height to not obscure their view. There needs to be a control on any berming heights. Is it possible for the Homeowners' Association to receive more defined plans. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the plans are always available at City Hall for review. Mr. Kalvin asked if the houses would be constructed at the height of the canal height. Staff stated there are no house plans to review at this time. Another public hearing would be held when the tract is mapped and building elevations were available. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 11. Mr. Dan Hammonds, 50-325 Vista Montana, La Quinta Polo Estates, stated he was concerned with the house heights adjacent to his property. 12. Mr. Jay Baden, 47-415 Via Cordova, stated he purchased property at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street and is glad to have the golf course, but believes there is enough commercial at this location without allowing the rezoning of this site. 13. Mr. Wells Marvin stated the grading is before the Commission at this time. There is an existing grade now and if they are allowed to raise that grade it can obstruct their view. It should not be allowed to go higher than one foot. 14. Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, engineers for the project, stated that where they are adjacent to La Quinta Polo Estates they are within one foot of the existing pad elevation for the adjacent lots. The grades for future development are shown on the tentative map. If they are to maintain retention requirements they will need more than one foot. The existing ground along their entire eastern border varies by only one foot. To get proper drainage on streets you cannot stay within one foot for the entire easterly boundary. They are staying within a couple feet and that is what they are proposing. In regard to the irrigation lateral, this line will be relocated and will continue to supply the irrigation water to the existing lots as it does now. 15. Commissioner Kirk asked that the grade elevations on the eastern boundary be explained. Mr. Bergh stated the pads are about 26- feet. Discussion followed regarding elevations and heights of the houses. Mr. Haag stated the building heights are limited to 28- feet. 16. Commissioner Kirk asked about a maintenance facility. Mr. Haag noted it is located on Lot 90. It will be built in conjunction with the golf course development. 17. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 15 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 18. Commissioner Tyler stated he too was not in favor of a living fence and suggested there be an eight foot wall height on the northern property line for a buffer from the equestrian uses. Once the site is graded, there should be some sort of permanent dust control provided. 19. Commissioner Kirk stated that in regard to the grade differential, he would suggest the eastern boundary be conditioned to keep the grade within two feet of the native grade. With respect to the living fence, he asked if it is a fence with a vine, or a hedge. Mr. Haag stated it would be a six foot chain length fence with a plant that would grow on it. The proposed fence would be at the bottom of the grade. Commissioner Kirk stated he had concerns about sodding the lots due to the water usage, but there should be a soil stabilizer. Also, what is staff's recommendation in regard to timing the development. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it will be bonded for all the off -site improvements with the first phase of the map. The City does not release the bonds until the first phase map is completed. The City does allow that to be extended for a period of time if needed. 20. Commissioner Robbins stated he agreed that there needs to be dust control measures and the project is conditioned to do so. The berm is another issue. In some places where there will be a wall it will be six feet higher than the top of the existing road and it is unavoidable. In regard to the water, he believes there is a way to have a grass golf course that can meet the Landscape Ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the Landscape Ordinance in relation to a golf course. 21. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission should not consider lowering the height of the houses from 28-feet. Consultant Planner Nicole Criste suggested the houses along the eastern boundary be limited to 18 feet. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-007 recommending adoption of Environmental Assessment 2001-437. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 16 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-008 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-081, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-009 recommending approval of Zone Change 2001-104, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-009 recommending approval of Specific Plan 90-016, Amendment #1, as submitted. A. Condition #4: "All references to the landscape buffer at the northern boundary of the commercial shopping center site shall be changed to 50 feet if adjacent to residential." B. Condition #8: add, "...except flag lots, irregular cul-de-sacs, and curvilinear streets." C. Condition #12: "Item C., page 3.15 shall be amended to reflect 6 foot walls in all residential areas, and 8 foot walls for commercial areas and for the property line adjacent to the lots on Avenue 50." D. Condition #13: "The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to completion of precise grading plan on any portion of the site, and shall include phasing plan for installation of perimeter landscaping." E. Condition #14: "The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to completion of precise grading plan on any portion of the site, and shall include phasing plan for installation of perimeter landscaping." F. Condition #16: "The Specific Plan Site Plan shall include a pedestrian, golf cart, and bicycle access between the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 17 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 residential/golf portion of the site, and the neighborhood commercial portion of the site." G. Condition #18: "The golf course landscaping shall conform to the City's water conserving landscape ordinance. Prior to City Council hearing, the applicant shall prepare the calculations to determine whether the golf course design conforms to the City's water conserving landscaping ordinance. Should the calculations show that the golf course cannot conform to this standard, the City Council shall consider eliminating this condition." H. Condition #24: Water from the Coachella Canal shall be used as the primary source for irrigation of golf course and greenbelts within the project area. I. Condition #27: Change to CVUSD J. Condition #30: "The applicant shall block off the existing golf cart tunnel crossing under Jefferson Street in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer." K. Condition #48.E.: "100 scale". L. Condition #62: "The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. The overall site grading adjacent to the Canal shall not exceed two feet from natural grading, and shall not exceed more than one foot over the entire length of the site." M. Condition #74.A.(c): Traffic signal at the projects main entry on Avenue 50 when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal if complementing cost share from development on other side of street is available at time signal is required. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject intersection, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the signalization for the resulting "T" intersection. If, however, the applicant's development trails the progress of the development on the other side of the street, the applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the cost as previously stated. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1 -8-02.wpd 18 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-010 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30357, as submitted. A. Condition #3: Change to CVUSD B. Condition #6: Change to read, "The applicant shall block off the existing golf cart tunnel crossing under Jefferson Street in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer." C. Condition #24.E.: Change to 100 feet. D. Condition #38: "The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. The overall site grading adjacent to the Canal shall not exceed two feet from natural grading, and shall not exceed more than one foot over the entire length of the site." E. Condition #50.A.(c): Traffic signal at the projects main entry on Avenue 50 when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal if complementing cost share from development on other side of street is available at time signal is required. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject intersection, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the signalization for the resulting "T" intersection. If, however, the applicant's development trails the progress of the development on the other side of the street, the applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the cost as previously stated. F. Add Condition #90: "Any residential lot occurring within 300-feet of existing equestrian or agricultural land uses at the time of subdivision of that lot, shall be deed restricted to require notification by the seller to the purchaser of the lot that the lot is located within 300-feet of an existing equestrian or agricultural land use." G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 19 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 G. Add Condition #91: "The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to completion of precise grading plan on any portion of the site, and shall include phasing plan for installation of perimeter landscaping." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. H. Site Development Permit 2001-722; a request of Wayne Price, Price's Nursery and Supply, Inc. for review of development plans for a 3,600 square foot equipment storage building and convert a mobile home residence into an office for the property located at 80-420 Avenue 52. 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 Robbins asked about the Fire Department conditions to provide fire flow that are being required and there is no domestic water to the site. How is the applicant going to comply with these conditions. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chuck McBride, architect for the project, stated the water line proposed for Avenue 52 is on hold. The Fire Marshal was asked how they could achieve this if there was no water line on Avenue 52 as it would be cost prohibitive for the applicant to supply it. The alternate was suggested that a temporary supply could be taken from the canal, set up a pump and when the water was available on Avenue 52 they would then connect. This they could meet under a temporary condition. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1 -8-02.wpd 20 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-012 approving Site Development Permit 2002-012, as corrected. A. Conditions #10, #12, #13 and #22: Delete B. Condition #14.A. Delete everything after "...ADA requirements". C. Condition #24.A.: Revise to read, "Primary Entry (Avenue 52: Left and Right turn in, Right turn out." D. Condition #24.B.: Revise to read, "Secondary Entry (Avenue 52 at Wst P/Q: Right turn in, Right turn out." E. Condition #36 & #37 combined and add, "...or other means acceptable to the Fire Department pursuant to any approvals necessary from CVWD." F. Condition #38: Delete. G. Conditions #39, #42 & #43: Deleted. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: H. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of January 3, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held January 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. on January 8, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1 -8-02.wpd 21 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431, ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH # 9164450613), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-080, ZONE CHANGE 2001-103 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431 AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH # 9164450613) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 218; PRE -ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS FOR: 1) 173.5 ACRES CURRENTLY DESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER SPECIFIC PLAN 218 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 74.9 ACRES OF MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE ON LAND DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN (133.3 ACRES), AND 14.2 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND UNDER THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, OF WHICH 10 ACRES WILL BE DESIGNATED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, AND 4.2 ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2) 420 ACRES CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AGRICULTURE UNDER THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION: BOUNDED BY AVENUE 58 ON THE NORTH, AVENUE 60 ON THE SOUTH, MADISON STREET ON THE WEST AND MONROE STREET ON THE EAST, AND THE EAST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, GENERALLY SOUTH OF AVENUE 59 (EXTENDED) TO AVENUE 61, GENERALLY A DISTANCE OF ONE HALF MILE AT AVENUE 59 (EXTENDED) AND A DISTANCE OF ONE QUARTER MILE TO AVENUE 61 APPLICANT: T D DEVELOPMENT G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\TDDesert.WPD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: 1) AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 232 (SCH # 9164450613) WAS PREPARED FOR THAT PORTION OF THE ANNEXATION AREA WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN 218, AMENDMENT #1, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATION OF THE ADDENDUM. 2) AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA 2001-431) WAS PREPARED FOR THAT PORTION OF THE ANNEXATION AREA OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN 218, AMENDMENT #1, 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 DESIGNATIONS: CURRENT (COUNTY): SPECIFIC PLAN 218, AGRICULTURE PROPOSED: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND: The property being considered includes a portion of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, totaling 396 acres, and additional lands outside the Specific Plan boundary totaling 420 acres. The land is currently either vacant or in agriculture. The applications being considered are necessary prior to annexation into the City. PROJECT REQUEST: The applications under consideration include: 1. An Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 232 (SCH # 9164450613), certified by the County of Riverside for Specific Plan 218, to consider the environmental impacts associated with annexation of 396 acres into the City of La Quinta. 2. An Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-431) to consider the environmental impacts associated with annexation of 420 acres outside the Specific Plan boundaries into the City of La Quinta. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\TDDesert.WPC 3. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change 173.5 acres of currently designated Medium Density Residential land to Low Density Residential; 74.9 acres of Medium -High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; 133.3 acres of Open Space to Golf Course; 10 acres of Commercial to Community Commercial; 4.2 acres of Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial; and 420 acres of Agriculture to Low Density Residential. All these changes are required as part of the annexation process by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The land uses proposed for the Specific Plan property are equivalent to those which the Specific Plan allows. Under the County Medium Density Residential land use category, 2 to 5 units are allowed. The City's Low Density Residential category allows 0 to 4 units per acre. The development planned within the Low Density Residential areas will not exceed 4 units per acre. The land uses proposed within the Medium High Density Residential under the Specific Plan were planned not to exceed 8 units per acre. This density is consistent with The City's Medium Density Residential land use designation. The land uses requested are therefore consistent, and represent an extension of the land use pattern in the City. In addition to the lands within the Specific Plan boundary, the City proposes to annex a total of 420 acres which are adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan is of an irregular shape, and these lands represent the balance of the property between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, Monroe and Madison Streets. The lands are currently designated Agriculture under the County General Plan. As part of the City, however, they would be designated Low Density Residential, which is a logical extension for lands which are adjacent to an approved mixed use project. These lands will continue in agriculture until such time as the land owners choose to develop the properties. The Low Density Residential land use category is consistent with the properties within the Specific Plan, as well as properties immediately north of Avenue 58, which are already within the City limits and also similarly designated and developed. Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 22, 2002. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\TDDesert.WPD CONCLUSION: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change represent a continuation of the development pattern in the City. The findings required to adopt the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change can be made, and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-, recommending to the City Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 2001-431. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-, recommending to the City Council certification of the Addendum to EIR No. 232. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-080. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-103. Attachments: 1. Location Map Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\TDDesert.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #232 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-080, ZONE CHANGE 2001-103, PRE - ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING OF A PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 218 CASE: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #232 APPLICANT: T D DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 8th of January 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 for General Plan Amendment 2001- 080, Zone Change 2001-103 for the pre -annexation designation of a portion of Specific Plan 218 located east of Madison Street, north of Avenue 60, south of Avenue 58 and west of Monroe; and the east side of Monroe Street, between Avenue 59 and Avenue 61; and more particularly described as follows: APNs 764-180-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 764-190-01 1, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 764-200-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -007, 764-210-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 764-240-002, -003, -004, -005, 764-290-001 and -002 WHEREAS, said Addendum has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the addendum and included in the Conditions of Approval; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Addendum: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by the Addendum. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TDDesEIRAdd.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002 TD Desert Development Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 Adopted: January 22, 2002 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Addendum. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 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 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 and the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 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\TDDesEIRAdd.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- TD Desert Development Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 Adopted: January 22, 2002 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Addendum. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Addendum text on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of January 2002, 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\TDDesEIRAdd.wpd ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #232 (SCHEDULE #9164450613) (CEOA GUIDELINE 15164) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-080 A ZONE CHANGE 2001-103 FOR PRE -ANNEXATION APPLICATION FOR A PORTION OF THE CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN, NO. 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TDDesEIRAdd.WPD The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 ("EIR") that the County of Riverside certified in 1999 for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, SP 218, Amendment #1. The purpose of this Addendum is to document the annexation of the project to the City of La Quinta, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals: General Plan Amendment 2001-80 and Zone Change 2001-103 These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures included in EIR 232 and AEIR 232 are incorporated into this document by this reference. It is assumed for purposes of this analysis, that all the mitigation measures required within Riverside County's jurisdiction would also be required by the City. The Revised Project consists of 396 acres of the total 1,280 acres included in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan SP/EIR 218, Amendment #1. The Revised Project will result in the annexation of the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area into the City of La Quinta. The City has determined that the proposed residential development will be consistent with the density and character of the adjacent residential development, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1, as approved by the County in 1999. The Revised Project does not propose any change to the land uses proposed in Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1. Only annexation of the site, and associated pre - annexation land use and zoning designations, are being considered at this time. The Specific Plan allows 9 holes of golf, a driving range, a clubhouse, up to 1,066 residential units on 248 acres, and 14 acres of commercial land. The approvals requested as part of the annexation request are: 1) General Plan Amendment to change the designation on 173.5 acres currently designated Medium Density Residential under the Specific Plan to Low Density Residential, 74.9 acres of Medium -High Density Residential in the Specific Plan to Medium Density Residential, Golf Course on land designated Open Space in the Specific Plan (133.3 acres), and 14.2 acres of Commercial designated land under the Specific Plan to Community Commercial, of which 10 acres will be designated Community Commercial, and 4.2 acres Neighborhood Commercial; 2) Zone Change to change the designation on 173.5 acres currently designated Medium Density Residential under the Specific Plan to Low Density Residential, 74.9 acres of Medium -High Density Residential in the Specific Plan to Medium Density Residential , Golf Course on land designated Open Space in the Specific Plan (133.3 acres, and 14.2 acres of Commercial designated land under the G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TDDesEIRAdd.WPD Specific Plan to Community Commercial, of which 10 acres will be designated Community Commercial, and 4.2 acres Neighborhood Commercial pursuant to the Land Use Plan in Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1. The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the EIR and finds as follows: Aesthetics - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the proposed land will not result in any change in the buildout of the property. The residential units, golf clubhouse and potential commercial development are consistent with those currently permitted and constructed under the City's General Plan. The proposed height, mass and architectural style of buildings within the annexation area is of substantially the same character as those existing in the City and encouraged in the General Plan. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no impact on hazardous materials; the residents of the proposed project will participate in the City's household hazardous waste disposal programs; commercial operations will be overseen by City and County agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous waste. Public Services - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation of the property will be served by Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Department staff, under the City's service contracts. The contract costs may increase for the City, but these costs will be offset by revenues generated by property tax and sales tax at the site and from the residents. School fees will be paid regardless of which jurisdiction is responsible for construction of the project. Parks will be constructed within the Specific Plan, and golf course lands will surround the homes. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TDDesEIRAdd.WPD Agriculture Resources - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. The development of the approved Specific Plan will result in a loss of lands designated as Prime Farmland in the County General Plan. The annexation of the property will not change the previously analyzed impacts to agriculture. Air Quality - Impacts identical to those previously analyzed. The annexation action will not have any impact on the air quality of the area. The project will remain the same as was analyzed in the EIR, with identical mitigation measures required. Hydrology and Water Quality - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. The City requires the implementation of both NPDES standards and 100 year storm retention in proposed project construction. Such standards will be imposed for the proposed project, when construction occurs after annexation. These measures are designed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Land Use Planning - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The construction of the project under the City's jurisdiction is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City General Plan and the Specific Plan, as amended, and continues the development pattern established in the General Plan. The annexation represents a logical extension of urbanization for the City. Recreation - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the project will not affect the parks and golf course planned for ultimate buildout of the proposed project. These facilities will be provided on - site, and will offset the need for such facilities created by future development. Transportation/Traffic - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation of this portion of the Specific Plan will not have an impact on traffic generation. The ultimate construction of the project will result in identical impacts to those described in the EIR, for which mitigation measures have been included. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TDDesEIRAcd.WPD Biological Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no direct impact on biological resources. Additional surveys are required in EIR 232 to ensure that no sensitive species occur on the site, or that impacts are mitigated if they do occur. These surveys will also be required by the City. Cultural Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the project site will have no impact on cultural resources. The buildout of the proposed project was analyzed in the EIR, and mitigation measures included. These will be implemented by the City. Geology and Soils - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The impacts of development of the proposed project were analysed in the EIR, and will not change from that analysis. Mitigation measures included in the EIR will be implemented by the City through the development process. Mineral Resources - Not applicable. Noise - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will not impact the noise environment at the project site. The buildout of the project, as analyzed in the EIR, included mitigation measures which will be implemented by the City. Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation will have no impact on utilities and service systems. The buildout of the proposed project was analyzed in the EIR for the proposed project, and mitigation measures included. These will be implemented by the City. Population and Housing - Impacts identical to those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no impact on population and housing. The number of units proposed under the County's approved Specific Plan will be the same under the City's jurisdiction. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TDDesEIRAdd.WPD The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: 1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EIR which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR; or 3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TDDesEIRAdd.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431 PREPARED FOR A PORTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001- 080, CHANGE OF ZONE 2001-103 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431 APPLICANT: T D DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of January 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-431 for General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 for pre -annexation designation of lands bounded by Avenue 58, Madison Street, Avenue 60 and extending approximately one half mile east of Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs 761-210-002 through -007, 761-2001, -003, -005 -006 and -007, 761-180-001 through -006, 761-190-002 through -007, 761-330-003, -004, -005 and -013 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 2001-431) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 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 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 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 2001-431. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TDDesEA.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2001-431 TD Desert Development Adopted: January 22, 2002 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of 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 project 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 project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001- 431 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\TDDesEA.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2001-431 TD Desert Development Adopted: January 22, 2002 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 2001-431 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 2001-431 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of January 2002, 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\TDDesEA.wpd Environmental Checklist Form Environmental Assessment 2001-431 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103, Pre - Annexation land use designation and zoning 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: South side of Avenue 58 a distance of 1 /4 mile a distance of 1 /2 mile, west side of Monroe Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, westerly a distance of 1 /2 mile, and the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Proposed: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Proposed: Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to assign land use and zoning designations for an annexation application to the City of La Quinta. The proposed designation is Low Density Residential. The land is currently designated Agriculture in the County General Plan. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Golf course, vacant desert lands designated for Low Density Residential development South: Vacant desert lands West: Approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan East: Vacant desert lands, agriculture, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Local Agency Formation Commission Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CoraIMtCklst.WPD 1 The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Christine di lorio Printed Name Date City of La Quinta For r:! 0 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.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\Cora1MtCk1st.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) 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) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CoralMtCklst.WPD 4 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X M X X X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? (Project Description) V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a► Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed Delineation Map) X KI X X KI 9 X X KI G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.) /I. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-13 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) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) 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) Omni MMME MOEN NONE NEON X X X K4 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CoralMtCklst.WPD e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g► Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-1 1) 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: 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) R X 91 X X X 9 X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) I X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assess. 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) (I. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) X K9 K4 X X M K9 X X FN X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application X Materials) [:a I I (III. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ► KIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff. And "Coral Mountain at La Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment 1 Option Property Annexation Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001) 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. And "Coral Mountain at La Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment 1 Option Property Annexation Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001) 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.) X X X K4 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) (VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d1 Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 10 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Vlll. EARLIER ANALYSIS. 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. None 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. None SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992 General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992 SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta City of La Quinta Municipal Code "Coral Mountain at La Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment 1 Option Property Annexation Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 11 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-431 I. d) The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of itself. Buildout of the 420 acres, however, will generate light, since the buildout of the area could generate up to 1,680 dwelling units. The land use designation to be placed on the parcel will result in low density residential units, which generate low levels of light. The project will be required to meet the City's standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the site. These standards will mitigate the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level. II. c). The loss of land in this location will likely be made up on lands being farmed in the future to the east of this area. The loss of 360 acres of agricultural land in an area where over 331,000 acres are in cultivation, is 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 buildout of the annexation area has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the area. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. Applicants for future projects 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 measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 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 any site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on any site within the annexation area. Portions of a 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. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 7. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until any site within the annexation area 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. 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. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts of PM 10 on the annexation area will not be significant. III. d) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Annexation will not increase air emissions, but the buildout of the project will. The proposed land use designation for the subject properties is Low Density Residential, 0. Based on this daily trip generation, the potential impacts associated with vehicle traffic generated from the properties can be calculated. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 489 19 100 -- 2 2 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 13,517 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 759F. * 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. IV. a) Annexation of the parcels will not have a significant impact on biological resources. A number of the parcels are or have been in agriculture, and therefore disturbed. Prior to development on the parcels, City staff will review the area's potential as habitat for sensitive species, as part of individual project approvals. Should the parcels be identified as being likely habitat for a sensitive G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 2 or listed species, the City's General analysis be performed. The resulting measures for any identified species. Plan requires that biological resource reports, if any, will include mitigation V. b) Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. Prior to development on the parcels, City staff will review the area's potential for cultural resources, as part of individual project approvals. Should on -site surveys be necessary, the City's General Plan requires that cultural resource analysis be performed. The resulting reports, I any, will include mitigation measures for any identified resource. VI. a) i), ii), iii) In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking and liquefaction, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans for specific projects. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure or liquefaction are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. c) The soils for this area will be examined through an on -site soil analysis required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects. These requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. At the time the properties are developed, individual projects will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. Developers or land owners will also be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, all future projects will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. These existing City standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. IX. b) The County of Riverside currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. The land use designation for the subject property under the County General Plan is Agriculture. The City proposes a Low Density Residential designation for the properties. The lands to the north and west are approved for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, which includes low and medium density residential development, commercial and golf course facilities. Lands to the north are already developing for golf course and low density residential land uses. The annexation and G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 3 ultimate development of the properties represents a logical extension of the City's urban boundary. The impacts to land use are not expected to be significant. XI. a) The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the annexation area will result in an increase in noise levels, particularly noise generated by automobiles. The proposed land use designation will result in residential land uses on the properties, which are considered sensitive receptors. The City requires the preparation of noise analysis when projects are proposed adjacent to major roadways. At the time that individual projects are proposed, the City will review the potential noise impacts associated with the properties, and require analysis if it is necessary. The reports resulting from this analysis will include mitigation measures if required. XIII. a) Both annexation and construction and ultimate buildout of the annexation area will result in potential impacts for police and fire services, and schools. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and offset the potential impact to police and fire service. The individual projects to be developed in the future will be required to pay the mandated school fees in effect at the time development occurs. The ultimate development of the annexation area is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XV. b) An additional 60 acres is being studied under this Environmental Assessment (EA). It is estimated that the total area being studied under this EA could generate up to 13,517 daily trips. The traffic analysis has found that although a number of traffic improvements will be required as buildout of the annexation area occurs, the level of service standards adopted by the City will be maintained. In order to assure that circulation generated by buildout of the annexation area is adequately mitigated, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All development proposals within the annexation area shall either conform to the roadway improvements recommended in "Coral Mountain at La Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment 1 Option Property Annexation Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001; or 2. Shall prepare an independent traffic analysis which incorporates cumulative development into the analysis, for review and approval by the G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 4 City Engineer. XVI. b)- f) Although the annexation will have no impact on utilities, the ultimate buildout of the site will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 5 W O � o �00Qcd z o o 0 v� o o '- F" O�cq M V mow. W x •-� Ile O 9 - o > Cc)a) F, x r-ob 0 0„ v, 00 b 0 z U zoo '- C4o rn 4, b 3 m 00 p o o b �`° o Q U N M a) ►r r-CD 0r- C/) V o � � � O H rq xU N to En � r00 oN • E' � O ® H ° ® z < pa ~ ,_ O Q a A U W E- A H A z aU �W ox UV a o to H U o Q) U a U a O a� U ¢� U Q Qa on °A � b cz o GJ O Z ,, u cl '. ~ : z z -J a U U � � aaa aaawoa a a.- o� °o u cz a u w w U U U W U Q Ga b z o cqj a O N N o w ' O p +y N > b X a o 001 U ^cl h Q O cl cl a � cl b a W Vi cl 3 N > � � oa c� In a Cn • 3 � a 0 2t m 0 U CD CD M N Q C W U O 0 a. t� W F Q A U� zA aU � W ox UV W F o cl .,. 0.4 U > Cd o b u z ., F x x U U N N •O •O c� a" x OU Wz �o 09 W W U U U t: z H V O g > �" E" ►� E V b N o bA U ;d > rr cl - ... xW cd U U b•�b�b o o Q;zg oOdoo C °�° s U o a� O p or �C o Uvad i.� a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNING PRE -ANNEXATION LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO 816 ACRES GENERALLY BOUNDED BY AVENUE 58 ON THE NORTH, AVENUE 60 ON THE SOUTH, MADISON STREET ON THE WEST AND MONROE STREET ON THE EAST; AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, BETWEEN AVENUE 59 (EXTENDED) AND AVENUE 61 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-080 APPLICANT: T D DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of January 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation on 816 acres generally located between Avenues 58 and 60, Madison and Monroe Streets, and east of Monroe Street, between Avenue 59 and Avenue 62; 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 173.5 acres of currently designated Medium Density Residential land to Low Density Residential; 74.9 acres of Medium -High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; 133.3 acres of Open Space to Golf Course; 10 acres of Commercial to Community Commercial; 4.2 acres of Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial; and 420 acres of Agriculture to Low Density Residential. This represents a logical extension of the land use pattern in the City, and is supported by General Plan goals and policies regarding providing a full range of services and opportunities for City residents. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed amendment will not negatively impact public safety, insofar as the land use change is a logical extension of the land use pattern in the City. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the General Plan, insofar as all the proposed land use designations exist in the City and this change represents a furtherance of General Plan goals. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TDDesGPA.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2002- General Plan Amendment 2001-080 TD Desert Development Adopted: January 22, 2002 4. Property Suitability. The property is generally flat, surrounded by major roadways, and suitable for development. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires the continued modification of the Land Use Map, and this amendment continues to support that development. 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 Environmental Assessment 2001-431 and the Addendum to EIR No. 232 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 2001-080 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 22nd day of January 2002, 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\TDDesGPA.WPD EXHIBIT NA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNING PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING TO 816 ACRES GENERALLY BOUNDED BY AVENUE 58 ON THE NORTH, AVENUE 60 ON THE SOUTH, MADISON STREET ON THE WEST AND MONROE STREET ON THE EAST; AND THE EAST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, BETWEEN AVENUE 59 AND AVENUE 61 CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2001-103 APPLICANT: T D DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for T D Development for review of a Zone Change to change the zoning designation on 816 acres generally located between Avenues 58 and 60, Madison and Monroe Streets, and the east side of Monroe Street, between Avenue 59 and Avenue 61, and more particularly described as: APNs 764-180-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 764-190-01 1, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 764-200-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -007, 764-210-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 764-240-002, -003, -004, -005, 764-290-001 and -002 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zone Change: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The Zone Change will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it supports the development of low density residential, golf course and commercial uses. 4. The Zone Change supports the orderly development of the City. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TDDesZC.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ TD Desert Development Zone Change 2001-103 Adopted: January 22, 2002 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 Environmental Assessment 2001-431 and the Addendum to EIR No. 232 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2001-103 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 22nd day of January, 2002, 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\TDDesZC.WPD EXHIBIT "A I I LOCATION MAP mi PH #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-083, ZONE CHANGE 2001-105, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055 REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL; AND REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDING HOTELS AND RETAIL -RELATED USES, AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TOWNHOUSES AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. LOCATION: APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: BACKGROUND: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA 2001-436) WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 19701 AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PARK Site Background The approximate 50-acre subject property is situated at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, a major entry point to the City. The property is bound by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel to the south, the Del Oro subdivision and G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\GatewayStfRpt.doc vacant residential land to the north across Miles Avenue and the Desert Pride and Sienna Del Rey single-family subdivision to the east. To the west is vacant land within the City of Indian Wells. Pro-ject Request The following applications have been filed for review: 1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from High Density Residential to a combination of Medium Density Residential and Tourist Commercial. 2. A Zoning Change from High Density Residential to Tourist Commercial and Medium Density Residential 3. A Specific Plan to establish development standards and design guidelines for a mixed use development including resort style hotels, timeshares, condominium - hotels, up -scale restaurants, and commercial retail uses. Also, proposed are designated areas for townhouses, single family residential houses and a neighborhood park. (Attachment 1). The Specific Plan includes a number of development standards unique to the site and the uses proposed. The following table illustrates the changes from the Zoning Code development standards to the Specific Plan development standards. TOURIST COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback (in ft.) from Washington Street Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback (in ft.) from Miles Avenue Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback (in ft.)from residential districts Parking (Resort) Parking (Commercial/Retail) Specific Plan 20/20 20/20 50/15 1.5/room 1 /250 sq.ft. Zoning 30/20 30/20 30/ 15 1.5/room 1 /250 sq.ft. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\GatewayStfRpt.doc DETACHED DWELLING UNITS Minimum lot size Minimum lot frontage Minimum garage setback (*Zoning Code allows 20 feet with a roll up door) Minimum rear yard setback Minimum livable floor area for single-family detached excluding garage Specific Plan 7,200 sq.ft. 60 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Zoning 5,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. 25 ft.* 15 ft. 1200 sq.ft. 1400 sq.ft. ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS/RESORT CASITAS Interior street building/landscape setback Minimum front yard setback Minimum livable floor area Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback from Tourist Commercial District (attached dwelling units) Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback from Tourist Commercial District► (resort casitas) Parking (resort casitas) Public Notice 20 ft. Not addressed 20 ft. 20 ft. 1000 sq.ft. 1400 sq.ft. 20/20 ft. Not addressed 0 ft. Not addressed 1 /bedroom Not addressed This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 10, 2002. 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 and Specific Plan can be made, as noted in the attached Resolutions. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\GatewayStfRpt.doc RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-, recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-436. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-083. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-105. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2001-055. Attachments: 1. Specific Plan Document (Commission only) Prepared by: Submitted by: Emily Steele, Redevelopment Consultant Christine di lorio, Planning Manager G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\GatewayStfRpt.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-083, ZONE CHANGE 2001-105 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of January, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-436 for General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055, for lands bounded by Miles Avenue on the north, Washington Street on the West, and the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel on the south, more particularly described as follows: APN 604-040-012, 013, 023 and 037 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 2001-436) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 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 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 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 2001-436. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\GatewayEA436.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- __ Environmental Assessment 2001-436 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 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 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 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 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 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- 436 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). G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\GatewayEA436.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002 Environmental Assessment 2001-436 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 9. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-436 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 2001-436 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of January 2002, 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\GatewayEA436.wpd Environmental Checklist Form ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001- 105, Specific Plan 2001-055 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Southeastern corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Current: High Density Residential, Park Proposed: Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Park 7. Zoning: Current: High Density Residential, Park Proposed: Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Park 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.) The General Plan and Zone Change are required to allow the development of the proposed hotel and medium density residential land uses. The Specific Plan establishes design standards and guidelines for the development of approximately 22 acres of tourist commercial, consisting of two three-story hotel facilities, commercial retail and restaurant uses; approximately 19 acres of single family and townhome development; approximately 7 acres of watercourse (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel); and approximately 6 acres of park. Altogether, the property is approximately 54 acres in size. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Miles Avenue, Vacant, Single Family Residential South: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Single Family Residential East: Vacant, single family residential West: Washington Street, vacant 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or, participation agreement.) G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.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. 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. December 5. 2001 Signature Date Christine di lorio Printed Name CITY OF LA QUINTA u I� G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 2 we 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 jO G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.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? (Visual Simulation, The Keith Companies) 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? (Visual Simulation, The Keith Companies) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Specific Plan document) 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) 111. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X K4 ri 9 X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Specific Plan document) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Specific Plan document) V. 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.) 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? (See Sources consulted at the end of this checklist) X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 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)? (See Sources consulted at the end of this checklist) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Paleontological Map, City of La Quinta) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (See Sources consulted at the end of this checklist) ✓1. 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? (Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 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. And Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) 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. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 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. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 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 and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) KI Q X MEMO MEMO NONE X Ir G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 1 :1 III. 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 6-1 1) 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) Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 59 ff.) X X X X FN 9 X 91 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 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.) 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.) 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? (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) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001) X FN FN X X F�q Q X X f3 X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD i t *7 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. and Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (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) (11. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) KIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) X X X X X X X K4 X Kq X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 16V. 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. and La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, December 2001) 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. and La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, December 2001) 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) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVI. 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) e1 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) X X X X X X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 10 I (VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? KVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. X X K4 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. None 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 General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992 SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta City of La Quinta Municipal Code "Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site," prepared by CRM t Tech, July 2001 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 11 "Final Report Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to a Native American Cremation Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February 2001 "Final Report Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2000 "Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June 1999 "La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2001 "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001 "Geotechnical Engineering Report," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001 Visual Impact Simulation, prepared by the Keith Companies, December 2001 A9 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-436 I. a) & c) The proposed project occurs at a high topographic point in the city, and is bordered on the east and north by single family residential development. In order to assess the potential impacts to the viewshed of these single family residential units, a visual impact simulation was conducted'. The simulations were conducted for views from the east and south to the west, and from the north and east to the south and west. The analysis clearly demonstrates that the scale of the proposed project will not eliminate the views of existing or future residential units to the surrounding mountains. The impacts of structures on the project site will be less than significant. III. a) & 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 6,170 average daily trips2. 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 223.1 8.58 45.7 -- 0..95 0.95 6 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 6,170 trips/day and average trip length of 7 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 above, the operational impacts associated with air quality on the project site are expected to be less than significant. Visual Impact Simulations, The Keith Companies, December 2001. 2 "La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2001. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayAdd.WPD I l l.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. 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. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayAdd.WPD 2 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. IV. a) The proposed project is within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay fees to mitigate the potential impact on this species. The payment of the fees serves to mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level. V. b) & d) Several cultural resource studies were completed for the subject property'. The surveys included extensive testing and the excavation of a cremation site. The work done on the site to date has been comprehensive, but additional resources may be buried within the project area. As a result, to ensure that the potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. During any and all earth moving activities on any portion of the project site, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present. 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) ii) A geotechnical investigation was completed for the project site'. The site occurs in a seismic Zone IV. The site, as with the balance of the City, will be subject to strong groundshaking during a seismic event. The City has implemented standards in the Uniform Building Code to ensure the highest construction standards are applied to protect against seismic hazard. These standards are expected to ensure that impacts associated with seismic ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. 3 "Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2001 "Final Report Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to a Native American Cremation Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February 2001 "Final Report Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2000 "Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June 1999 4 "Geotechnical Engineering Report," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayAdd.WPD 3 IX. b) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will change the land uses on the project site from High Density Residential and Park to Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Park. The surrounding land use designations include Park, Low Density Residential and Watercourse. The change in land use represents a natural extension of the land use plan, insofar as it places more intense land use (Tourist Commercial) at the intersection of Miles and Washington, and steps down the land use intensity as it proceeds easterly. The Medium Density Residential will be an effective buffer to the existing and future low density development to the east and south. The existing High Density Residential designation is a relatively intense land use, which would not have been buffered from the Low Density development to the east. The proposed General Plan and Change of Zone will therefore represent a less than significant impact on the land use pattern in the City. XI. a) A noise study was completed for the proposed projects. The project site is currently subject to high noise levels, and will continue to be impacted by noise as the project build out. The noise levels will not be reduced to City standards without mitigation. In order to achieve acceptable noise levels for the hotels and townhomes on the subject property, the noise study proposes several setback areas for the construction of sound walls, depending on the site design. These mitigation measures include sound walls and/or berms ranging from 0 to 10 feet in height, and are variable depending on the finish grade of the individual sites within the project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the noise study, however, noise levels on the site at buildout can be reduced to an acceptable level. Since no Site Development Permit is proposed at this time for any portion of the site, and specific mitigation cannot therefore be evaluated, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Any site development permit submitted for any portion of the site shall either: a) Demonstrate conformance with the mitigation measures provided in the "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis" prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates on December 6, 2001; or b) Submit a noise study specifically prepared for that site development permit which demonstrates that the noise levels can be reduced on the site to the noise standards in effect at the time of submittal of the application. 5 "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001. J +"1 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayAdd.WPD 4 XIII. a) The proposed development will have a less than significant impact on public services. All areas of the proposed Specific Plan will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will generate property tax, transient occupancy tax and sales taxes which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. XV. a) The project 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. A traffic study was conducted for the proposed projects. The study found that buildout of the proposed project would generate up to 6,170 average daily trips, of which 310 would occur during the AM peak, and 465 during the PM peak hour. The volume generated by the proposed project, combined with the growth in traffic volumes on City streets from other project in the area resulted in recommended mitigation measures in the study in order to maintain City level of service standards. These mitigation measures are enumerated below: 1. Miles Avenue and Washington Street shall be constructed to their full half -width right-of-way with development of the first phase of the project. 2. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Seeley Drive and Miles Avenue in conjunction with the first phase of development or as warranted. 3. Access to the project from Washington Street shall be limited to right -in, right -out only. 4. Left turn pocket on Seeley Drive, accessing westbound Miles Avenue, shall be a minimum of 100 feet in length. Left turn pocket on westbound Miles Avenue, accessing southbound Seeley Drive, shall be a minimum of 150 feet in length. 6 "La Qcinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2001. _•r G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayAdd.WPD 5 With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts of the project on the City's circulation system shall be less than significant. 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 businesses and 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. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayAdd.WPD 6 N Ca) G LU Q cri +-+ (D uj z U) W F- C Q O O � F- C N W co = O F- W U 0 U Q H L± a O O Z U o > a O V a �a z 0 � W U •• OC z 00 � U. J W Z cc Dc a a z � � n• U O p oC CC Q Z a Ca ci U)W O Z L&JN 'O a z ® a a a a F- Z C9 Huj cO C � � N F- z W cn W Q N *. F- W M •� Fes- `� 00 L Ln d Z cc LU O Ne- O t0 c0 J L W W L f O et O a°C F=- N N r o0 CC GC O £ a a. (7 N N U O LL z Z p Ln 0 o Z F' Q O O Z U Q J oC W W ao J a O Q wv a a p U N W Q F- G W H Q 0 Um Z Q W J Y a U W O= U U 'a C co O E a C a) a) O IL W ca ++ N (n o f , V 0) coca c co co O C U a C a O (n C O C O CO 0 CO a) U c U fn 7 U +, :3 cn co E C = C a) ~ U N a U .N CL a U O M U O O 0 a) O a N -0 =p - � O c (L d and 6-.0d 0) c cr. a) z O LU -1 cr O E a) N O Z Z a) (D to a 0 O O a) a) a) > c CL n S 0 � a) LU ° U m n LU E c > > ° E o. ++ +_ U U U m U C C O Z O m Ea +' vi ` cr a) `) y N O U)W C F C 0 N (�0 O O _ 41 N W Hcc U OL = �r- > CC r= � fA o Q G J N W -0 C O U E U � +_1 C O O fa Q C N _ N _ m 6 o 112E k k L)m b& K § In S w �y LU S� S� 0 a) j � / '� '§ b : & $ U t U/ Q t > 2 ° * K ° / / 3 j § ® a .§ CL t � E E CD E E E B B o / \ £ d / cu / o .� CD .� k 7 f : y 0) ■ o ° 0 UJ k 0 w o > ■ o > 'S > ■E 0)o ■� am 0 0E > 00 > > � k ui ƒ \ ƒ \ m E E o o o E a E E a 3§ 3 / 3 3 / 3 � 2 2 .a z § z k cCD 0 �cu 0 � 4 @ j �O � 'B > � o � � o � £ 0 2 t 2 2 ca w \ ./ E> f § E k d E Q LU S k E « 3 °§ 2 S �qE cc •�2 E t uj £'E E > ° m ■ 0 ° L o m o -"02 E ' •� % 2 f ./ / .� ( F 2 »LU / / X / 3 % / k \ W F Q G (.) m Z Q W J X IL c) E W 0= V Ci O O Q N a y N cc c V U U y t N N N O 'D ... O. co' fa EL U V ca +1 U ca o .� +J c ca c O cu � U Z O V�f C ~ C O U m 0 o m CL U a a cc 00 U. Z W— O N H O Z N N O O N0 C C C C ui C7 W W W W U U U U LO O a c a>i Z P c ca O +, O c co a� o a O o , O a) a � 0� �o �� > �c° M °° °> o ca a) cc W a 1 G7 O Q V o y O a) cn co E c N ►— +� Co — f0 t 7 cn O '+, n E +�-� O 0 1 1 s PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PARK AND RECREATION TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PARK AND RECREATION FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MILES AVENUE ON THE NORTH, COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND INCO SIENNA DEL REY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-083 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QU1NTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review a General Plan Amendment to change land use designations from High Density Residential to Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential uses for the property generally located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and more particularly described as: APNs 604-040-012, 604-040-013, 604-040-023 and 604-040-037; 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 2001-436) was prepared for Specific Plan 2001-055 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 General Plan Amendment 2001-083: 1. Internal General Plan Consistency. The proposed Amendment to the Land Use Map is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan in that it changes existing High Density Residential land uses to include Tourist Commercial uses and Medium Density Residential uses. The Medium Density Residential serves as a buffer between adjacent Low Density Residential and Tourist commercial uses. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\GatewayGP.doc J 2 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2002-__ General Plan Amendment 2001-083 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 2. Public Welfare. The proposed Amendment will not negatively impact public safety and welfare due to the relatively minor change in land use designations. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan Amendment will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Tourist commercial uses are located at a major intersection providing adequate access and circulation to and from the property. Medium Density Residential serves as an adequate buffer between adjacent Low Density land uses and Tourist Commercial land use. 4. Property Suitability. The proposed Amendment is suitable for the subject site. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of the best build out configuration. This Amendment accommodates the changing market and desires of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001-436 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2001-083 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 22nd day of January, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ; G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\GatewayGP.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2002 General Plan Amendment 2001-083 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California + 3 i. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\GatewayGP.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ General Plan Amendment 2001-083 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 MILES AVENUE EXHIBIT "A" r 3 1] PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNING PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING TO 50 ACRES GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MILES AVENUE ON THE NORTH, COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND INCO CENTURY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2001-105 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for review of a Zone Change to change the zoning designation on 50 acres generally located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and more particularly described as: APNs 604-040-012, 604-040-013, 604-040-023 and 604-040-037 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 2001-436) was prepared for Specific Plan 2001-055 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 recommending approval of said Zone Change: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The Zone Change will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it supports the development of Low Density Residential, Golf Course and commercial uses. G:\WPDOCS\PC ResolutionsWatewayZC.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ Zone Change 2001-105 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 4. The Zone Change supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001-436 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2001-105 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 22nd day of January, 2002, 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\GatewayZC.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ Zone Change 2001-105 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" MILES AVENUE 3� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- 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 TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MILES AVENUE ON THE NORTH, COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND INCO CENTURY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Specific Plan 2001-055, to allow the development of resort uses, Medium Density Residential and a neighborhood park generally located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and more particularly described as: APNs 604-04-12, 604-04-13, 604-04-23 and 604-04-37 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 2001-436) was prepared for Specific Plan 2001-055 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 2001-055: 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the parcels have been designated for Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Park and Recreation on the Land Use Map, as amended with General Plan Amendment 2001-083. 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 medium density residential will provide buffering to the residential land uses to the east. 3 F' G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\GatewaySP.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2002- --- _ Specific Plan 2001-055 - The Gateway Adopted: January 22, 2002 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 as Tourist Commercial and Medium Density Residential. 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: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001-436 assessed the environmental concerns of the Specific Plan; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2001-055 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 22nd day of January, 2002, 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\GatewaySP.doc PH # PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-724 APPLICANT: FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT ARCHITECT: JOHN WALLING, WALLING & McCALLUM, ARCHITECTS REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR A 2,626 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE YMCA LA QUINTA PRESCHOOL LOCATION: 49-955 PARK AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED, PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 15301 CLASS 1(e)(2), AND THEREFORE, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NEEDED. ZONING: PR (PARKS AND RECREATION) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P (PARK FACILITIES) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: PR / LA QUINTA MIDDLE SCHOOL. SOUTH: PR / BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. EAST: PR / BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. WEST: MC / TRUMAN SCHOOL. BACKGROUND: The project site is the YMCA Daycare and Preschool on the west side of Park Avenue, north of Avenue 50 (Attachment 1). The Boys and Girls Club facility is immediately to the southwest, with Truman School to the northwest and La Quinta Middle School to the north. The facility has been operated by the YMCA since it was constructed in 1991. A parking lot which is shared with the Boys and Girls Club exists in front and to the east of the facility. P:\STAN\sdp 2001-724 pc rpt ymca.wpd PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proposed is a 2,626 square foot addition on the front of the building in a lawn area. The addition will provide two new classrooms, a conference room and restrooms (Attachment 2). The existing building is Spanish in nature with tan plastered walls and red the hipped roof. The proposed addition will match in design, materials and colors. The maximum height of the building will be 14'-6" at the addition. Two trees, lawn and a number of shrubs in front of the building will be removed for the addition. A short curved wall attached to the front of the addition will be provided. A landscaping plan has not been submitted. No changes are proposed to the parking lot since all construction is proposed within the existing lawn area. The existing building signs are in the area of the addition and will be moved to the new wall facing the parking lot. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION: The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee considered this request at its meeting of January 16, 2002, and by adoption of Minute Motion 2002-002, recommended approval of the addition to the facility, subject to conditions (Attachment 3). FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be met as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Site Development Permit 2001-727, subject to the attached conditions: Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Minutes of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Meeting of January 16, 2002 P:\STAN\sdp 2001-724 pc rpt ymca.wpd Prepared by: VI i�;4� I :;�Av'm Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager P:\STAN\sdp 2001-724 pc rpt ymca.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE YMCA LA QUINTA PRESCHOOL CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-724 APPLICANT: YMCA OF THE DESERT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22N1 day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request of the FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT to approve the construction plans for a 2,626 square feet addition to the YMCA La Quinta Preschool, located at 49-995 Park Avenue, more particularly described as: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 20862 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has determined this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 15301 Class 1(e)(2), and therefore, no environmental review is needed; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on January 16, 2002, adopted Minute Motion 2002, recommending approval of the architectural plans for the new building addition, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan- The General Plan designates the project area as Park Facilities. The use as a preschool is in compliance with the General plan designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code- The proposed addition is designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and signs. 3. Compliance with CEQA- This application is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as Amended, per Public Resources Code Section 15301 Class 1(e)(2). p:\stan\sdp 2001-724 pc res.wpd Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2001-724 Family YMCA of the Desert January 22, 2002 4. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City in that the addition is designed to match the existing building. 5. Site Design- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city in that the site design is not being modified int that the addition is in a lawn area. 6. Landscape Design- New project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be minimum and be designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. 7. Sign Program- With use of the existing sign, the building identification will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and be in harmony and visually related to the proposed building addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-724 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 22ND day of January, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: p:\stan\sdp 2001-724 pc res.wpd Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2001-724 Family YMCA of the Desert January 22, 2002 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\sdp 2001-724 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-724 FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT JANUARY 22, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2001-724, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit for the commercial pad building shall be used within two years of the date of approval; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in the La Quinta Zoning Code Section 9.200.080. 3. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map 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. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits for the addition authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 5. Detailed preliminary landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permit for the addition 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) r p:\stan\sdp 2001-724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-724 FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT JANUARY 22, 2002 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. p:\stan\sdp 2001-724 pc coa.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 CASE MAP ORTH CASE No. SDP 2001-724 YMCA OF THE DESERT 'SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 15, 2002 2. Committee Member Thom had no comment. . 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how the garage opens. Mr. Robert Wilkinson, representing the applicant, explained. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the water conservation model. Mr. Wilkinson explained it is the type of irrigation and plants to be used. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this was for the models or the production units as well. Staff stated the models only. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if property owners would be able to request it for their homes. Mr. Wilkinson stated it was an option they would offer. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed his concern for the maintenance. Discussion followed regarding the irrigation system. 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-001 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-723, subject to the conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2001-724; a request of Family YMCA of the Desert for review of architectural plans for a 2,626 square foot addition to the YMCA la Quinta Preschool located at 49-955 Park Avenue. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. FeBipe Fregoso, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had no objections, it is a good plan. He asked what would happen when there are no landscape plans submitted at this level. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that since this is a minor change, staff will review and approve the landscaping changes. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002- 002 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001- 724, subject to the conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\ 1-I 6-02.wpd 2 PH X PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-725 (AN AMENDMENT TO PLOT PLAN 5248) APPLICANT: CARLOS GOMEZ FOR VONS (A SAFEWAY CO.) PROPERTY OWNER: M&H REALTY PARTNERS II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE VONS SUPERMARKET FROM 36,827 SQUARE FEET TO 47,198 SQUARE FEET LOCATION: 78-271 THROUGH 78-297 HIGHWAY 1 1 1, WITHIN PLAZA LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: K. L. CHARLES AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: LAWRENCE R. ROSS AND ASSOC. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA PARKING LOT SOUTH: EXISTING EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND POINT HAPPY RANCH PROPERTY BEYOND EAST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA IN -LINE TENANT BUILDINGS AND AFFILIATED PARKING AREAS WEST: ASPHALT PAVING SERVICE AREA DRIVE AISLE AND EXISTING VACANT MOUNTAINOUS AREA BEYOND p: SDP Von's 2001-Greg.wpd ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3C) AND 15311 (CLASS 11 A) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). BACKGROUND: Site History Vons is part of Plaza La Quinta, a commercial shopping center located at the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street. The 1 1-acre shopping center was approved by the County of Riverside in 1980 (Plot Plan Case No. 5248). The existing shopping center consists of one and two story buildings in early -California architectural design theme utilizing beige plaster walls and columns, decorative tile accents and paving, wood framed multiple pane windows and doors, and mudded two piece red clay ("S" tile) roofs. Decorative mosaic tiles are also used to complement the building facade features typically around door and window openings. The north building elevation for Vons has large single pane storefront windows behind a low profile stucco wall capped in red brick that screens shopping cart storage areas. A covered arcade is supported by decorative tapered stucco columns. Behind the store, to the south, is an existing vehicle service corridor for the market and shopping center, including a loading dock for daily deliveries and employee parking stalls. Presently, roof mounted mechanical equipment is screened behind parapet walls. However, the equipment does project above the parapet screen on the west side of the building and is visible from Highway 111. An internally illuminated, building mounted channel letter sign of 60 square feet is located on the front facade, supplemented by under canopy non -illuminated signs. The approved 1981 landscape plan showed that various types of palms were to be used in conjunction with California Pepper, Jacaranda and Eucalyptus trees to shade parking lot areas. The initial Sign Program for the shopping center allowed internally illuminated ID signs for the supermarket, Downey Savings, and any freestanding restaurants with in -line tenants being permitted non -illuminated under canopy signs measuring 10'-0" long (minimum) by 18-inch high. In 1991, Vons remodeled the inside of the store and relocated their shopping cart storage area to the store's exterior. The City permitted the carts to be stored outside p: SDP Von's 2001-Greg.wpd in front of the store, under the arcade, provided a 38-inch high decorative stucco wall was constructed to screen the carts from view. On May 2, 2000, the City Council reviewed a master parking plan for the shopping center during review of Site Development Permit 2000-667 (i.e., Rubio's restaurant building complex on Pad Site #5). A parking lot of 14 spaces, to the south of the Beer Hunter restaurant, was required to increase the number of parking space in the center to 610. Also as a part of the Master Parking Program was the implementation of the Employee Parking Program for the center. This Program designated employee parking spaces in the back of Vons and other adjacent stores. Security lights were installed on the back of the stores to encourage usage of this parking area. Parking lot lighting is provided using decorative metal fixtures with clear lenses mounted on wood -covered poles measuring approximately 18-feet high. Light fixtures are unshielded. PROJECT REQUEST: Vons is proposing a new building addition (4,150 sq. ft.) on the southeast side of the building which replaces 19 employee parking spaces at the back of the store and expands into three in -line tenant spaces (4,540 sq. ft.) to the east (i.e., La Quinta Cleaners, Groomingdales, and a vacant space). New exterior building walls on the east and south are finished using plaster painted white and topped with decorative corbels matching existing improvements. New roof top mechanical equipment will be placed behind the parapet walls (Attachment 1). The north building elevation for Vons and Fred Sand Desert Realty to the east will be extensively remodeled to include changes to the roof structures and relocation of store entrances. The two entrances into Vons have hipped clay the roofs, up to 23'-8" high, supported by columns clad in variegated red Acme brick on the lower levels and stucco above. Arches between the columns have brick veneer in soldier course style. Exterior building walls are finished using plaster painted white. Vons also proposes a wood trellis (6' projection) to the west of Fred Sands Desert Realty that shades three half -circle mosaic the wall panels that are being set aside for potential Arts In Public Places use by an unspecified artist. Exposed wood elements throughout the project will be stained dark brown to match the existing center. Expansion of Vons into adjacent buildings will require a shift in the existing parcel configuration in the center. As mentioned above, this shopping center prepared a parking requirement study during review of Site Development Permit 2000-667, revealing the shopping center had adequate on -site parking facilities. p: SDP Von's 2001-Greg.wpd ry Proposed Sign Program The applicant has submitted new sign graphics for Vons which entails placing red plexiglass internally illuminated channel letters on the north building elevation reading "Vons Food and RX Drug" with letters for Vons being 54-inches high and the logo being 14" and 24" high for a combined total of 86.6 square feet. Letters are eight inches deep. No other building signs are proposed. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of January 16, 2002. The Committee, on a 2-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2002-003 (Attachment 2), recommending approval, subject to condition. Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 10, 2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no written correspondence has been received. Any correspondence received will be delivered to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. 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 as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted in the attached Resolution, except as follows: Architectural Design - The finding that the architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements is compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City cannot be met as proposed, unless changes to the north building elevation are made. The ALRC recommended changes to the north building elevation that include changing the roof design for Fred Sands Desert Realty and Vons' expansion area as noted in Condition 8A. As this expansion adds minimal exposure to the rear elevation, Staff is not recommending additional design articulation. Site Design - The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian/bicyclist 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 based on revisions. The City's Building and Safety Department has requested that retrofits be made to the shopping center to ensure that parking areas and pedestrian facilities comply with ADA provisions (Condition 13). Existing parking lot lighting casts glare onto adjacent thoroughfares which is not in compliance with Section 9.100.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. To rectify this problem, Staff requests that light diffusers be installed to redirect light in a downward manner (Condition 8F). Under the applicant's p: SDP Von's 2001-Greg.wpd proposal, access to the employee parking lot in back of the store will be from a set of doors on the east side of the building. Although this access will improve employee use of the existing parking area, it does not address the need to improve building access on the south side of the store. To correct this problem, Staff proposes Condition 8D. Condition 12 addresses the need to replace the existing Highway 1 1 1 bus shelter with the approved Highway 111 Design Guidelines. Based on these recommended conditions, the site design complies with applicable site design requirements and is designed to be compatible with the center and surrounding neighborhood. Sign Program Amendment - The existing Plaza La Quinta Sign Program does not address major tenants such as Vons. Staff recommends approval of the corporate sign for Vons as presented. In conclusion, the findings needed to approve this request can be made provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Site Development Permit 2001-725, subject to findings and the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit 2. January 16, 2002, ALRC Minutes (Excerpt) 3. Large Exhibits (Commission only) Prepared by: Submitted by: •��'�' .. A ( ogsdell, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Nr p: SDP Von's 2001-Greg.wpd 10J, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR VONS SUPERMARKET EXPANSION FROM 36,827 SQ. FT. TO 47,198 SQ. FT. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-725 APPLICANT: CARLOS GOMEZ FOR VONS (A SAFEWAY CO.) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Carlos Gomez to approve the expansion plans for Vons Supermarket and related building signs, located at 78-271 through 78-297 Highway 1 1 1, within Plaza La Quinta, more particularly described as: Assessor's Parcel Number: 604-050-008 and -013 Portions of Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 19028 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on January 16, 2002, during a public meeting adopted Minute Motion 2002-003, recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: Consistency with the General Plan/Zoning Code - The General Plan designates the project area as Community Commercial. The proposed commercial building expansion request is consistent with the commercial designation of the property. Development of this project will not exceed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.3 required for the entire shopping center. The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including but not limited to height limits, number of parking spaces, and lot coverage. 2. Compliance with CEQA - The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this project is exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3C) and 15311 (Class 11 A - Signs) of the Guidelines for Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. Architectural Design - With the minor recommended changes, the design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City in that the building uses styles, colors, and materials matching those used in the center. Jli6 p: ResoPCVons/Greg.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2001-725 Carlos Gomez for Vons January 22, 2002 Page 2 4. Site Design - With the recommended changes, the site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City in that the site design complies with applicable site design requirements and is designed to be compatible with the center and surrounding neighborhood. 5. Landscape Design - The proposed landscape improvements will provide vehicle shading and visual relief of vista views from Highway 1 1 1, providing an enhancement to the shopping center. The revised planting scheme prepared by the applicant complements existing improvements in the shopping center and complies with the initial design theme in terms of maintenance and water usage. 6. Sign Program - The amended Sign Program (SA 2001-536) for Vons is in harmony with and visually related to all other signs within the shopping center and surrounding commercial development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 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 2001-725 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 22"d day of January, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California p: ResoPCVons/Greg.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2001-725 Carlos Gomez for Vons January 22, 2002 Page 3 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 1 i0 8 p: ResoPCVons/Greg.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-725 CARLOS GOMEZ FOR VONS (A SAFEWAY CO.) JANUARY 22, 2002 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2001-725, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The applicant and/or property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) 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. FIRE MARSHAL 4. Final conditions will be addressed when the architectural building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Riverside County Fire Department (Indic Office) at the time building plans are submitted. p:\Cond PC SDP Vons j U (� Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2001-725 Carlos Gomez for Vons January 22, 2002 Page 2 FEES 5. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the Development Impact Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit. 6. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the Desert Sands Unified School District based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance by the City. 7. Sign permit fees shall be paid to install any new on -site signs. MISCELLANEOUS 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following revisions or notes on the plans shall be made to the building plans, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director: A. The easternmost parapet wall, inclusive of Fred Sands Desert Realty building, shall be redesigned so as to be in scale and design with the in - line tenants to the east. B. Four foot wide raised landscape planters shall be installed under the north building elevation wood trellis. These planters shall be a minimum length of 8'-0" and capped using brick. The final number and location of these planters shall be approved by the Community Development Director. C. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum height of 10'-0" high (minimum 1.5" caliper) when installed. Eliminate the Yellow Oleander tree from the plant list and rep0ace with Australian Willow (Giejara parbiflora). D. Vons shall make floor plan changes to ensure a clear path of travel for employees using door entrances on the south side of the building. A minimum of one door shall comply with this provision making access from the outside into the store convenient without entering into a loading dock and other service corridor area. E. Roof parapets shall screen any roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of neighboring properties. 10 p:\Cond PC SDP Vons Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2001-725 Carlos Gomez for Vons January 22, 2002 Page 3 F. Diffuser lenses shall be added to all parking lot light fixtures to eliminate glare. G. Bike racks shall be installed in close proximity to the entry to Vons pursuant to Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. Preliminary landscaping and final landscaping, hardscape, and irrigation plans, substantially conforming to this approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit by the Building and Safety Department. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, a Lot Line Adjustment Application shall be filed and approved by the City shifting any property lines that conflict with development of the project. The legal documents shall be recorded with the County of Riverside. 11. All letters from affected public utility or service agencies on file in the Community Development Department shall be complied with. 12. The existing bus shelter on Highway 1 1 1 shall be replaced with a City approved bus shelter structure. A Caltrans Encroachment Permit shall be obtained by the applicant before any on -site work begins. The applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to obtain a copy of the bus shelter construction plans. 13. The property owner shall ensure that customers and employees of the shopping center have access to building and parking facilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) statutes. t !l. p:\Cond PC SDP Vons ATTACHMENTS �1---- _ -� vuw N" PROPOSE® SITE PLAN ,rx-r Attachment 1 HWy 1 1 1 � � o 00.0 a e � Attachment 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 15, 2002 C. Site Development Permit 2001-725; a request of Carlos Gomez for Von's Supermarket for review of architectural and landscaping plans for the expansion of the Von's Supermarket located at 78-271 Highway 111 within Plaza La Quinta. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Member Bobbitt asked about the four foot planter and the trellis. The applicant Carlos Gomez gave a presentation on the project. Bobbitt asked staff to explain their recommendation. Staff stated the landscaping in front of the cart wall was lost with the expansion and have a mural and tie in with the terrace effect. Mr. Gomez stated the decorative mosaic was intended to use a local artist for an artistic touch. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the depth and size of the parking lot planter wells and how is it determined who is responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Gomez explained there was a lot line adjustment making the expansion area part of Von's ownership. 3. Committee Member Thorns asked if the buildings next door to Von's were extending out to meet the Von's storefront. Mr. Gomez explained where it would be altered. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked why the Fred Sands portion of the building was being altered. Mr. Gomez stated a portion would be removed to fit it in with the Von's addition. They could lower the tower to make it not appear top heavy. Committee Member Thoms stated he has problem with the architecture on the east end and the change to the Fred Sands building. Mr. Gomez stated they are simplifying the look. Committee Member Thorns stated he would rather have the expansion more in line with the other in -line tenants. 4. Committee Member Thorns asked what plants would be removed. Mr. Gomez stated the Pepper Trees would be removed and use something more consistent with desert plants. Committee Member Thorns stated his concern on how you would remove the tree within the parking lot tree wells. Also on the plant list for trees, the Yellow Oleander in a 15 gallon tree should not be used in a parking lot. It should be eliminated from the plant list. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\l -16-02.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 15, 2002 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he concurred and as well the removal of the Sumac and suggested alternate species such as Australian Willow (Giejara parbiflora). 6. Committee Member Thorns asked that the planter be raised. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002- 003 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001- 725, subject to the conditions. A. Condition 1.A. Remove "at grade". B. Condition 1.13. Eliminate the Yellow Oleander tree from the plant list and replace with Australian Willow (Giejara parbiflora) . C. Condition 1.C. The eastern most parapet wall, inclusive of the Fred Sands building, shall be redesigned so as to be in scale and design with the in -line tenants to the east and approved by the Community Development Department. Unanimously approved. D. Site Development Permit 2001-726; est of Mike Mendoza for review of architectural and landscap' ns for a single family residence located at 47-550 Via Montana 1. Associate Plann g Trousdell presented the information contained in ff report, a copy of which is on file in the Communit elopment Department. 2. Co a Member Thorns stated he may have a potentilict rest due to the proximity of his residence a project e. The application was removed from the a No action taken. E. Site Development Permit 2001-727; a re f La Quinta Jefferson 50Fifty, LLC for review of architectural for three new prototype residential plans located north of a 50 and west of Jefferson Street. 1. Principal Planner StaK'Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\1- l 6-02.wpd 4 BI I DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JANUARY 22, 2002 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-723 RANCHO CAPISTRANO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BBG ARCHITECTS GMA INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW CASAS PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS NORTH OF 54T" AVENUE AND EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET, WITHIN COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The project site is within Country Club of the Desert, a golf oriented 819 unit residential project on 988 acres, approved by the City Council in November, 2000. This request is the third group of residential units (Casas Product) in the project. The Villas product (detached single family units) and Casitas product ("semi -attached" town homes) were approved by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2001, and November 13, 2001, respectively. The first golf course, clubhouse and maintenance building are under construction, with the main guard gate approved for construction. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proposed are detached single family residences with three floor plans. The following is a description of the plans: Plan 1 size - # of bedrooms - baths - 3,397 square feet four plus detached casita 3.5 plus one for casita unit P:\STAN\sdp 2001-723 alrc rpt ccod.wpd Plan 2 Plan 3 garage spaces - maximum building height - size - # of bedrooms - baths - garage spaces - maximum building height - size - # of bedrooms - baths - garage spaces - maximum building height - three garages 20'-0" - one story 4,030 square feet Three plus detached casita 3.5 plus one for casita unit three garages 22'-0" - one story 5,031 square feet Three plus detached casita 4.5 three garages 24'-0" - two stories These units will be constructed on 55 lots on Via Pessaro, Via Vicenza, and Via Verona, with three models on Village Club Place. The architecture and materials of the units is similar to that used in the previously approved units, clubhouse and main guard house. Architectural features include articulated the roofs combining gable and hip roofs, exposed rafters, inset front windows, decorative ironwork, covered rear patios, and front courtyards. All exteriors of the units will be use a combination of stone and plaster with some wood trim. Two facades for each plan are proposed. Exterior materials include light sand finish plaster walls, decorative stone, wood trim and headers. The roof material will "S" the in a red blend. Material colors include tan to light brown plaster, and brown to gray accent and wood trim colors. The landscaping plans include a preliminary plan for the model area. Plant material include plants and trees approved in their specific plan. The trees range from 24" to 36" box size with shrubs 5 gallons and ground cover one gallon. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION• The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee considered this request at its meeting of January 16, 2002, and by adoption of Minute Motion 2002-001, recommended approval of the prototype plans, subject to conditions (Attachment 2). FINDINGS: The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. P:\STAN\sdp 2001-723 alrc rpt ccod.wpd R) 1. Compliance with Zoning Code- The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code and Architectural Guidelines of the applicable Specific Plan (SP 99-35) in that the Zoning Code design guidelines require a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights, and window and door surrounds for flat elevation planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that two facades for the plan is proposed, roof heights are varied with the combination of different roofs, and headers are provided where required. The Specific Plan guidelines dictate an architectural theme, exterior color ranges and materials, and design criteria. The proposed plans are also in compliance with these items. 2. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City in that the architectural elements of the units are attractive and compatible with surrounding development to the south. 3. Landscape Design- Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and City and CVWD requirements, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. The plans provide conceptual design and planting information for the front yards. The pallette includes those plants specified in the specific plan, as well as additional compatible plants. 4. Compliance with CEQA- The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this request is within Specific Plan 99-035 And is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as Amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (A). An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House 83062922 and 90020727) was certified on November 21, 2000, by the City Council for SP 99-035. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. 5. Site Design- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site P:\STAN\sdp 2001-723 alrc rpt ccod.wpd J 9 Jr, design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city in that the residences will be laid out and provided in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements. 6. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for residences as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2002-_, approving Site Development Permit 2001-723, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Plan exhibit book 2. Minutes of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Meeting of January 16, 2002 Prepared by: Submitted by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager P:\STAN\sdp 2001-723 alrc rpt ccod.wpd J94 ATTACHMENT #2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 16, 2002 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di lorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and David Thorns. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to excuse Committee Member Cunningham. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of December 5, 2001. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to approve the minutes as submitted. V. BJSINESS ITEMS: ,�..,.. A. Site Development Permit 2000-723; a request of Rancho Capistrano 01 Development Company for review of architectural and landscaping plans for three new Casas prototype residential plans for the property located north of Avenue 54 and east of Jefferson Street within Country Club of the Desert. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\AKLC\1-16-02.wpd 1 j TJ Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 15, 2002 2. Committee Member Thom had no comment. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how the garage opens. Mr. Robert Wilkinson, representing the applicant, explained. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the water conservation model. Mr. Wilkinson explained it is the type of irrigation and plants to be used. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this was for the models or the production units as well. Staff stated the models only. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if property owners would be able to request it for their homes. Mr. Wilkinson stated it was an option they would offer. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed his concern for the maintenance. Discussion followed regarding the irrigation system. 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-001 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-723, subject to the conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved. B. site Development Permit 2001-724; a request of Family YMCA of the Desert for review of architectural plans for a 2,626 square foot addition to the YMCA la Quinta Preschool located at 49-955 Park Avenue. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Felipe Fregoso, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had no objections, it is a good plan. He asked what would happen when there are no landscape plans submitted at this level. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that since this is a minor change, staff will review and approve the landscaping changes. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002- 002 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001- 724, subject to the conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved. rrlti G:\WPDOCS\ARI,C\ 1-16-02.wpd 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-726 APPLICANT: MIKE MENDOZA, PROJECT DESIGNER REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON APPROXIMATELY 0.2 ACRES LOCATION: 47-550 VIA MONTANA, APPROXIMATELY 560 FEET NORTH OF VIA FLORENCE WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA PROPERTY OWNER: POINT CENTER FINANCIAL (DAN HARKEY) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: LARRY CARDLICCI, ASLA GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)/RL DISTRICT SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SOUTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EAST: PRIVATE LAKE WEST: ACROSS VIA MONTANA, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES BACKGROUND: This project is located within Lake La Quinta, a private development of approximately 281 single family lots on 103 acres oriented around a 24-acre manmade lake generally bounded by Adams Street on the east, Avenue 48 on the south and Avenue 47 on the north. The existing houses in this private development, built by various builders over the last 11 years, are one-story and typically range in size from 1,909 square feet to 3,800 square feet. The prevalent style of architecture is Mediterranean/Spanish, utilizing plastered walls and overhangs, the roofs, metal roll -up garage doors, and light P:\GREG\SRPCSDP726 LAKELQ.wpd colored exterior colors. However, since there have been various builders in the project, existing houses vary in terms of entry features, roof planes and heights, stucco surrounds, perimeter walls and gates, etc. The vacant lake front residential lot is located on the cul-de-sac bulb of Via Montana, abutting improved single family lots. Eighteen single family houses exist on the 19-lot private street. Since Lake La Quinta is a partially developed subdivision, this project requires Compatibility Review pursuant to Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to build a custom single family house on Lot 270 in Lake La Quinta (Attachment 1). The proposed single story house, 23' in height, is 2,980 square feet (three bedrooms) and has a front loaded three -car garage with sectional metal doors. A detached guest house of 311 square feet is also proposed on the west side of the house. A California -Mediterranean architectural design, utilizing smooth troweled exterior stuccoed surfaces and clay tile roofing, is proposed. Hip roofs are used throughout the project. The proposed building elevations use a variety of window styles and shapes, including small fixed pane windows in the clerestory portion of the main residence. Horizontal Coronado stone trim is proposed on the front building elevations at heights of 7.5' and 17.5'. Eave overhangs are to be stuccoed. Building colors are planned to be varying shades of white. An exterior material and color sample board will be available at the meeting. A front yard landscaping plan has been submitted consisting of lawn accented by a specimen Brazilian Pepper tree, multiple palm trees (varying heights), and a variety of shrubs in one and five gallon sizes. Bougainvillea vines will be trained to cover privacy wall surfaces. Annuals are proposed along the entrance to the house with Autumn Sage. Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee: On January 16, 2002, the Committee could not review this request due to a lack of a quorum. MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.60.300(H) of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met with the exception of the following: 1. The lot landscaping is to consist of at least one specimen tree, i.e., a minimum 24-inch box (1.5 to 2" caliper trunk size) and a minimum ten feet tall measured at the top of box. P:\GREG\SRPCSDP726 LAKELQ.wpd RESPONSE: The size of the Brazilian Pepper tree for the front yard area shall be a minimum height of 10 feet tall when installed (Condition 3b). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Site Development Permit 2001-726, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Large Exhibits (Commission only) red Submitted by: ,0 9 TiMsdell Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager P:\GREG\SRPCSDP726 LAKELQ.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 270 OF TRACT 26152 WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-726 APPLICANT: MIKE MENDOZA FOR POINT CENTER FINANCIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of January, 2002, consider a request by Mr. Mike Mendoza for Center Point Financial to approve compatibility review of the architectural and landscaping plans for a single story residential house on 0.2 acres located at 47-550 Via Montana in a RL Zone District, more particularly described as: Lot #270 of Tract No. 26152; APN: 643-120-043 SE 1 /4 of Section 30, T5S, R7E WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee on January 16, 2002, could not make a recommendation to the Planning Commission due to a lack of a quorum; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) and Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance: 1 . General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency - The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use Element of the General Plan allows residential land uses up to four units per acre. The proposed single family residence is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because a detached residential unit is planned. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. The site is physically suitable for the proposed single family house, and conditions are recommended ensuring compliance with existing Zoning Code provisions. P:\GREG\ResoPCSDP726LakeLQ.wpd )"_)q Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ Site Development Permit 2001-726 Mr. Mike Mendoza for Center Point Financial January 22, 2002 Page 2 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act - The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this project is exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3a) of the Guidelines for Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. Architectural Compatibility - The single family residence is compatible in architectural design and use of materials to existing Lake La Quinta houses in the vicinity. The one story houses utilize similar architectural features such as clay Mission S-tile roofing, exterior plaster, stone trim, decorative eaves, etc. Roof heights are varied and a center tower feature enhances the visual character of this private residence. The overall design elements of the project are aesthetically pleasing and the height of proposed house does not exceed 23 feet which is consistent with neighboring one story houses. 4. Site Design Compatibility - As designed, the proposed detached single family house complies with the setback requirements of the RL District. 5. Building Size Compatibility - The existing houses in Lake La Quinta vary from approximately 1,909 square feet to 3,800 square feet and construction is ongoing within the master planned development. Therefore, the applicant's proposal of 3,291 livable square feet is within the range deviation (10%) standard allowed for this partial developed subdivision. 6. Landscape Design Compatibility - The front yard landscape plan includes a variety of trees and shrubs oriented a small lawn. The plant pallette is varied and blends with the proposed houses and is compatible with the surrounding area, as conditioned. The landscape design complements the surrounding residential areas in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area. 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 P:\GREG\ResoPCSDP726LakeLQ.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2001-726 Mr. Mike Mendoza for Center Point Financial January 22, 2002 Page 3 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-726 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the findings and conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 22"d day of January, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUE ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\GREG\ResoPCSDP726LakeLQ.wpd } I 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-726 MR. MIKE MENDOZA FOR POINT CENTER FINANCIAL JANUARY 22, 2002 CONDITIONS 1 . The applicant/property owner 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 application and any other challenge pertaining to this project. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Screen walls shall be clad in stucco to match the proposed building structures. 3. The final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, including the following revisions: A. Final front yard landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department after receiving approval from the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commission. B. The Brazilian Pepper tree, once installed, shall be a minimum height of 10 feet tall (24-box specimen with minimum 1 .5-inch caliper). P:\GREG\Cond PC SDP726 House.wpd ATTACHMENTS `(Is P =1 .i.. i . `'2 " Case: SDP 2001 -72 6 277 ,yti^g Z75 ®,pry 271 �; Attachment 1 sa st g O 27480 `f1.5351 Site 21 +O gTpt � � 13T S 5 a -4 50 256 4 ® 7.51 250 KKL/ ..✓ s & 27, T 61 g S.lt.• o o3j35 o5 q o ¢/ I4♦ CS V � 1 N 82 • 28 © . j J -12 40 2S7 in,O Ift U. 49 e g ® .7 38 258 r 6212�19Lake ? 248 j 277 ® p V n 49.-- N csasT- M1 O� 2591e to ti a� 247 In LU 278 d d.s9 Z66 �!1 y 09 � + �' Ty c SITb S O h 260 n `4. 8 246 v. y 128 35 0 /30.2.9 S /to 265 a 279 18 c 3 h n a 245 264 Isa6O 3 o: Q * .tAi ti r 48 ® l 3 i /33.33 \ /+t 263281 h •'c c g CO 31 0 J17 AC f83T g � A ---• / 4594Io4.cb crvFFT) �t 1 -655°s5, t was (P"'Via Florence ~1 --t N B3"09 'w � • It tl L07 A...-i - �1 / a �101" 19 r3 DA TA MR Z14/6S.01 SSESSORS NAP BK643 PG.I2 IYERS/DE COUNTY, CALIF Re BI # PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-727 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY, LLC ARCHITECT: MICHAEL KAUFMAN ARCHITECTS REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS LOCATION: NORTH OF AVENUE 50 AND WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RL / RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB SOUTH: RL / RESIDENTIAL COUNTRY CLUB UNDER CONSTRUCTION; CC / VACANT - APPROVED SHOPPING CENTER EAST: COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WEST: RL / VACANT RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB LAND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that Site Development Permit 2002-727 is exempt from environmental review in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-375 was certified by the City Council on June 1, 1999, for Tentative Tract Map 29053, General Plan Amendment 98-060, Zone Change 98-089, Specific Plan 98-034 and Parcel Map 29052 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. This request is in conformance with that approval and no changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and, P:\STAN\sdp 2002-727 pc rpt.wpd BACKGROUND: The project site is Tract 29053, which was approved by the City Council on June 1, 1999, and extended on May 15, 2001. This tract was processed concurrently with the shopping center located at the northwest intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street (Attachment 1). The projects are being constructed by separate developers. The first phase of the tract adjacent to Jefferson Street was recorded on October 17, 2001. The 33 acre residential tract wraps around the shopping center and fronts on both Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street and consists of 103 single family lots. A typical lot is 80 feet wide and 105 + feet deep. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proposed are detached single family residences with three floor plans (Attachment 2). The following is a description of the plans: Plan 1 size - # of bedrooms - baths - garage spaces - maximum building height - Plan 2 size - # of bedrooms - baths - garage spaces - maximum building height - 3,030 square feet plus 250 square feet for optional attached casita four plus attached casita which can be a bedroom or den/exercise room 3.5 plus one for optional casita if used for bedroom three garages 22'-0" - one story 2,665 square feet plus 270 square feet for optional attached casita four plus optional attached casita which can be a bedroom or den/exercise room 3.5 plus one for optional casita if used for bedroom three garages 20'-0" - one story P:\STAN\sdp 2002-727 pc rpt.wpd Plan 3 size - 2,655 square feet plus 270 square feet for optional attached casita # of bedrooms - Three plus optional attached casita which can be a bedroom or den/exercise room baths - 3.5 plus one for optional casita if used for bedroom garage spaces - three garages maximum building height - 24'-0" - two stories Within each plan there will be three facades. Facade (Type) A is a contemporary style, with facade (Type) B a Mission style, and Facade (Type) C a Spanish Revival style. Architectural features include articulated "s" or flat tile hip roofs, stuccoed eaves, entry courtyards (except for Type A contemporary), inset front windows, covered rear patios, and stucco popouts around all windows and doors, except for Type B which on the front has wood shutters. All exteriors of the units will use plaster with Type A contemporary adding a cultured stone wainscot on the front. Each plan has the option of adding an attached "casita" to the front of the residence. Exterior materials include smooth trowel finish plaster or medium sand finish (for Type A contemporary) walls, decorative cultured stone (for Type A contemporary), wood trim and headers. The roof material will "S" the in a red blend or marbled red or grey flat slate (for Type A contemporary). Material colors include beige to tan plaster, and white to light grey accent colors. The landscaping plans will be submitted at a later date for review by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION: The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee considered this request at its meeting of January 16, 2002, and by adoption of Minute Motion 2002-004, recommended approval of the prototype plans, subject to conditions (Attachment 3). FINDINGS: The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. P:\STAN\sdp 2002-727 pc rpt.wpd J ! ) %3 1. Compliance with Zoning Code- The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code in that the Zoning Code design guidelines require a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights and planes, and window and door surrounds for flat elevation planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that three facades for each of the plans are proposed, and stucco popouts are provided where required. All of the plans use a similar footprint and roof design. As such, when viewed from the front or rear, all houses use a main roof ridge line with hipped ends on each side. Condition #2A recommends one facade per prototype use gable ends, providing a variety in the streetscape. 2. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City in that the materials and design are typical of those used in surrounding projects such as Rancho La Quinta. Condition #213 recommends that the wood shutters and trellis beams be of a composite material which will withstand the summer heat. 3. Compliance with CEQA- This request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 98-375 which was certified by the City Council on June 1, 1999 and therefore, no further environmental review is needed. 4. Site Design- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city in that the residences will be laid out and provided in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements. 5. Landscape Design- New project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water efficiency, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. P:\STAN\sdp 2002-727 pc rpt.wpd ; it 4 6. Compliance with GeneraV Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for residences as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt minute Motion 2002- , approving Site Development Permit 2002-727, subject to the attached conditions: Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Minutes of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Meeting of January 16, 2002 Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager P:\STAN\sdp 2002-727 pc rpt.wpd Minute Motion 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development 2002-727 La Quinta Jefferson Fifty, LLC January 22, 2002 1. This approval is for the following prototype plans: Plan 1 - 3,030 square feet plus optional 250 square foot casita Plan 2 - 2,665 square feet plus optional 270 square foot casita Plan 3 - 2,655 square feet plus optional 250 square foot casita 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department, with the following revisions: A. One facade of each prototype shall be modified to change the main ridge lines hipped ends to gable ends the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of the first building permit. B. The wood shutters and trellis beams shall be made of a composite material to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 3. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 8.13 (Section 8.13.030 Db2), at least one model plan shall incorporate the principles of water efficient landscapes. 4. 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. 5. Detailed preliminary front yard and streetscape landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee for approval prior to issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval. p:\stan\sdp 2002-727 pc coa.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 15, 2002 °�► E. Site Development Permit 2001-727; a request of La Quinta Jefferson Fifty, LLC for review of architectural plans for three new prototype residential plans located north of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson Street. 1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Thorns asked why the cultured stone was being used. Mr. Michel Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated to provide architectural articulation. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agreed with changing the hip roof to the gable. The market place will dictate what will sell. He agrees with staff's recommendations and add the wood composite to the trellis beams as well. 4. Committee Member Thorns stated that the trellis and posts could be beefed up to look heavier. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the window treatment using the vinyl doors, it looks flat. He would suggest adding a plant-ons to give a depth. Mr. Kaufman stated there are plant-ons proposed. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002- 004 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001- 727. A. Condition #2.B.: Add trellis beams as a composite material. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None ariry G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\ 1-16-02.wpd 5