2002 11 26 PCTiti�t 4 4 Qgmro
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
NOVEMBER 26, 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 2002-107
Beginning Minute Motion 2002-018
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on November 12, 2002.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item .................
Applicant ..........
Location ...........
Request ..........1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Action ..............
B. Item .................
Applicant ..........
Location ...........
Request ............
Action .............
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459,
SPECIFIC PLAN 87-011 AMENDMENT #4,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072, TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 30903, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2002-751
Dale Frank and Associates/Washington 1 1 1, LTD
Bounded by Highway 1 1 1 on the north, Avenue 47
on the south, Washington Street on the West and
Adams Street on the east.
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact;
Consideration of the design guidelines and
development standards for a 488,050 square foot
commercial center;
Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow a
health club over 50.62 square feet;
Consideration of a tentative parcel map to allow the
subdivision of 50.71 acres into six parcels; and
Consideration of a site development permit to allow
construction of five commercial buildings.
Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002-
Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002-
Resolution 2002-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2002-015
Prest Vuksic Architects
The northwest corner of Calle Amigo and Desert Club
Drive
Consideration of development plans for construction
of a 6,700 square foot office building on a 0.4 acre
parcel.
Resolution 2002-
C. Item ................. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 AMENDMENT #2
Applicant .......... Cornerstone Developers
Location ........... Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson
Street
Request ............ Consideration of a tract map amendment to add ten
acres and 32 lots, resulting in a subdivision of 127
acres into 381 single family lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2002-
PC/AGENDA
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item .................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-752
Applicant ..........
Cornerstone Developers/Ponderosa Homes
Location ...........
Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson
Street, within Tentative Tract 29323
Request ............
Consideration of a residential tract development with
seven single family prototypes with three facade
treatments each, and landscape design plans.
Action ..............
Resolution 2002-
B. Item .................
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 2002-011
Applicant ..........
Grady Sparks/Coral Mountain, LLC
Location ...........
Portion of Madison Street between Avenue 58 and
Avenue 60
Request ............
Determination of General Plan consistency of the
proposed 60 foot wide street right of way vacation
Action ..............
Resolution 2002-
C. Item .................
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 2002-012
Applicant ..........
Louis Campagna
Location ...........
Portion of Calle Tampico near Avenida Navarro
Request ............
Determination of General Plan consistency of the
proposed right of way vacation
Action ..............
Resolution 2002-
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of November 5, 2002
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting
to be held on December 10, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 12, 2002 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Richard Butler.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning
Manager Oscar Orci, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
October 22, 2002. There being no corrections, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abels to approve the minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Variance 2002-031 and Parcel Map 30892 • a request of Lench Design
Group for review of a variance to the lot width and size standards and
subdivision of a lot into two lots located at 53-220 and 53-240 Avenida
Rubio.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-12-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2002
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Commissioner Robbins moved that the staff report be
waived. Unanimously approved.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Lench,
applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions.
3. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion
of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
4. Chairman Butler asked why this was not caught by the Title
Company. Mr. Lench stated one caught it and the other didn't.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-105 approving Variance 2002-031, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-106 approving Tentative
Parcel Map 30892, subject to the findings and conditions as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion regarding Planning Commission Study Sessions.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 1-1 2-02.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2002
1. Commissioner Tyler stated he was reintroducing the subject to see
if it would be appropriate to start having study sessions again.
2. Commissioner Abels/Robbins noted other cities that held study
sessions and how informative they could be.
3. Commissioner Kirk stated study session can be used to work out
the deals and the public hearing becomes only a formality and
public input becomes an after thought.
4. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the City Council has set the
procedures for Planning Commission meetings. There is no Brown
Act violation by having a study session. It is more of a due
process issue. The problem is that during study sessions
statements are made that shows a determination has been made
prior to the public hearing. Any person can speak on the agenda
items, but study sessions lend itself to statements being made
that show a decision preference.
5. Chairman Butler asked how a study session could be defined to
information only and not discussion. City Attorney Kathy Jenson
stated the public hearing could be opened at 3:00 p.m., discuss
the issues and then continue the hearing to 7:00 p.m.
6. Commissioner Tyler stated the study session could be held a week
or two before the pubic hearing to gather information.
7. Commissioner Robbins stated that on larger issues, such as the
General Plan update, it would help to have study sessions before
the public hearing.
8. Chairman Butler stated it appeared the consensus of the
Commission was to not have regular study sessions, but hold
them only as a need occurred. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated
it could be held on a one time basis. She would recommend that
if the Commission believes there is not enough time to consider a
project, it can be continued and that would be a more defensable
stance to have a study session.
B. Discussion regarding canceling the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Commission on December 24, 2002. It was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abees to cancel the meeting of
December 24, 2002. Unanimously approved.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 1- 1 2-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2002
C. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of
November 5, 2002.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held November 26, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. on November
12, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-12-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2002
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Commissioner Robbins moved that the staff report be
waived. Unanimously approved.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Lench,
applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions.
3. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion
of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
4. Chairman Butler asked why this was not caught by the Title
Company. Mr. Lench stated one caught it and the other didn't.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-105 approving Variance 2002-031, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Abets to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-106 approving Tentative
Parcel Map 30892, subject to the findings and conditions as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion regarding Planning Commission Study Sessions.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 1- 1 2-02.wpd 2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 2002
CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2002-015 - SUN VISTA
APPLICANT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS
PROPERTY OWNER: MR. ROB CAPETZ
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A ±6,700 S.F. COMMERCIAL OFFICE
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE AMIGO AND DESERT
CLUB DRIVE (ATTACHMENT #1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES SECTION 15332
(INFILL DEVELOPMENT)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
The 0.4 acre project site at the southerly limits of the Village Commercial District. The
site has been cleared and graded in its entirety, and is devoid of any vegetation,
topography or landmarks. An existing fire hydrant is located at the southeast corner
of the property, and curb and gutter exist along its frontages on Calle Amigo and Desert
Club Drive. Properties adjacent to the site are vacant to the north, east and west. To the
south, across Avenue 52, is Fritz Burns Park.
Project Background
The applicant proposes a two-story, ±6,700 square foot commercial/office building
on the proposed site (Attachment #2). This office building is oriented along the Calle
Amigo frontage to the south, facing the street. A tower element is proposed as part
of the building, focused at the corner intersection.
ALRC Action - On October 2, 2002, the ALRC reviewed the project landscaping and
building architecture (Attachment #3, ALRC minutes). The following issues were raised
by the Committee:
1. Relationship to the Village Design Guidelines - The Committee questioned the
project's compliance with these guidelines. Their comments were noted and will
be discussed later in this report.
2. Site Design - The Committee wanted to see more attention to the pedestrian
aspect of the project. They recommend a redesign of the building entry area
through elimination of one parking stall and the southerly entry driveway, to
allow for an open courtyard area design in front of the building parking area.
3. Landscaping - The Committee requested that Green Cloud and Texas Ranger
plantings be increased in size, from 1 to 5 gallons; that the river rock treatment
be extended farther south to the intersection corner; and that landscaping at the
corner be limited to 30 inches or less in height.
Building Design - The building architecture utilizes smooth texture plaster, deep
recessed overlays and natural stone elements. Color tones for building surfaces are in
shades of brown, with more reddish -brown shades used to accent lower and upper
portions of the building elevations. The central design feature is a tower element,
located at the southeast corner of the building.
Building Height - The proposed two-story building height is 32 feet, 3 inches from
finish floor, which is just under 33 feet measured from finish grade. The tower
element, from finish grade, is right at 35 feet high. The Village Commercial (VC)
district allows building heights of two stories, up to 35 feet.
Parking - The VC zoning permits parking reductions on a case -by -case basis. The
reduction is determined based on the parking required under the Zoning Code. This use
requires 27 spaces, with 23 spaces shown. Other uses, such as Andrew's Bar &
Grille, which have more intensive parking requirements, have been approved at lower
parking ratios.
Lighting - The City is working to complete a revised lighting control ordinance. Staff
has prepared a condition pertaining to site lighting, requiring review at plan check. At
that time, there should be a completed ordinance.
Public Notice
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 15, 2002. All
property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required. No comments have been received. Any correspondence received
before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission.
Public Agency Review
Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible and concerned public
agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development
Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, as
appropriate.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
1 . Consistency with Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines - In regard to site and
building design, the Guidelines suggest that corner buildings "shall attempt to
orient pedestrian entryways to the corner, providing an opportunity for a small
entry court or plaza, water feature location, etc. This also allows for better
intersection visibility. " (Guidelines II.C.1.). The building itself is consistent with
the Guidelines in terms of it's architecture, but the location on the site was
discussed by the ALRC. Staff considers this site as a peripheral location, at the
south edge of the Village, and not warranting a significant open treatment at
the corner. The tower element provides a landmark statement for the building,
and does not significantly interfere with visibility at the corner, as the street
alignment for Desert Club Drive shifts to the east as it joins approaches Calle
Amigo.
2. Pedestrian accessibility - A related concern of the ALRC was that the building
site does not provide a reasonable amount of open area for pedestrians. The
Committee felt that removing the east parking stall closest to the building, and
limiting the project to one driveway access, would allow a much greater
pedestrian space, and create a more open appearance along the street scape.
The applicant was amenable to eliminating the parking stall, but felt that loss
of the second driveway cut would require a parking lot redesign which would
severely reduce the amount of parking currently provided.
3. Parking - The site requires 27 spaces, where 23 have been provided. Several
other projects in the Village have been approved with substantial reduction in
on -site parking requirements. Elimination of one parking stall and the south
entry, as alluded top above, would create a poor parking area circulation
scenario, but could be achieved without significantly reducing the number of
spaces. As Desert Club Drive is not on the General Plan Circulation Diagram
(local street only), there are no driveway entry limitations.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Village at La Quinta
Design Guidelines, findings necessary to approve this proposal can be made as noted
in the attached draft resolution to be adopted for this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , confirming the
environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and
granting approval of Village Use Permit 2002-015, subject to conditions as
recommended by staff.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Project site plan
3. ALRC minutes of October 2, 2002 (3 pgs.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VILLAGE
USE PERMIT 2002-015, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A
± 6,700 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDING
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2002-015
MR. ROB CAPETZ
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26th day of November, 2002, consider Village Use Permit 2002-015 for a
±6,700 square -foot commercial/office building, located at the northwest corner of
Calle Amigo and Desert Club Drive, and more particularly described as:
LOT 7 OF DESERT CLUB TRACT #1, MB 19/75 OF MAPS
WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit application has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development
Department has determined that the proposed Village Use Permit is exempt from
CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development); and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said
Village Use Permit:
1. The proposed Village Use Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan,
as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan
land use designation of Village Commercial and other current City standards
when considering the conditions to be imposed.
2. The proposed Village Use Permit is consistent with the requirements and /or
intent of the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the project contemplates land uses that
are substantially equivalent to those permitted under existing zoning of
permitted uses, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for
the General Plan. Specifically, development of existing Village Commercial land
is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan.
3. The proposed Village Use Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that said Village Use
C: \W rkg rp\CasedocsWU P\peresovu p015.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill
Development), and that a Notice of Exemption should be filed.
4. Approval of the proposed Village Use Permit will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, nor
injurious to or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in the vicinity.
All immediately surrounding property is zoned for Village Commercial
Development, and development of office uses proximate to residential uses in
the area will not significantly impact quality of life issues for area residents.
5. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Village Use Permit, including
but not limited to architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors,
architectural detailing, roof style and other elements, are compatible with
surrounding development and quality of design illustrated in the Village at La
Quinta Design Guidelines, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the
City.
6. The site design aspects of the proposed Village Use Permit, including but not
limited to project entries, parking provisions, interior circulation, pedestrian and
bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening and other elements, are
compatible with surrounding development and quality of design illustrated in
the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, and with the overall design quality
prevalent in the City.
7. The project landscaping for the proposed Village Use Permit, including but not
limited to location, size, type and coverage of plant materials, has been
designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, unify and enhance
visual continuity of the site with surrounding development, and is consistent
with the concepts in the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines.
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 Village Use Permit 2002-015 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 26th day of November, 2002, by
the following vote, to wit:
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\peresovup015.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\peresovup015.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT „A„
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2002-015
MR. ROB CAPETZ
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Village Use Permit 2002-015 (VUP 2002-015) shall be developed in compliance
with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and
other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any subsequent
amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts, these conditions shall take
precedence.
2. This approval shall expire one year after it's effective date, as determined
pursuant to Section 9.200.060.0 of the Zoning Code, unless extended pursuant
to the provisions of 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
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.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Riverside County Fire Marshal
• La Quinta Building and Safety Department
• La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading/
Improvement/Encroachment Permits)
La Quinta Community Development Department
® Riverside County Environmental Health Department
Desert Sands Unified School District
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Southern California Gas Company
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• Waste Management of the Desert
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\coapcvup015.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 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.
5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water),
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land
that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five
(5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any
on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance
of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by
the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation
to this project.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\coapcvup015.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
6. Handicap access and facilities shall be provided in accordance with Federal
(ADA), State and local requirements. Handicap accessible parking shall generally
conform with the approved exhibits for VUP 2002-015.
7. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance
with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the
Zoning Code.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
8. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
9. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, and common areas on the final site plan.
10. Direct vehicular access to Desert Club Drive and Calle Amigo, along the
respective project frontages, is restricted, except for those access points
identified on the site plan for this project, or as otherwise set forth in these
conditions of approval.
11. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as
appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining
wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
12. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property, between the date of approval of this Village Use
Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on -site and off -site improvements
for this Village Use Permit, unless such easements are approved by the City
Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as
"engineer", "surveyor", and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or
licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\coapcvup015.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below
shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at
a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note: the applicant
may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to
improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Site Development Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
B. Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements, including but not necessarily limited to, finish grades for curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and
ADA requirements for the parking lot and access to the building, and show the
existing street improvements, out to at least the center lines of adjacent existing
streets.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including
but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm
drainage systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the
Building Official and the City Engineer.
15. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plans, construction notes and/or detail sheets from the
City.
16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The
files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully
retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\coapcvup015.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
Novemoer 26, 2002
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order
to reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD
format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City
Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans
FIRE PROTECTION
17. Specific fire protection requirements will be determined when final building plans
are submitted for review. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans
are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time
building plans are submitted.
GRADING
18. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
19. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
D. An approved Best Management Plan that include storm water pollution
prevention and erosion control plans, prepared by a qualified engineer.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
20. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind
and water erosion of soils. All such land shall be planted with interim
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\V UP\coapcvup015. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Public Works Departments under the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
21. Prior to issuance of the main building permit, the applicant shall provide a lot pad
certification, stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyor.
DRAINAGE
22. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner
UTILITIES
23. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
24. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development, and all
proposed utilities, shall be installed underground.
25. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City
Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench
compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
26. The applicant shall construct a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the frontage of Calle
Amigo, to the project boundary, and conform to City adopted standards,
supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer.
Improvement plans for parking and sidewalk areas shall be stamped and signed
by qualified engineers.
27. Parking lot design shall conform to the requirements of LQMC Chapter 12.32
28. The City will conduct final inspections only when the building has improved
sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include
any required pavement markings.
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\V UP\coapcvup015. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS POINTS
29. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Primary entry at Desert Club Drive; full turn movements allowed.
B. The southernmost access shall be eliminated to reduce pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts and provide a more open and visually attractive street scape.
30. The easternmost parking stall in front of the building entry shall be deleted, and
replaced with a hardscape/landscape design area oriented to pedestrian traffic
circulation (on and off -site access). Parking may be reduced, by approval of the
Community Development Director, to allow re -design of this area in conjunction
with Condition 29 compliance.
LANDSCAPING
31. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized, with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
32. On -site landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for approval by the
Community Development Department. Plans shall be in substantial conformance
with the conceptual landscaping as approved for the project by Planning
Commission. All plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the
signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior
to submitting for signature final acceptance by the Community Development
Department.
33. Green Cloud and Texas Ranger plantings, as shown on the concept plans on file,
shall be increased in size, from 1 to 5 gallons. The river rock treatment along
Desert Club Drive shall be extended farther south to the intersection corner; and
that landscaping at and near the corner shall be limited to 30 inches or less in
height. These revisions shall be incorporated into the plan check sets.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
34. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\coapcvup015.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
35. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified engineers, surveyors, or other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
36. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurement, sampling
and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but
required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods
employed comply with plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.
37. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or
"As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall
have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City revised
to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
38. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
39. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for plan checking and permits.
40. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the
City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of
building permits.
41. Permit(s) issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time said permit(s) are issued..
MISCELLANEOUS
42. The applicant shall submit a detailed project area lighting plan. All pole -mounted
light standards shall conform to lighting standards as in effect when plans are
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\coapcvup01 5.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2002-015
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
reviewed. Under canopy lighting for building areas shall incorporate flush lens
caps or similar recessed ceiling lighting.
The lighting plan shall be submitted for review at the time construction plan
check for the permanent building permit is made to Building and Safety.
43. A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Commission prior to establishment of any permanent signs for the
project. Provisions of the sign program shall be in compliance with applicable
sections of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code.
44. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using
compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be
visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all
such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety
Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method
and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development
Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures
requiring such screening.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\VUP\coapcvup015.wpd
T.R. A. 020-016
020-051 C20- 065 S W 9 SW 4 SEC. E7
N
N
acz-I
sa•as
8A
83'
9a•�l
/
2
4
'1
�
l8/
T
;
'�j
ti
w
-�
DESERT CLUB
DRIVE }
SITE
4a,
W
TRA 020-05/
O
• U
cr
8 M Q
e "5
8
Itt.••
_ _Isl_s�
Isis!
h
O 9
9 4
--
---
nsi
l82
la..�l
/83
1.8AC
w
/O
= 5
/0 f
O /. 04 AC
Q
��JJ 4
W
�
Q d
w
40
7a i!
i1 i,
ill .'►1
mat .\7•
11\•!l
/2 \�
-
�•.!a
!a.la
a
----� '+- A VEN1 DA
OW9
r
M.B.19175 Desert Ch/b Tract Unit No. /
M.B. 145155 - 56 Tract No. 19203
LOCATION MAP
Lot D
Cf M 89 - /54
601Rd pei insf..
lam.
.,
ATTACHMENT
` �
cn
w C-)
Of Wp49—j
Of
EPP
m
gA
'Fir j
I
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-485 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 2, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER
10:00 a.m.
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called
to order at 10:06 a.m. by Associate Planner Greg Trousdell who led the
flag salute.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and David
Thorns.
C. Staff present: Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Wallace Nesbit,
and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of September 4,
2002. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to approve the Minutes as
submitted.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Village Use Permit 2002-015; a request of Prest/Vuksic Architects for
review of architecture and landscaping plan for a 7.676 square foot two
story office building.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell .gave an explanation of the
project and introduced Mr. Dave Prest, architect for the project,
who gave presentations on the project and noted the size of the
building was approximately 6,600 square feet of leasable space.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had no objection to the
design of the building, but under the Village Guidelines the
landscaping will need to be maintained at the corner to not block
GAWPD0CSMRLC\10-2-02.wpd 1
ATTACHMENT
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
October 2, 2002
visibility. The City is looking for an entryway off the corner and
in this respect it does not meet the Guidelines. He questioned
how much this project should adhere to the Guidelines being an
office building. Staff noted this building was further away from
the central Village downtown area and the enhanced corner
landscaping may not be needed. He noted the Village Specific
Plan was replaced by the Guidelines as it was too detailed and the
Guidelines were adopted allow more flexibility. Committee
Member Bobbitt stated his concern was the visibility at the corner.
Staff noted that as the street was designed it reduces the concern
for visibility. Committee Member Bobbitt stated then his only
concern is that the plant material at the corner is low enough to
not add to any visibility problems. Mr. Prest noted the tower adds
to the aesthetics of the corner, and noted this is an office building
with no pedestrian traffic except for those coming to the
businesses at the office building.
3. Committee Member Thorns stated his issue is with the site plan
not meeting the spirit of the Village Guidelines. There is no
outside space located on this site for the people who even work
at this location to gather. There is also a potential site line
problem at the street intersection. The Guidelines also speak
about stepping back the second level which this building does
somewhat, but not enough. The landscaping does not provide
enough elevation changes.
4. Committee Member Cunningham stated the architecture is
excellent and will hold up over time. He has the same thoughts in
regard to the Village Guidelines. He is not opposed to allowing
flexibility with regard to the Guidelines and asked when the
Guidelines were approved. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit
noted in 1998. They were not intended to address every
situation. This building is not in the core of the Village and is a
destination type building. As it is not in the heart of the Village,
the concerns raised may not be applicable. Committee Member
Cunningham stated deviation should be for a specific purpose or
there is no reason to deviate. His concern is that this not set a
precedent that will cause problems with the next project being
reviewed. Staff needs to review the projects submitted in light of
the Village Guidelines.
5. Mr. Prest stated that in regard to an outside area he could
eliminate a parking space in front of the building to create an
outside gathering area. Commissioners concurred with the idea.
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\10-2-02.wpd 2
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
October 2, 2002
6. Commissioner Thorns suggested the area be increased to bring the
walkway out to the street and suggested some changes to the
landscaping to bring the river rock to the corner. He further stated
his concerns that those traveling east could potentially have a
visibility problem. He suggested closing off the southern -most
access point and allowing only one way in and out. Staff noted
this was a question for Public Works. Mr. Prest stated that having
two access points is always better.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Cunning ham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion
2002-039 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2002-
015, subject to the conditions as amended.
A. Texas Ranger and Green Cloud shrubs be increased in size
to five gallons.
B. Contouring along the streetscape needs to be continuance
with riverbed extended to the street intersection.
C. Redesign the pedestrian entrance to create a courtyard
affect on the north side of the building.
D. The applicant is to consider the possibility of a one way in
and out access point for the parking lot.
Unanimously approved.
B. Tentative Tract Man 30834; a request of Madison Estates, LLC for
review of landscape plans for a 76 lot single family development on 29
acres located on the north side of Avenue 58 and west of Madison
Street.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department and introduced Mr. Ron
Gregory, landscape architect for the project, who gave a
presentation on the request and introduced Matt Summitt, Project
Designer for the project.
2. Committee Member Thorns asked if the individual lots have access
out to the common area. Mr. Gregory stated not at this point.
Committee Member Thoms asked the height of the walls inside the
retention basin. Mr. Gregory stated 4-5 feet.
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\l0-2-02.wpd 3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 2002
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDMENT #2
REQUEST: 1. RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY AN ADDENDUM TO EA
99-389, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 15, 2000, AND;
2. SECOND AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 29323.
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND
JEFFERSON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEER: MAINIERO SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT 29323 ON FEBRUARY 15, 2000 (RESOLUTION 2000-12).
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
COMPLETED AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 99-389, FOR TT 29323 AMENDMENT #1, WHICH
WAS CERTIFIED ON JULY 2, 2002. THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT NONE
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH IN PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE 21166 HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST AND,
ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN
PREPARED UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-461.
GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), 0-4 UNITS PER ACRE
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\reports\perpt29323#2.wpd
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
Tentative Tract Map 29323 was originally approved for 379 residential lots on 117
acres. A Specific Plan was also approved, which included reductions in development
standards of the Zoning Code, pertaining to lot size and dimensions, setback
requirements and lot coverage. Subsequent to this approval, the property was
annexed to the City of La Quinta effective April 17, 2001.
The City Council approved Amendment #1 to TT 29323 on July 2, 2002 (Attachment
2). That amendment revised the layout of the project, reduced the residential lot
count to 349 and increased lot sizes throughout the project area.
Currently, the site is being watered preparatory to grading, and studies required as
conditioned are being completed.
Project Request
The applicant proposes to add 10 acres and 32 residential lots to the original 117
acre site, for a total of 381 residential lots. This additional acreage is the triangular
property immediately east of this site, along Jefferson Street (Attachment 3). The
east/west running streets have been extended into the added area. The access to
Jefferson Street has been relocated, to align with Dunbar Drive, a future street on the
east side of Jefferson. The general lot layout and sizes in the original area have not
been changed. The proposed tract density is essentially the same, at 3.0 units/acre,
as compared with the current 2.98 units/acre. Two developers (Cornerstone and
Ponderosa Homes) have submitted unit types proposed for the lots, which have been
recommended for approval by ALRC and will be reviewed by Planning Commission
separately, at this meeting, as a Business Item.
Public Notice
This proposal was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 6, 2002. All
property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice. As of the date this report was finalized, no written comment has been
received beyond the public agency comments. All correspondence received prior to
the meeting will be presented to the Planning Commission.
Public Agency Review
Staff mailed a copy of the applicants request to responsible public agencies on
November 6, 2002. All written comments received are on file with the Community
Development Department. All agency comments received have been made part of the
Conditions of Approval for this case, to the extent they are applicable.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\reports\perpt29323#2.wpd
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision
Ordinance, the following findings for the project are provided:
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan designates the project site as Low Density Residential (Up to 4 units
per acre) which allows single family uses (e.g., attached or detached housing units).
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2 increases the previously approved overall
density from 2.98 to 3.0 units/acre, which remains consistent with the Land Use
Element.
The City is processing an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element, which
will re -designate Fred Waring Drive from a Primary Arterial (A) to a Major Arterial.
This will require a six -lane facility versus a four -lane facility. Conditions 9, 16, and 59
have been revised to address this change, so that the tract will be consistent with
this aspect of the General Plan.
A biological survey was submitted for review as part of the grading plan review
requirements and approval conditions for the Amendment #1 map. The survey
recommends mitigation to assess measures for the offset of habitat loss to the
Coachella Valley milk vetch plant species with the United States Department of Fish
and Wildlife (USFWS). Condition 89 has been prepared to require the applicant to
confer with USFWS on the survey's recommendations.
A Phase I archaeological survey shall be required for the additional 10 acres along
Jefferson Street. Condition 87 addresses this requirement.
Based on the proposed design, no other General Plan issues have been identified that
are not adequately addressed.
Tract Design/Improvements
The design of the private interior streets and the proposed residential and lettered lots
are similar to those in the existing tract approval. The overall tract design is
consistent with standards of the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance. Street
and other infrastructure improvements will be installed to service the proposed
subdivision. Impacts associated with development of the project shall be mitigated
through adherence to the recommended conditions.
CAWrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\reports\perpt29323#2.wpd
During review of the Amendment #1 submission, and plan check of the initial grading
submissions, Public Works and the applicant have worked to address the on -site
incongruities of the site topology. Building heights along the north, east and west
property boundaries could be a concern, particularly with respect to the significant
on -site undulation of the property. In addition to the grading consistency requirements
of Public Works, staff recommends maintaining the building height limit of one story,
at a maximum of 22 feet around the entire project perimeter, for a distance of 150
feet into the site.
Health and Safety
Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be required during
development of TT 29323. These include water, sewer, streets, and other necessary
improvements. The health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be
assured based on the recommended conditions, which serve to address the previous
assessment of these issues in the Environmental Assessment previously certified for
the tract.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending certification
of the Addendum to Environmental Assessment 99-389, subject to findings,
and;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of
TT 29323, Amendment #2, subject to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Approved TT 29323, Amendment #1 map
3. Proposed TT 29323, Amendment #2 map
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
CAWrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\reports\perpt29323#2.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM (EA 2002-461) TO
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389, FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, FOR A
SUBDIVISION OF 381 LOTS ON 127 ACRES, LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND
JEFFERSON STREET
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the
15t' day of February, 2000, certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined under
Environmental Assessment 99-389, prepared for Specific Plan 99-040 and Tentative
Tract 29323, as set forth in said Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the
2nd day of July, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to certify an addendum to
Environmental Assessment 99-389, for Amendment #1 of Tentative Tract 29323; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 26t' day of November, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of a second addendum (EA 2002-461) to Environmental Assessment 99-389,
for Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2; and,
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution
83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA
2002-461), and has determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public
Resources Code 21 166 have been shown to exist; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 99-389, by Resolution No. 2000-12, prepared for Specific Plan 99-040
and Tentative Tract Map 29323; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts
to justify a recommendation to certify said Addendum:
The Revised Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the addendum prepared for the Revised Project did not identify
any significant impacts beyond the existing project approval.
2. The Revised Project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the addendum prepared for this Revised Project
did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Addendum to EA 99-389
November 26, 2002
3. The Revised Project will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as those impacts identified for geologic, water, air quality,
biology, hydrology, noise, utility systems and cultural resources were addressed
as part of prior environmental review, with no significant new impacts being
identified with the Revised Project.
4. The Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect
humans, either directly or indirectly, as the addendum prepared for this Revised
Project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the public health,
safety, or general welfare.
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 in this case;
2. That it does hereby affirm the environmental determination and recommends to the
City Council certification of an Addendum (EA 2002-461) to EA 99-389 for
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 26' day of November, 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 2002-461
1. Project Title: Cornerstone Development
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #2
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7069
4. Project Location: 127 acres on the Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive
and Jefferson Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cornerstone Development
5005 Calle San Raphael #13-1
Palm Springs, CA 92264
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (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.)
An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to include a 10 acre parcel and increase the density over the current
approved map by 0.02 units/acre. The project would increase from 349 lots on
117 acres, to 381 lots on 127 acres.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
South: New LDR development (Monticello)
East: Country Club development (City of Indio)
West: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
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. Is
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, 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, and nothing further is required. ❑
Signature
Wallace Nesbit
Printed Name
November 4, 2002
Date
Community Development
Department
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
2
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 account for 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 analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
CAWrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eack1st389#2.wpd
3
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General
Plan MEA)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (Site assessment)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials/site assessment)
11. 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 to non-agricultural use? (LQGP)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; MEN
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; MEN
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, EA 99-389)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1990
PM10 SIP, EA 99-389)
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/PM10 SIP)
F3
X
X
X
X
M
X
R7
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
4
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis)
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials)
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (site bio
assessment; James Cornett; 11/14/02)
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? (site bio
assessment; James Cornett; 11/14/02)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA, EIR)
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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP, EA 99-389)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
X
X
X
X
X
X
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?
(EA 99-389) X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitiaated Imnant Imnact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource (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 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)?
(EA 99-389)
X
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed delineation map, EA 99-389)
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? (Site history)
X
vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General
Plan EIR)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR )
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could 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)
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)
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? (MEA,
General Plan EIR)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eackist389#2.wpd
6
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
/II. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project
assessment)
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? (Not
applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (MEA, La Quinta General Plan)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? (EA 99-389; Site assessment)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (MEA, General Plan)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
91
U
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Miticated Impact Impact
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)
X
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (General
Plan EIR, Project drainage data)
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
to control? (EIR; Project drainage data)
X
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable)
X
g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA)
X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site
assessment; Aerial data)
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? (MEA, CVFTL HCP)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA)
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? (EIR,
EA 99-389) X
X
FN
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitioated Impact Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -
based vibration/noise levels? (EA 99-389)
X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (EA 99-389)
X
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?
(Not applicable)
X
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? (Not applicable)
X
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, Project assessment)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Project assessment)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project
assessment)
XIII. 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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA)
Schools? (General Plan MEA)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA)
M
X
W
F�q
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
9
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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 facilities would occur or be
accelerated? (Project assessment)
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? (Project
assessment)
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)? (EA 99-389)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Riverside County
CMP; General Plan Circulation Element)
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? (Not applicable)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (Project assessment)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment, EA 96-328)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD, LQGP)
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? (CVWD, LQGP).
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? (CVWD, LQGP)
FQ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P�
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
10
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (LQGP)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
X
serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
X
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (LQGP MEA)
X
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
See attached Checklist Addendum.
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 Checklist Addendum.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\eacklst389#2.wpd
11
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-461:
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #99-389
PRIOR ADDENDUM UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #02-446
(CEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #2
Presented to the Planning Commission for Recommendation
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
November 26, 2002
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\adden389#2.wpd
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code section 21000, etseq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to the original
Environmental Assessment #99-389, certified on February 15, 2000, by the La
Quinta City Council for Wade Ellis. A prior Addendum was also certified on July 2,
2002, for the repeal of the original Specific plan and design modification to the
original tract layout.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document a modification of a portion of the
project, which will be implemented through the following subdivision approval:
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #2
This case is referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures included in
EA 99-389 and EA 02-446 are incorporated into this document by reference.
The Revised Project consists of a 381 lot single family subdivision proposal, adding
10 acres, for a new project area of ± 127 acres, which would replace the existing
approval for 349 lots on 117 acres. The original project area under the Specific Plan
was approved for 379 lots, so the proposed revision essentially reduces the original
density, as approved in 2000, from 3.24 to 3.0 units/acre. The City has determined
that the Revised Project will be consistent with the intensity of development and
character of the adjacent residential properties, and will be consistent with the goals,
policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan, as approved in March 2002.
The Revised Project does not propose any change to the land use as approved in the
prior actions. The currently approved map allows for 349 lots on 117 acres (2.98
units/acre). The approvals requested as part of the Revised Project are:
1) An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to include a 10 acre parcel and increase the density over the current
approved map by 0.02 units/acre.
The City has compared the impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist prepared
for the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the adopted EA 99-389 and
finds as follows:
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\adden389#2.wpd
Water - Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The Revised
Project will create drainage
impacts similar to those
identified for the original
proposal under EA 99-389 and
EA 02-446. As such, the map
provides for several smaller
retention areas, interconnected
through a linear facility
traversing the site northwest to
southeast.
Biology - Impacts greater than
previously analyzed. The
development of the Revised
Project will result in a similar loss
of habitat for the Coachella
Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
(CVFTL). A bio study of the
entire new site indicates a
significant loss of mesquite
hummock and CV Milk -Vetch
habitat. A focused survey for
Giant Sand Treader Cricket still
must be undertaken.
Cultural Resources - Impacts no
greater than previously analyzed.
The project proponent shall
submit for review and approval
a comprehensive Phase 11
archaeological investigation. An
archaeological monitor shall be
on site during any grubbing,
earth moving or excavation
activities. This is required
mitigation as originally stipulated
in EA 99-389. Phase I shall be
required for the additional 10
acre site.
Air Quality - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. The Coachella
Valley has in the past
been a non -attainment
area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10
microns or smaller), and
is currently in danger of
losing it's attainment
status. In order to
control PM 10, the City
has imposed standards
and requirements on
development to control
dust. This project will
be required to comply
with the PM 10 Fugitive
Dust Control Plan
(FDCP) currently
approved for the entire
project area.
Noise - Impacts not
significantly greater than
previously analyzed.
Development of the site
will create construction
noise impacts of a short-
term nature. New long
term impacts relate to
roadway noise by
addition of 10 acres
fronting on Jefferson
Street. A new/revised
acoustic study will be
required to address the
effects of such noise on
the Revised Project.
Geology & Soils -
Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
site is not located in any
Earthquake Fault zones
as designated by the
State but is mapped in
Ground Shaking Zone IV
meaning seismic events
can cause damage to
building under certain
occurrences. Impacts
involving potential
seismic activity also
relate to possible risk
associated with upset of
hazardous substances
(i.e. fuels and auto -
related chemicals and
wastes) and potential for
upset/explosion/fire. The
project will be required
to adhere to seismic
reinforcement and other
requirements as called
for by the UBC.
Transportation/Traffic -
Impacts similar to those
previously analyzed.
Development of the
Revised Project adds 2
lots to the original unit
count of 379. A similar
impact in generated traffic
can be anticipated.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\adden389#2.wpd
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of
a subsequent EA 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 EA 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 EA; or
3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects
on the environment not analyzed in the EA, or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts.
EA 99-389 and EA 02-446 have been incorporated with this addendum. A copy of the
complete EA documents are attached.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
1. City of La Quinta General Plan; Adopted 3/20/02.
2. Environmental Assessment 99-389, certified 2/15/200
3. Environmental Assessment 02-446, certified 7/02/02
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District; CEQA Handbook, April 1993.
5. Final Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan; June 2002.
6. Biological Resources Assessment for Cornerstone; James W. Cornett, 1 1 /14/02.
7. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan; June 1985.
8. Riverside County Congestion Management Plan; 1992.
CAW rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\adden389#2.wpd
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation is recommended, based on the Revised Project review (final wordinc
as included in the conditions of approval for the project may be subject to change). Mitigatior
measures adopted as part of prior analyses under this project are incorporated by reference,
and are found in those analyses.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
A. The project proponent shall confer with the United States Department of Fish anc
Wildlife (USFWS) to assess measures for the offset of habitat loss to the CoachellE
Valley milk vetch plant species. Such offsets shall include consideration of
maintenance program of the species within the proposed project landscaping, alonc
with a remedial hummock habitat, within protected areas of common area landscapinc
within the development. This shall be done during landscape plan preparation, witl-
written findings/recommendations from USFWS to be submitted and incorporated witl-
the project landscape plans as may be appropriate. The plans as proposed shall bE
subject to review by the ALRC as part of the overall common area landscaping plan:
submitted for final approval.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be required for the additional 10 acres alonc
Jefferson Street. This may be done in conjunction with monitoring on the original sitE
as required, but no grading on this portion may commence until clearance has beer
given from the Community Development Department.
NOISE:
A. A revised acoustic analysis shall be prepared to include assessment of the impacts o
roadway noise from Jefferson Street on the project residents. The revised report shal
address the proposed site in its entirety, and shall be reviewed and accepted b)
Community Development prior to issuance of any building permits, other than fo
approved model units within a City -approved model complex.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\eadocs\adden389#2.wpd
E
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM
TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389, FOR AN
AMENDED SUBDIVISION OF 349 LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND
JEFFERSON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
211 day of July, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on the adoption of an Addendum to
Environmental Assessment 99-389, for Extension #1 of Tentative Tract 29323,
Amended # 1; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 11 to day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation to the City Council on adoption of an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 99-389; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 1511 day of February, 2000, certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined
under Environmental Assessment 99-389, prepared for Specific Plan 99-040 and
Tentative Tract 29323, as set forth in said Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended,
Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial
Study, and has determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public
Resources Code 21166 have been shown to exist; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 99-389, by Resolution No. 2000-12, prepared for SP 99-040 and TTM
29323, for Wade Ellis; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on July 2Id, 2002 upon considering
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the La Quinta
City Council did find the following facts to justify certification of said Addendum:
1. The Revised Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the Addendum prepared for the Revised Project did not identify
any significant impacts beyond the existing project approval.
•
•
Resolution No. 2002-105
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: July 2, 2002
Page 2
2. The Revised Project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the addendum prepared for this Revised
Project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The Revised Project will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as those impacts identified for geologic, water, air
quality, biology, hydrology, noise, utility systems and cultural resources were
addressed as part of prior environmental review, with no significant new
impacts being identified with the Revised Project.
4. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, as the Addendum prepared
for this Revised Project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the
public health, safety, or general welfare.
5. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project
contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed
under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan and Tentative Tract
29323. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human
health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The Planning Commission and City Council have considered the Addendum to
Environmental Assessment 99-389, and both bodies have determined that it
reflects the independent judgement of the City.
8. 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).
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 City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
Resolutlon No. 2002-106
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Comerstone Development
Adopted: July 2, 2002
Page 3
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council in this case;
2. That it does hereby affirm the environmental determination of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, thereby certifying the Addendum to EA 99-389 for
Extension #1 of Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council, held on this 2"d day of July, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Mayor Pro Tern Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
STANLEY SNIFF, M
City of La Quinta, C
ATTEST:
i
JU REEK, CMC, y Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(Seal)
L_J
Resolution No. 2002-105
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: July 2, 2002
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r
TH INE JENS , City Att rney
City of La Quinta, Cdfflornia
•
•
2.
3.
4.
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 2002-446
Project Title: Cornerstone Development
Specific Plan 99-040
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1 /Extension #1
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7069
Project Location: 117 acres on the'Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive
and Washington Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cornerstone Development
5005 Calle San Raphael #B-1
Palm Springs, CA 92264
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (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.)
Repeal of the approved Specific Plan design guidelines and development
standards to allow revision of an existing tentative map approval. The tentative
map is being extended, as a new map is not being filed in lieu of amending the
existing map.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the prciect's surroundings.)
North: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
South: New LDR development (Monticello)
East: Country Club development (City of Indio)
West: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils Population and Housing
Determination 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.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. a
I find that the proposed 'project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. El
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, 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, and nothing further is required.
Signature
Wallace Nesbit
Printed Name
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
2
May 21. 2002
Date
Community Development
Department
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 account for 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 XVI11, "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 analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\ead6cs\eackist389.wpd
3
•
•
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Loss Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact impac
Would the proposal result in potential Impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General
Plan MEA)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (Site assessment)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials/site assessment)
Il. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: (In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland) Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? (LQGP MEA)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; MEA)
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; MEA)
Ill. 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, EA 99-389)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1990
PM10 SIP, EA 99-389)
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/PM 10 SIP)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadoc s\e ac kls%389. w pd
4 _
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
Issues (and Capporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitlasted Impact Imnset
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis)
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials)
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (MEA)
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? IMEA, site
assessment)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA, EIR)
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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP, EA 99-389)
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?
(EA 99-389)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
5
X
X
X
F-4
X
X
•
iV J
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentlagy Significant less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitlaated Imnaee I--.-
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource (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 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)?
(EA 99-389)
X
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed delineation map)
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
X
Ur.ULUUY 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)
ill Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR )
ill) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR)
)v) Landslides? (General Plan EIR)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could 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)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property? (General Plan EIR)
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? (MEA,
General Plan EIR)
P:\Wally\Casedoc s\Current\TT293 2 3\e adocs\eAc kist389. wpd
6
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
_._ Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Wouid.the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Sitelproject assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project
assessment)
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? (Not
applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (MEA, La Quinta General Plan)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wiidland fires, including where wildiands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildiands? (EA .99-389; Site assessment)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (MEA, General Plan)
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)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\CurrentkTT29323keadocs\eackist389.wpd
7
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
0
46
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Slpniftcant Unless Significant No
Impact IYIItiasted b.... # 1_--_
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)
X
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (General
Plan EIR, Project drainage data)
X
9) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems to
control? (EIR; Project drainage data)
X
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable)
X
9) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would
Impede or redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA)
X
IA.
X.
XI.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site
assessment; Aerial data)
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? (MEA, CVFTL HCP)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA)
NOISE: Would the project result in:
X
X
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? (EIR, EA
99-389) X
P:%WallylCasedocs%Cu rrent1TT293231eadocsleacklst389. wpd
8
*0
Xlll.
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impa
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground.
based vibration/noise levels? (EA 99-389) X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic Increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (EA 99-389) X
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?
(Not applicable)
X
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? (Not applicable) X
POPULATION :ND 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, Project assessment)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Project assessment)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project
assessment)
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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA)
Schools? (General Plan MEA)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially
Issues (and Gupporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impac
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional pz.rks, or other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be
accelerated? (Project assessment)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an advers o physical effect on the environment? (Project
assessment)
XV. TRANSPORTA 'ON/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an inC, ease in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing trz"Jc load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volurr,3 to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
Intersections)? (iA 99-389)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard establ:shed by the county congestion management
agency for desi--nated roads or highways? (Riverside County
CMP; General Plan Circulation Element)
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 safer;, risks? (Not applicable)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or daneC ous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (Project assessment)
e) Result in inad . ;uate emergency access? (Project assessment)
f) Result in )nac--quate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict wi.:i adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (..g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment, El.: 6-328)
XVI. UTILITIES ANC --ERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wasta, ater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water --ual)ty Control Board? (CVWD)
b) Require or r-sult in the construction of new water or
wastewater tre— :ment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental ei':cts? (CVWD),
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Cu -ant\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W Require or ; asult in the construction of new storm water
drainage faciPles or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction c.- which could cause significant environmental
effects? (CV%,%, .)
X
Issues (and Su ,porting Information Sources):
d) Are sufficier
from existing
expanded entit:
e) Has the was
serve the projc -
serve the pro':
provider's exist'..
f) Is the projec
capacity to ec-
needs? (MEA, F
Potentially
Potentially Significant less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
in.naw� ut•t��•_� .____�
- --
...U.....
ntq,acs
impact
water supplies available to serve the project
entitlements and resources, or are new or
ments needed? (CVWD)
X
:water treatment provider which serves or may
t determined that it has adequate capacity to
ct's projected demand in addition to the
ig commitments? (CVWD comments)
X
served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
)mmodate the project's solid waste disposal
go 4-25)
X
XVII. MANDATORY F- NI)INGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the pro; ct have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environm_n . substantially reduce habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, caul c - fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levc -, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, roe ce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered pier„ or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major perio: , of California history or prehistory?
b1 Does the prc: ct have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantF of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the p rc: - ct have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulativ - considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the i :remental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in onnection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of oth:: current project, and the effects of probable
future projects;:
d) Does the pro; • .t have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adv-.-e effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALY 'ES.
X
X
X
X
Earlier analysE7 : by be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ:A process, one
or more effect] ' ve been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(= ;. i this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier ana used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not apr:ic, ale.
b) Impacts ade tely addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and r uately analyzed In an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether : :i effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not app:i . :le.
P:IWallylCasedocs\C., t1TT293231eadocsleacklst389.wpd
11
ci Mitigatior. -sures. For effects that are `Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the ,ration measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to w,,ic ;hey address site -specific conditions for the project.
See e; : 7 ed Checklist Addendum.
PAWalty\Casedocs\Curr t\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
12
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-446:
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #99-389
(CEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
FOR REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
As Certified by the City Council
City Council Resolution 2002-105
July 2, 2002
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#1 \eadocs\adden389.wpd
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code section 21000, etseq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment #99-389, certified on February 15, 2000, by the La Quinta City Council
for Wade Ellis.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document a modification of a portion of the
project, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals:
REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures
included in EA 99-389 are incorporated into this document by reference.
The Revised Project consists of a 349 lot single family subdivision proposal on Parcel
± 117 acres, which would replace the existing approval for 379 lots. The current
approval includes a Specific Plan approval to allow reduced lot sizes and other
development standard variations. The City has determined that the Revised Project
will be consistent with the intensity of development and character of the adjacent
residential properties, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives
of the City's General Plan, as approved by the City in March 2002.
The Revised Project does not propose any significant change to the land uses as
approved in Specific Plan 99-040. The Specific Plan currently allows for 379 lots
(3.24 units/acre). The approvals requested as part of the Revised Project are:
1) Repeal of the existing Specific Plan to allow changes to the site layout, lot
siting and design, and total unit count within the framework of the Zoning
Code as currently existing;
2) An extension of time for the existing tentative map approval;
3) An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to the degree that the originally approved Specific Plan is no longer
required.
The City has compared the impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist prepared
for the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the adopted EA 99-389 and
finds as follows:
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323# 1 \eadocs\adden389.wpd
Water - Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The Revised
Project will create drainage
impacts similar to those
identified for the original
proposal under EA 99-389. As
such, the map provides for
several smaller retention areas,
interconnected through a linear
facility traversing the site
northwest to southeast.
Biology - Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
development of the Revised
Project will result in a similar loss
of habitat for the Coachella
Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
(CVFTL). However, this site is in
an area approved for mitigation
under an existing 10A permit,
pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. A
focused survey for Giant Sand
Treader Cricket must be
undertaken.
Cultural Resources - Impacts no
greater than previously analyzed
The project proponent shall
submit for review and approval ,
a comprehensive Phase II
archaeological investigation. An
archaeological monitor shall be
on site during any grubbing,
earth moving or excavation
activities.
Air Quality - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. The Coachella
Valley has in the past
been a non -attainment
area for PM 10
(particulate matter of 10
microns or smaller), and
is currently in danger of
losing it's attainment
status. In order to
control PM 10, the City
has imposed standards
and requirements on
development to control
dust. This project will
be required to comply
with the PM 10 Fugitive
Dust Control Plan
(FDCP) currently
approved for the entire
project area.
Noise - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. Development
of the site will create
construction noise
impacts of a short-term
nature. Long term
impacts relate to
roadway noise. A revised
acoustic study will be
required to address the
effects of such noise on
the Revised Project.
Geology & Soils -
Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
site is not located in any
Earthquake Fault zones
as designated by the
State but is mapped in
Ground Shaking Zone IV
meaning seismic events
can cause damage to
building under certain
occurrences. Impacts
involving potential
seismic activity also
relate to possible risk
associated with upset of
hazardous substances
(i.e. fuels and auto -
related chemicals and
wastes) and potential for
upset/explosion/fire. The
project will be required
to adhere to seismic
reinforcement and other
requirements as called
for by the UBC.
Transportation/Traffic -
Impacts slightly less than
those previously analyzed.
Development of the
Revised Project reduces
overall unit count from
379 to 349 (8%). A
corresponding reduction
in generated traffic can be
anticipated.
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323# 1 \eadocs\adden389. wpd
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the
preparation of a subsequent EA 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 EA 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 EA; or
3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant
effects on the environment not analyzed in the EA, or substantially increase the
severity of previously identified impacts.
EA 99-389 has been incorporated with this addendum. A copy of the complete EA
document is attached.
CAWrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#1 \eadocs\adden389.wpd
0
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Sand Harbor Specific Plan (SP 99-040)
General Plan Amendment 99-064
Change of Zone 99-092
Tentative Tract 29323
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Wade Ellis
41-865 Boardwalk, #212
Palm Desert, CA 92211
6. General Plan Designation: Riverside County: 2B, 2-5 units per acre
Proposed La Quinta: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Riverside County: R-1/9,000
Proposed La Quinta: RL, 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.)
Pre -annexation application to establish General Plan designation, Specific Plan and
Tentative Tract Maps for vacant lands located at the northwest corner of Fred
Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Specific Plan will establish standards for the
development of 379 dwelling units on 117 acres.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
Lands to the north and west are developed single family residential neighborhoods.
The Bermuda Dunes Golf Course is also located to the north. Lands to the south
are vacant, and lands to the southwest are developed as single family dwellings.
Lands to the east are partially developed with a golf course and single family
residential.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
4,
THRISTRenvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
0 •
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.
Land Use and Planning
X
Transportation/Circulation
Public Services
Population and Housing
X
Biological Resources
X
Utilities and Service Systems
X
Geological Problems
Energy and Mineral
Aesthetics
X
Water
Hazards
X1
Cultural Resources
X
L
Air Quality
X
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Finds of
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.
X 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 the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a
potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case 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.
Signature Date
Printed Name
iRISTIIenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
For
Evaluation of Environmerital 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) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than 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 XVII, "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 XVII 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. See the
sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a,suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different
ones.
ZHRISTI\envincklist sp 99-040.wpd
3
9
Sample question:
issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is
a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (General
Plan Land Use Map)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General
Plan EIR, P. 4-1 ff.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General X
Plan Land Use Map, Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific
Plan)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 2-32 ff.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly X
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or
major infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1)
'HRISTBenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
0 9
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
mmm
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X
b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan X
EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page X
4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading, or fill? (Southland Geotechnical,
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Southland Geotechnical,
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
h) Expansive soils? (Southland Geotechnical, Geotechnical
Investigation, June 24, 1999)
Ix I
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7) X
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and X
amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 19 ff., Tract Map
29323)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X
as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
HRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
X
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
Ix
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
X
movements?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General X
Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4- X
57 ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X
available for public water supplues? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
57 ff.)
/. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X
projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171
ff.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (General Plan EIR,
page 4-171 ff.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Specific Plan project description) X
\CHF.ISTBenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
�` s
9
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant Impact
( p 9 � Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (RKJK & Assoc., X
Traffic Impact Analysis, November 23, 1999)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (RKJK & Assoc., Traffic Impact Analysis,
November 23, 1999)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
(Specific Plan Site Plan)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan, X
p. 17)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific X
Plan, p. 17)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan
p. 17)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) X
II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and
birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-
71 ff. )
b) Locally designated species (e:g., heritage trees)? (General X
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.)
12
"HRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
0 •
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant 'Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-
69, and page 4-71 ff.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? X
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1. page 4-69)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, X
page 4-71 ff.)
1111. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General X
Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of
X. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
(Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X
(Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description)
CHIUSTAenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd v
0.
C
Q.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or X
trees? (Specific Plan Project Description)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Douglas Eilar &
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & X
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General
Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 X
ff.)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26)
b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29)
=HRISTI\envincklist sp 99-040.wpd J :l
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless significant Impact
( 9 � Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24)
e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
l� �
g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page X
4-20)
;III. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit X
CIR-5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General X
Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan p. 26) X
;IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X
Determination Study, Community Development Department)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Archaeological X
Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
c) Affect historical resources? (Archaeological Associates,
Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999)
CHRISTI\envir.ddist sp 99-040.wpd
V.
MI.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Archaeological
Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X
impact area? (Archaeological Associates, Archaeological
Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999)
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan,
Exhibit PR-1)
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 to
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 projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directory or indirectly?
n�
CHR]STAenvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd `1
Will. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
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.
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.
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.
HRISTI\en•ir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
0 0
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-389
I. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction. The County
General Plan designation, however, and that sought by the applicant as part of this
application, are consistent. Differences between the two general plans relating to
the intent of the land use designations are insignificant. Through the annexation
process, the project will be assigned a City designation, which is compatible with
existing development both under County and City jurisdiction.
II. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction, nor was it
analyzed for future annexation in the existing General Plan. As such, the project
area, and the 948t people it will generate at buildout were not previously analyzed
by the City. However, the land use designation assigned this site by the County is
compatible with the proposed land use designation, and the additional population
would therefore have been analyzed under County plans. The project is not likely
to significantly impact population projections for the region.
Ill.a), b) & c)
The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed project is located in
a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The project site is not within a liquefaction hazard
area. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for
seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards.
A geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed project'. It
recommends specific foundation and soil compacting requirements which will
mitigate the impacts of seismic activity. These mitigation measures will ensure that
impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Ill.f), g) & h)
The project falls within a blowsand hazard zone, and is composed of potentially
unstable soils. Construction of the project will be subject to City Engineer review,
the preparation of dust control plans, and the mitigation measures contained in the
geotechnical study cited above. The recommendations contained in this study, and
continued City review of the project, will reduce the potential impact from erosion
of soils to a level of insignificance. All earth moving activities shall be coordinated
to ensure that the mitigation measures contained under section XIV (Cultural
Resources) of this addendum shall be properly implemented.
IV.a) & b)
The construction of structures on currently vacant lands will reduce the amount of
land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to
increase surface runoff. The City will require the retention of the 100 year 24 hour
storm on -site, and the Tentative Tract Map has been prepared to reflect the
"Geotechnical Investigation -Tentative Tract 29323 La Quinta, California, Southland Geotechnical,
June 24, 1999.
:HRISTRenvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
13
0 0
construction of a number of retention basins. Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, the project proponent shall submit hydrologic analysis to the City Engineer
for review and approval which will demonstrate that the planned retention basins are
sufficient to retain the 100 year storm. This will reduce the potential hazard
associated with increased runoff to a level of insignificance.
V. a) The Coachella Valley is currently in a non -attainment area for PM10 (particles of 10
microns or less). The proposed project will result in 379. single family dwelling units.
The primary long term air quality impact caused by these units will be from the
operation of automobiles; short term impacts are also likely from construction
activities. The proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures
to mitigate impacts to air quality.
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. Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic interference.
5. Construction of improvements on Fred Waring and Jefferson shall be
scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of
through -traffic lanes.
6. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
7. The project shall submit a PM10 Plan to the City which includes adequate
provisions for fugitive dust and wind erosion control, both during and after
grading operations. The PM1G Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the
issuance of any grading permit on the site.
8. 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.
9. 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.
CHRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
14
' v
a
10. 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.
11. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
12. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
13. Construction loads other than temporary access roads shall be paved as
soon as possible, and once paved shall be cleaned after each work day. All
unpaved roads shall be posted with a 15 mile per hour speed limit.
14. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
15. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
16. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations.
VI. a), b), d), & e)
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan'. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic
volumes. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 3,627 daily trips,
of which 284 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 382 during the
evening peak hour. The improvements required with or without project
implementation include the signalization of Jefferson Street at both Country Club
Drive and Miles Avenue, and the widening of Fred Waring and Jefferson to their
ultimate rights of way in the vicinity of the proposed project. The traffic impact
analysis includes the following mitigation measures, which shall be implemented as
part of the development of the project site:
1. The project proponent shall improve both Jefferson Street and Fred Waring
Drive, along their entire property boundary, to their ultimate 120 right of way
(half width) in conjunction with the first phase of development.
2. Sight distances shall be reviewed to conform with City of La Quinta
standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping and street
improvement plans.
"Tentative Tract Map No. 29323 Traffic Impact Analysis (revised)," RKJK & Associates, November 23,
1999.
'HRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
15 `s
3. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee
program.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned
improvements associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all
project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or
better) at project buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant
impact on the circulation system.
The Specific Plan includes an interior trail system. The trail system interfaces with
the interior street system at a number of locations. In order to ensure that no
significant hazard occurs to pedestrians using the trail system, the project proponent
shall be required to install stop signs and crosswalks at all intersections between the
trail and a paved roadway. The stop signs shall be for pedestrian traffic.
VI I. a), b) & c)
The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Giant Sand
Treader Cricket in the General Plan. In conjunction with the first application for Site
Development Permit; the project proponent shall submit a focused survey for Giant
Sand Treader Cricket to the City for review and approval. The survey shall include
mitigation measures, if necessary, and a mitigation monitoring program. The project
also occurs in the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
The project proponent shall be required to pay the fee in effect at the time of
issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts to this species. Should the project,
or any portion of the project, occur after implementation of the Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, any mitigation required by that plan shall be applied to the
project, or any portion of the project.
X. a) & b)
A noise analysis was prepared, and subsequently amended, for the proposed
project'. The project area lies in a currently impacted noise corridor. Residential
dwelling units are considered sensitive noise receptors. The City's General Plan
requires that exterior noise levels for any portion of a residential lot not exceed 60
dBA CNEL, and that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The study
found that varying heights of walls were needed to mitigate exterior noise levels
along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The study also recommended the
elevation of certain pads to mitigate noise levels. Finally, the study requires the
preparation of additional analysis to recommend mitigation measures for interior
noise levels for any home to be constructed with a second story which has a full or
partial view of either Fred Waring or Jefferson. In order to ensure that noise levels
are mitigated to meet City standards, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
"Acoustical Analysis Report," Douglas Eilar & Associates, August 15 & November 29, 1999.
'HRISTRenvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd v'
16
1. In conjunction with Site Development Permit application for any phase of
development which includes homes with a partial or full view of Fred Waring
or Jefferson, a noise analysis based on final pad elevations shall be
prepared which demonstrates that both exterior and interior noise levels shall
meet or exceed City standards.
2. The design and location of the outer perimeter wall shall conform to the
recommendations of the November 29, 1999 amendment to the noise
analysis, and shall combine a six foot block or slumpstone wall, constructed
to City standprd, with adequate berming to achieve the needed heights
shown on the table labeled " Barrier and Berm Heights at Perimeter Lots to
Achieve 60 CNEL."
XI. a) - e)
The proposed project is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to
public services. The residences within the project will impact the school system, and
such an impact must be mitigated through the imposition of school fees.
XII. a) - g)
The proposed project is served by local utilities and water and sewer districts. Prior
to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall be required to
demonstrate, through "will serve" letters, that all services are available to the site.
No significant impact to service providers is expected from this project.
Xlll.a) The proposed project occurs along one of the City's Primary Image Corridors. The
General Plan requires a setback of 20 feet, which the project has proposed on its
map. The implementation of the setback requirement will lower the impact to scenic
resources to a less than significant level.
XIV. a)
The site occurs above the recorded shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, as mapped
on City maps. No significant impact to paleontologic resources is expected from this
project.
XIV.b), c), & d)
A site specific Phase I cultural resource study has been completed for the proposed
project'. The study found a potentially significant sites within the project boundary.
Site CA-RIV-6349 was found to be potentially significant, and necessitate further
study. The following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented:
"An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29323...," Archaeological Associates, August 31, 1999.
-HRISTRenvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
17
1. In conjunction with the first Site Development Permit application for the
project, the project proponent shall submit, for review and approval by the
City, a comprehensive Phase II archaeological investigation, performed in
conformance with City standards. The Phase II study shall include mitigation
measures, and a mitigation monitoring plan.
2. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving
or excavating activity. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he or
she shall be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the
resource is properly identified and studied. The monitor shall file a report with
the City of his or her findings, including disposition of any resource identified.
CHRISTRenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
18
�_ V
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TT 29323, TO
DIVIDE 127 ACRES INTO 381 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323, AMENDMENT #2
APPLICANT: CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on
the 5th day of February, 2000, approve Tentative Tract 29323, to subdivide 117
acres into 379 single family residential lots, generally located at the northwest corner
of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as:
Portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 17, T5S, R7E, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 2"d day of July, 2002, approve Amendment #1 to Tentative Tract 29323, a
request by Cornerstone Development to subdivide 117 acres into 349 single family
residential lots and several lettered lots, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26th day of November, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to
consider a recommendation on Amendment #2 to Tentative Tract 29323, a request
by Cornerstone Development to subdivide 127 acres into 381 single family residential
lots and several lettered lots, 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 to recommend
approval of said tract amendment for Tentative Tract Map 29323:
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with CEQA
The La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared
Environmental Assessment 2002-461, an addendum to Environmental
Assessment 99-389 for TT 29323, which was certified on February 15, 2000.
Based on this addendum, the Community Development Department has
determined that none of the circumstances or conditions which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21166, have been shown to exist.
C:\W rkg rp\Cased ocs\TT29323#2\Resos\peresoTT29323A2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2 - Proposed
Cornerstone Development
November 26, 2002
Finding Number 2 - Consistency with the General Plan
The proposed Tentative Tract Map amendment is consistent with the City's
General Plan with the implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide for
adequate storm water drainage, and other infrastructure improvements. The
project is consistent with the Low Density Residential land use designation of
Up to 4 dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan.
Finding Number 3 - Consistency of Design and Improvements
The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with
the City's General Plan, with the implementation of recommended conditions
of approval to ensure proper street widths, perimeter walls, parking
requirements, and timing of their construction.
Finding Number 4 - Consistency of Public Easements
As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and type of improvements,
acquired for access through, or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision will not conflict with such easements.
Finding Number 5 - Public Health and Safety
The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in
Environmental Assessment 99-389 and Subsequent Environmental Assessment
2002-446, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for
the proposed Revised Project.
Finding Number 6 - Suitability of Site
The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the proposal as
natural slopes do not exceed 20%, and there are no identified geological
constraints on the property that would prevent development pursuant to the
geotechnical study prepared for the subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
C:\W rkg rp\Cased ocs\TT29323#2\Resos\peresoTT29323A2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2 - Proposed
Cornerstone Development
November 26, 2002
1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required
for Tentative Tract Map 29323;
3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 29323, Amendment
#2, to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 261h day of November, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
C: \W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\Resos\peresoTT29323A2.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT „A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDMENT #2
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any
Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with
the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58
(the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC).
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Approval of this Amended Tentative Tract 29323 hereby nullifies the approval for
Specific Plan 99-040 (Sand Harbor), and said Specific Plan shall be void and of no
further force or effect, upon City Council adoption of these conditions.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Myoma Dunes Water Agency
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storm
water discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Storm water Management and
Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside
County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order
No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land
that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5)
acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses
more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a
Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this
project.
F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order
throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been
accepted by the City.
\W rlcgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
8. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
9. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - The remainder of applicant's 60 foot
half of a 120 foot right-of-way.
2) Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial): The remainder of applicant's 60 foot
half of 120 foot right -of way, which may or may not be accepted by the
Council pending the outcome of the future general Plan Amendment.
The City has initiated a General Plan Amendment to upgrade Fred Waring Drive,
from Primary to Major Arterial status, hence the requirement under A.2 above.
10. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
11. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
A. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Residential: "Looped" Streets - 40 foot width
2) Residential: Non -Looped Streets - 37 foot width.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 for symmetrical
Cul De Sacs, or 800A for offset Cul De Sacs and a 38-foot face of curb
radius.
12. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at
curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and #805,
respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
13. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
14. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights -
of -way shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval
of the Final Map dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant shall grant the
necessary rights -of -way within 60 days of a written request by the City.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility
easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Said easement
may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID.
16. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaped setbacks along all public rights -of -
way as follows:
A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-feet from the right-of-way/property line.
B. Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial) - 20-feet from the right-of-way/property
line.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g. sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final
Map.
17. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
18. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and
properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting
those access points shown on the Final Map.
19. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
20. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of-
way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties
owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access
easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected
property owners.
21. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion
of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and
the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the
City Engineer.
FINAL MAPS
22. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
'rentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer", "surveyor", and "architect", refer to persons currently certified or
licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
23. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
24. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall
be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise
authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale
if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to
prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required
by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering
sidewalk, mounding, and berm design in the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
D. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
E. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
F. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc 29323 #2. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits,
or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall &
Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of six inches
of cover, except where there are slope ratios greater than 2:1, or sufficient cover
to clear any adjacent obstructions.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but
not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage
systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the Building Official
and the City Engineer.
25. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant
may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the
City.
26. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable
through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format,
or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
27. Prior to the conditional approval of any Final Map, or the issuance of any permit(s),
the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its
obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision
Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such
:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc 29323 #2. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any
combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
28. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the
applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion
of any Improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
29. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common
on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the
issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development,
or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant
to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all
permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the
development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
30. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: (1)
construct certain off -site improvements, (2) construct additional off -site
improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, (3) reimburse
others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an
obligation of this tentative tract map, (4) secure the costs for future improvements
that are to be made by others, or (5) to agree to any combination of these means,
as the City may require.
\Wrlcgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map,
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of
such improvements.
31. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any conditional
approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall submit detailed
construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements,
including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval
by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule
adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's
detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements.
GRADING
32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
33. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
34. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
35. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
36. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas
outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
37. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not be higher by more than one foot from
the building pads in adjacent development except for the following lots which shall have
the following pad elevations:
Lot number Approved Pad Elevation
21
55.5
22
56.5
29
68.2
42
55.3
43
55.3
225
56.6
226
56.6
229
56.1
236
58.8
237
59.1
\W ricgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
38. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the
differential shall not exceed five feet.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
39. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site
by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot on the perimeter, or one foot on
the interior, from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the
applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a
substantial conformance finding review.
40. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
41. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations),
LQMC. If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be
located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at
the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads
are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which
are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by
FEMA, that the above conditions have been met.
DRAINAGE
:\W rlcgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc 29323 #2. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, storm water falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend
to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3
hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
43. The applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24.120
(Drainage), sub -section "K.", LQMC. Storm water shall normally be retained in
common retention basin(s) as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map. Individual lot
basins or other retention concepts may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2
'/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the
City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual lot retention is approved, the
applicant shall meet all individual lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
44. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches
per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant
provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
45. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the
City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of
up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
46. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
47. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. In developments for
which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety
Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be
visible from adjacent street(s).
48. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and
side slopes shall not exceed 3:1. For retention basins on individual lots, retention
depth shall not exceed two feet.
:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
49. Stormwater may not be retained in any General Plan -required landscaped parkways
or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly
falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback
areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be
shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
50. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
51. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the
historic drainage relief route.
52. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
54. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
55. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
56. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation
of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
::\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
'rentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
57. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
58. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue
during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the
lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a minimum height of
0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior
to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
59. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 120 foot Right of Way:
Jefferson Street is scheduled to be improved as part of a City
sponsored improvement project. The applicant shall reimburse the City
for the cost of the outside 20 feet of improvements, including the curb
and gutter. In addition to the reimbursement, the applicant shall
construct the following:
(a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk along the project frontage.
(b) Interim intersection improvements at the project entry as it
connects to the existing Jefferson Street section, including
required transition tapers and signing and striping.
2) Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial) -120 foot right-of-way. Widen the north
side of the street along the project boundary to comply with the amended
General Plan which may or may not be approved by the Council, pending
on the outcome of the future General Plan Amendment.
Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as
necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design
\W rl<grp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening
improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but
not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs,
except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required
for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk along the project frontage.
(b) 18-foot wide landscaped median from Jefferson Street to the
westerly boundary of the Tentative Tract Map. (The landscape
median improvements are eligible for reimbursement from the
City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies
established for that program.)
(c) Traffic signal Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street.
Necessary modifications to accommodate the improved roadway
sections.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Looped Streets - Construct full 40-foot wide improvements within the 40 -
foot right -of way.
1) Non -Looped Streets - Construct full 36 foot wide improvements within
a 37 foot right-of-way.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Private Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to Riverside County Standard
800 for symmetrical Cul-de-sacs and Standard 800A for offset Cul-de-
sacs, and both shall be constructed with a 38-foot curb radius,
measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line.
60. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minium stacking capacity for inbound
traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -entry accepted
vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
entry into the development can safely make a "U" Turn back out onto Jefferson
Street and Fred Waring Drive, from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane
shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks,
bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved
construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by
the City Engineer.
61. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and
anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural
sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents of alternate materials):
Residential
Collector
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
4.0"/5.00"
4.0"/6.00"
4.5"/6.00"
5.5"/6.50"
62. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Jefferson Street Entry (Located across Dunbar Drive): Full turn movement is
allowed. Appropriate signing and marking shall be provided. The design of the
median island and associated signing/striping shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
B. Fred Waring Drive (Located approximately 1,250 feet west of Jefferson
Street): Left turn in, right turn in, right turn out. Left turn movements out are
prohibited. The applicant shall design and construct the Fred Waring Drive
median to facilitate the left turn in, only, turning movement to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. The median island on the Entry Street shall be designed
to direct traffic to the right to facilitate a right turn only movement.
Appropriate signing and striping shall be provided. The design of the median
island and associated signing and striping shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer.
:\Wrlcgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
63. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings
and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
Mid -block street lighting is not required.
64. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
65. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
66. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries, within
professional standards, to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
67. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained
streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement
markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are
initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete
the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the
development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
68. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
69. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
70. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
:\W rlcgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall
obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner,
prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. Prior to CVWD review, the
applicant shall provide calculations that meet the requirements of Chapter 8.13 of
the Municipal Code -Water Efficient Landscaping.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
71. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
72. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as may be required by
SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
73. Specific fire protection requirements will be determined when final maps/building
plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be addressed when building
plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the
time building and water system plans are submitted.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
74. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
75. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction
supervision.
76. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling
and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may
be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods
employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.
77. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the
\W rlcgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying
to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all
AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the
as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
78. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
79. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance
of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
80. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
81, Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City°s
adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits.
82. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
83. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the adopted
Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan in effect at the time
of issuance of building permits. The fee is $600.00 per acre.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
84. Building heights shall be limited to one story/22 feet around the perimeter of the
tract, for a distance into the site of 150 feet.
:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
November 26, 2002
85. Prior to submittal for building plan check, the developer shall update the acoustic
analysis on file dated August 5, 1999 and prepared by Douglas Eilar and Associates.
The revised acoustic analysis shall be prepared to include assessment of the impacts
of roadway noise from Jefferson Street on the project residents. The analysis shall
include consideration for limiting building height along Jefferson Street and Fred
Waring Drive as specified under Condition 84, and shall address any revisions to
sound barrier requirements and CNEL levels due to redesign of the tract map. The
revised report shall address the proposed site in its entirety, and shall be reviewed
and accepted by Community Development prior to issuance of any building permits,
other than for approved model units within a City -approved model complex.
86. In conjunction with the first permit application on the site, the project proponent
shall submit for review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, a
comprehensive Phase II archaeological investigation, to be performed in
conformance with City standards. The Phase II study shall include recommended
mitigation measures and monitoring plan.
87. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be required for the additional 10 acres along
Jefferson Street. This may be done in conjunction with monitoring on the original
site as required, but no grading on this portion may commence until clearance has
been given from the Community Development Department.
An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving or
excavation activities. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he/she shall
be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the resource is properly
isolated. For identification and study. The monitor shall file a report with the City on
his/her findings, including the disposition of any resource identified.
88. Prior to any grading activity, the developer shall undertake a focused survey to
identify potential Giant Sand Treader Cricket habitat. The survey shall include
mitigation measures and a monitoring plan, if necessary. The survey shall be
submitted to the City for review and acceptance prior to a grading permit being
issued, and any mitigation required by the City shall be in place.
89. The project proponent shall confer with the United States Department of Fish and
Wildlife (USFWS) to assess measures for the offset of habitat loss to the Coachella
Valley milk vetch plant species. Such offsets shall include consideration of a
maintenance program of the species within the proposed project landscaping, along
with a remedial hummock habitat, within protected areas of common area
\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\coa\coapc29323#2.wpd
40TH AVENUE
fn
o�v STq VO 4R-�4
# e ®R ° FRF�
s Sri q r
t� Z 42ND AVENUE
G A
3
CASE No.
FRED WARING DR
eQHflvZ% Z
O
W
W
W
W
MILES AVE
SITE
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
CASE MAP
W
cr
Z
O
m
ATTACHMENT 1
ORTH
TT 29323, AMD #2 1SCALE : NTS
CURRENT APPROVAL
PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2
��� �� ���� " �� �� �° ��� �� pia i � i � � � � � � � ��•� � ��i� t a�� ��m�m
m Q�
a oil�
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 2002
CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-752
APPLICANT: MR. DAVID HAUCK - PONDEROSA HOMES
MR. JOSEPH SWAIN - CORNERSTONE DEVELOPERS
PROPERTY OWNER: LA QUINTA DUNES 350, L. L. C.
REQUEST: RESIDENTIAL TRACT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF SEVEN
SINGLE FAMILY PROTOTYPES, WITH THREE FACADE
TREATMENTS EACH, AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS
LOCATION: WITHIN TRACT 29323, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE
(ATTACHMENT 1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: EA 2002-446, AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 99-389, WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON JULY 2, 2002 (RESOLUTION 2002-105). NO
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH
WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
Tract 29323, Amendment #1 was approved on July 2, 2002 for 349 lots on 117 acres.
The tract was a revised proposal from the Sand Harbor Specific Plan, which had been
approved in 1999 for 379 units. The revised map repealed the Specific Plan, and
introduced larger lot sizes, a more curvilinear street pattern and more viable open space
areas. Subsequently, the applicant has submitted a second amended map to add 10 acres
and 32 lots, which is up for review at tonight's meeting.
The units under review are not subject to the compatibility provisions of the Zoning Code,
but are being reviewed under the provisions of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract
Development Review). It is intended that they be approved for development within the
revised tract boundaries, should Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2 be recommended
for approval at this meeting.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\perptsdp 752.wpd
Project Proposal
There are two applicants involved in this request. Both applicants will be using these plans
as part of their model complexes, both of which are proposed under this Site Development
Permit. The particulars of each applicant's proposed unit plans are discussed below:
Ponderosa Homes
This applicant requests approval for three prototypes plans, which will be developed on
104 lots within Tract 29323 (Attachment 2). The applicant has named his product line
Mosaic, and the three unit designs are proposed as follows:
Plan 1 - Approximately 2,800 s.f., Plan 1 provides three bedrooms (two master suites) and
three bathrooms, along with separate living and family rooms, and a secluded dining area.
This plan allows an option for a fourth bedroom in lieu of the 3'd car garage space.
Plan 2 - Approximately 2,915 s.f., this plan provides four bedrooms (one master suite) and
2.5 bathrooms, along with an optional fifth bedroom in lieu of the 3`d car garage space.
Plan 2 features a rear yard loggia off of a central dining/living room.
Plan 3 - Approximately 3,128 s.f., Plan 3 has four bedrooms (one master suite) and 3.5
bathrooms, with an optional casita room in the 3`d garage space. It features a central entry
courtyard, leading through the entry to a great room, separating the kitchen, dining and
laundry areas from the bedroom areas. As with Plan 2, the 3" garage space is a separate
side -entry enclosure, and can house an optional bedroom.
Plan 3X - Approximately 3,102 s.f., Plan 3X is essentially a Plan 3, with an optional 5tn
bedroom and 3rd garage space/casita available.
Each plan has three elevation schemes, mixing contemporary Spanish and California Ranch
architectural styles. All three plans retain their basic architectural elements, featuring use
of stone elements, varying window and roof line treatments, entry porticos and other minor
design variations. No significant variation is evident between the right, left and rear
elevations of either plan. The architectural materials consist of stucco, clay "S" or flat
concrete roof tile, and stone veneers. Exterior material color tones are in varying shades
of brown, reddish -brown, and beige, arranged to accent the significant building elements.
Building heights are single story, the highest being Plan 2 at 17 feet, 6 inches.
Proposed landscaping for the model home site is only shown conceptually, with no plant
pallette. The applicant will be required to submit the detailed model complex landscaping
plan with the required Minor Use Permit application. The detailed landscaping plans for the
front yard units will be required later, as an amendment to this Site Development Permit
application to the Community Development Department.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\perptsdp752. wpd
Cornerstone Developers
This applicant requests approval for three prototypes plans, which will be developed over
the remaining lots within Tract 29323. The applicant has named his product line Tapestry,
and the four unit designs are proposed as follows:
Plan 1 - Approximately 1,806 s.f., Plan 1 provides two master bedrooms and a third
bedroom/den, with a fourth bedroom option. There are three bathrooms, along with living
and dining areas, and a two or three car garage. There will also be a guest casita option.
Plan 2 - Approximately 2,083 s.f., this plan provides three bedrooms (one master) and 2.5
bathrooms, along with a separate den. Options are provided for a guest casita and fourth
bedroom in lieu of a 3`d car garage space.
Plan 3 - Approximately 2,120 s.f., Plan 3 allows three or four bedrooms (one master) and
two or three bathrooms, with options provided for a guest casita, and fourth bedroom in
lieu of a V car garage space. It features separated living/dining and family areas.
Plan 4 - Approximately 2,225 s.f., Plan 4 provides three bathrooms, a master suite, two
bedrooms, a bedroom/den, with an optional fifth bedroom and optional side -entry third
garage.
Each plan has three elevation schemes, mixing contemporary architectural elements. All
three plans are varied in their basic architectural elements (window and roof line treatment,
entry porticos, etc.). No significant variation is evident between the right, left and rear
elevations of either plan. The architectural materials consist of stucco siding, clay "S" or
flat concrete roof tile, and wood fascias. Exterior material color tones are in varying shades
of lighter stucco coats, earth tone roofing and ruddy fascia elements, and accent the
significant building elements. All units are single story, between 17 and 17.5 feet in height.
Proposed landscaping for the model home sites is shown conceptually. The applicant has
submitted a Minor Use Permit application for the model complex landscaping plan for their.
The detailed landscaping plans for the front yard units will be required later,
ALRC Action - On November 6, 2002, the ALRC reviewed these prototype architectural
plans. The following issues were identified by the Committee:
1. Ponderosa Homes - No issues were raised on the units themselves. The typical front
yard landscaping plans and additional information on the pallette are to be
submitted, as an amendment to this Site Development Permit application, to the
Community Development Department.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\perptsdp752.wpd
2. Cornerstone - No issues were raised on the units themselves. The model complex
landscaping plan is to be modified to show all berm areas as confined either to
turfed or groundcover sections.
The ALRC unanimously recommended approval of the Site Development Permit,
subject to the above requirements, by Minute Motion 2002- 042 (Attachment 3).
Residential Tract Development Review Requirements - Each prototype plan and elevation
meets the standards as specified by Section 9.60.330.13 of the Zoning Code. The
landscaping as conditioned herein, and as part of the Minor Use Permit applications, will
be required to be consistent with the standards specified in Section 9.60.330.E.
Amended Tentative Map - The Mosaic and Tapestry units will be used within the entire
tentative map area as revised. While the exhibits do not reflect the second map
amendment, a condition has been prepared to allow these units to be used within the new
boundaries as amended.
MANDATORY FINDINGS
As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance,
the following findings to approve Site Development Permit 2002-752 are hereby provided:
1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General
Plan, as it proposes single family homes in an approved residential tract, which is
General Plan -designated for LDR (Low Density Residential) development.
2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning
Code, as it proposes single family homes in an approved residential tract zoned for
RL (Low Density Residential) development.
3. The proposed Site Development Permit is not subject to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 99-389 was certified by the City Council on July 2, 2002 (Resolution
2002-105). No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the
preparation of any subsequent environmental evaluation.
4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit provide
interest through varied roof element heights, enhanced building entries, stone veneer
wainscot and facade treatments, horizontal banding and other design details which
will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with
the overall design quality prevalent in the City.
5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible
with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design
quality prevalent in the City.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\perptsdp752.wpd
6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been
conditioned so as to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed homes with
surrounding development. Landscape improvements are designed and sized to
provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree
and shrub species to accentuate views into the building architecture.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2002- , approving Site Development Permit 2002-752, subject
to the following Conditions:
1. Ponderosa Homes shall comply with the following:
A. Detailed landscaping plans for the Ponderosa Homes model complex shall be
submitted with the required Minor Use Permit.
B. Detailed, typical front yard landscaping plans for the Ponderosa Homes units
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval,
as an amendment to Site Development Permit 2002-752.
2. Cornerstone Developers shall comply with the following:
A. The model complex landscaping plan for Cornerstone Developers is to be
modified to show all berm areas as confined either to turfed or groundcover
sections.
3. Site Development Permit 2002-752 shall be approved for use in the project area for
TT 29323, Amendment #2, subject to tentative map approval of the amendment by
the La Quinta City Council.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Mosaic development lots
3. Tapestry development lots
4. ALRC Minutes of November 6, 2002
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323#2\reports\perptsdp 752.wpd
F-
cn
°°�
" ct q TE 10
W
42ND AVENUE
� = D
3
FRED WARIND DR
GUM Z
cn
It
W
FILES AVE 3
y .
40TH AVENUE
tia Am - o
z
O ;
SIT
iNoio1�
VICINITY MAP
. N.T.S.
CASE MAP
ti
W
It
z
O
m
ATTACHMENT 1
CAW No.
SDP 2002- 752 SCALE: NTS
I -- —— —
LOT 0_—__—I
I Lot 37 Sa Wr tt
Jt tOr 3o wr zs Lm se Lot n tm Zs Lm xs wT xa
Lm 23 W, 77 LOT is
, Lot Sa Lm m
Lm 36 LOT 21
I � - _ Lot ie
Lot J5 - - - _
— - __-----♦ � LW]a l4� 17 m 17 Lm ilia tB0 LT 163 wT 17
♦♦ .\ Q Lm of Lm ns na Lm tsI Lm 1a2 tot tea\ `
LOT187 \ LOT .0 LOT 17J
\ LOT 15
♦ \ LOT 17 \
r too
LOT too LOT a1 ; Lot nc ♦♦�\ LOT 169 LOT I89 LOT 16 LOT 16 LOT 16 t84 LOT 16 LOT 16 LOTlot1S^� 16t m t LOT \
LOT 1s
LOT
i \
Lot ms LOT 42 \ 17 `--- aplatraft 'Ddve- Lm to
LOT ISO / I \\ \\
\ LOT fJ Lot 1f6 LOT 1a7 LOT ta5 LOT tf9 LOT 150 Lm 151 LOT 151 LOT 153 I
\ I
/ \ \ LOT ISa WT 153 LOT ISB LOT 157
Lot 190 � � wr 2 \\\ \\\ LOT as ` ♦ tm Ias IPL.
uLOT 239 LOT ai lm la] LOt 1.2 LOT Ia1 LOT 1 T'� I�LOT 137 LOT 13 LOT 135 LOT 13a Lm 1331 13
2a0 \♦ \♦ \ WT IN
T i ' ``♦ ♦♦\ LOT 46 LOT 11
257 LOT 255 ` ♦ — �' — -- — —'7
LOT 261 LOT 255 ♦` `\ LOT 47 — —
119 LOT 2Sa ♦ ' LOT 123 LOT 124 LOT 125 Lot 126 LOT 127 I I lm 10
Lm\O Lm f6 LOT 12 WT Ilia WT 1]0 Lm 1S1 I 1
all _ Om� ♦\ \\\ ` LOT 122 P.M. i LOT 9
\ ` I 1 194 \ LOT 253 \ \\ LOT a9
lAT 28 OT 263 LOT 264 ; \ \\ \\ \ Loy U. LOT 119 WT 118 LOT 117 T I/ LOT 11S '
\ of 11] LOT t12 I wT e
LOT
265 \ LOT 2S2 \ \\ wT 90 1
T 195 \ \ Lm 120
I ILOT 7
Lot
286 LOT 751 \ `\ LOT 51 '
Lot 3B8 Lm 717 \ \ \ —
I71 t96 LOT 286 Lot 2'A \\ \\\ Lm 62 Lot10S LOT f06 Lot267 \\\\ LOT 104 LOT 107 LOT '00 LOT 109 LOT 110 LOT 111 I I LOT a
JT 127 I I
LOT 285 \ LOT 2a9 \\ I wr 5
\ LOT 26a LOT 102 LOT 101
m 1ae \ LOT2.e ♦_� _ \ \ LOT1D3 LOT too Lot ILm a6 Lm 97 � a
I I L0T 790 LOT 769 Lot2Ba LOT250 \ ' \♦ lm I
I \ \ l0T DT 199 tali / \\ — TSTt1Arq.-.LJd ly@ —
; \ LOT 55 — — LOT 3
Lot\ LOT LOT 270 `♦ \ LOT91 1
m LOT :ex 200 2B1 ]I] \ LOT 346 \\ \\\ LOT 56 \ LOT 92 LOT93 LOT 94 LOT 95 LOT 95 LOT 2 '
\\ \
Lot 271 \ \ \ LOT 90 .
LOT 292 \ \ LOT 245 \ \ LOT 37 \ I I LOT 1 1
LW 281 !�. \\ \ \ LOT 78 I I
LOT 772 \ \ LOT as 1
lm ]f2 \ \
>f TOt Lot tali \ \. LOT TN \\ \\\ lm SB LOT 67 LOT i ' , �.�
LOT 66 I
LOT N1 \ LOT
780 WT 273 /y LOT 243 \\\ \\ \\ Lot 6a LOT A I 9 la
\y�.00\ . \ LOT 59
m 702 Lot 29f \ Lot 279 \ \ \ \\ \^
wT ].0 L07 27f \ WT 242 \ /^—
/ . Lm 60 LOT BS Lot 77
LOT 307 1(q I p3 0�\ / \ Lot 278 \ WT'7ai �' \\\ wT BI I Lor 7S I 1
I�'• I �r \ LOT 275 \ \\ \\ \ wr at I I i i
1 \ I
LOT 204 Lot 296 LOT 339 ♦0 LOT 377 Lot 277 tot 276 \ wT 2W \\\� Q\\ Lot 8] LOT 78 I Lot 7f o
LOT ]]8 \ ; \ LOT x39 \\\ \\\ Lm 62 LOT 82 LOT 79 Lot 73 I coo
LOT 205 I 1 ` g_ ✓1 - \ \\ \\ LOT 63 \ 1 I I
I WI 287 Lm J3d ♦
LOT 236 LOT at LOT 73 (D
LOT 208 I LOT
335 \ LOT B.
I I m
LOTJJf 33J l0i 332 \\\ \\
LOT
Loy\ r 1 M
LOT 2" Lm ] LOT 237 \\ \ \� \ LOT eo r % 1
��� I I \ \ \♦ \\ Lot 65 \ \ LOT 71 / I
LOT 207 I LOT323 \ Lm 235 ♦ ` / I
-- LOT 322 ^ `
Lm 299 / \ LOT \ ; `♦ LOT BB LOT70
/ 1
]So Lm 33 Lot 23S • ♦ /
♦ ` / / 1
LOT xoe / \ ♦ `� LAT 87
\\ / Lm 32' ` �fRalii-8F1V6 --- _ � wr 734 `♦\♦ / /�
LOt IN \ \ 320 — \ LOT tJ] ♦ \` \ Lm N / I
30 Lot 319 O 7 LOT JIS LOT Sta LOT 3I7 LOT 2J2 ♦\♦ � �, ��j " ` % �
LOT 210
LOT Sot
Lm 73i � I
LOT 211 , \ ♦ Lot 303 LOT Ja
Lm I
/ LOT 215\ LOi 3a! � ]Oe lm Soli Lm 708 Lm 309 Lm 310 LOT 311 Lm J1I ♦ 1
LOT 230 ♦\♦ LOT 0 j
_ I
LOT 212 \ - r.. -
—aFICW&}� s a WT 279
LOTxt. Ta1T
Lot as - - LOT
72e
LOT 213 LOT2t7 LOT 21 m LOT 227
LOT 219 T 270 LOT 221 01 222 Lm 72 LOT 22f LOT T25 LOT 226 I
O2I.
-.I LOT n j -. CD----_�-
-----------/ `--------------'
--------------
-- - Fred Warin Drive
ATTACHMENT 2
tnvAcn�rc�c�c�c�oA000mma
w m m rpm m 1D n C =m a CD
am p3 <C)OOw c m
m d m v 0 m O p N
TAPESTRY
F.5FLANADE
------ -----I
t 1
� j tot » tm >r Im a loy a Im » Im a Imp Imp Lm » tm p t0T p tm N torn � a tm 'e
up c
I Im a for to
I 1 tm >d
Q Im a _ ' �Qarkway op aaae-N - - IN n q ur 1!
----------- i Im » y�
`. 1 / 1 0, 1 IN 141 t0I /w lm Iw `
up le, �`` Im w Im v1 Lm Ia.\ 1W 17
♦ `♦ to I UN
\
WIN \
toy Ip / wf 11 ♦ Im ip lOr tp Ip m If 1 1 m 1N 1 1 m 111 t ,n 10I In \
Ir Mon / - Im - _ \ Lot is
/
/
MR to '� ' •♦♦ Lair N \ - _ CeStilie Drive ' ` i'� 1 , - - _ 1 to I,
\ \I �u \ ,m l.e to I., pr lM 1i
Im Ip '/ \\ tm t.r loy IN tm NI tot Im � tw tm l0 1
/ to ap I\ 1I ♦♦ im N! OI 101 lm In
tW Ip 1
\ \ Im N I tm N
Im I91 lm W \♦ \\
for ap `• `♦ tm 10 ♦ to 1Q IN
117 Ur NI 1 r 1 1 1 m n i 11 IN 1a IN Is toy Ia i tOr tl
/ ` ♦ t0f 111 1
tm In . `. Lot N
lot a» Im IS �` �1` ♦ - — - VieatO-DFIM4� - — - - Lot 11
tm atl ` LOT »
p- -
BORIeaU% Drl�e-_ . Lot its
IN . ♦♦ I01\0 LotN I IN 1]] IN 11. lm la In I]l Im 1 m I la tm lal IN to I j tm to
♦ W In
Im 9
to 7n lm an IOT ]el \; ♦ \I \I lW 19 ♦ ♦ 1
\ ` ♦ to I], IOI 119 m 111 lm III f It
lOf to lm an ♦ tm aw \1 `\ IN m r t10
1 1,. m ll IN I12 1 1 Im I
1 \ `♦ � two ip
Lot Iw IDI pur 1 I\ `♦ e, f
tm IN to
ao lol an I
tor ]ea
\ IN I\I IN Ip IN
IN
Im wI alle-Be aa� m \� %``� ' ut Im to 10I .m Igo MR tp of tm III1 i IN
\ mmIOT 2" \
\ I 10r Is QQ
Lm aee \ / \ ♦ 1 for e
l01 Ip \ \ IN ♦\-/ \ \ to In lm lot
— J 1 I Lot no Lot N tm pl \ % �\ toy0/ ♦ \ Lot 101 Lot In LOT p IN p ter IF /
Lm m / ♦\ 1
tm 1p t t : \ m1.\\ r ; - —Amer - -
I IOI ISa,_Dr Y9
Lot pe \ LOT 281 toy an `♦ I\ lm n tm a
tm mf \ ♦ Lot ale `\ \\ I p \ for Is urn - t
\ lOr N urn Lot IN a (/
to =rl \, 11 \\ LOT so 1
tm 4N ,, ; to !I ,\ t to ,
to \\ m tm 1a ♦ %, 11I 110 N to IS
t t
IN III �1F ` \ LOT `I ♦ I 11I 1 Lot p 101 n I tOt I
\ \ lot N ee tm ♦ I 1�
``. M 2I4 \ % Im ]I] ♦♦\ 1^ % G 10� b I e 'le_
I
I F ' ,I Imp \tm as tm IF I � --♦ 4
1"' i 1` \0�1 I for ],e \\♦ lm p1 II\ III Loy 81 ust e. I 1 LOT IS
7I \ w I L1 tm 71! \ to to \II \11 urn INTe I to
\7a I i
11 \ List n I t t Q
�7alla ` Lot aI
v \I \1I` Im n \ Lm u Im n IN I] CO
Lot In
`I `♦ I
IN at t/ t Lm n m
1 I 1 \\ \ IN wT `I♦ 11I ♦O♦♦ 101 N t tt j ti
`♦ I to n ` \ IN % 11
I 4 �` I lm W ♦ � ! I
j / \ ` p tm 1a L♦ ` tm p IN ��
u�♦ Im 133 ♦.` `� � u1 n � i
IN 233
I
/ ♦ tOy 711Lai
`\.
/ ` \ t ]a ]m an l01 m al LOr 11 to's i / I♦♦ i
tol 130 X IN c I
—Par4kc spaa 8anttr -�I
-n�T i
t
Fred Waring Drive
ATTACHMENT 3
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
November 6, 26W,
10. here being no further discussion, it was moved seconded by
Combiitz,,ee Member Thoms/Bobbitt to ado inute Motion 2002-
041 recom ding approval of Sit evelopment Permit 2002-
751, as amended:
A. Condition ad : Parking in Fri
be restr' d to handicapped onl
B. C ition: Delete Bottlebrush
pallette.
Unanimously approved.
of Building 3 parking shall
trees fir'cmthe landscape
B. Site Development Permit 2002-752; a request of Cornerstone
Development for review of architecture and landscaping plans for a model
complex, located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred
Waring Drive.
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit gave an explanation of the
project and introduced Mr. Alan Levin and Joe Swain, representing
Cornerstone Development, who gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Thorns asked about the contour mounding as
it appears to be partly in the planting area and partly in the lawn
area and he would prefer it be in the lawn area only. He asked if
they would be doing both the front and rear yard landscaping. Mr.
Swain stated front only.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it would be nice to upgrade the
irrigating system as well as the planting material.
4. Committee Member Thorns asked if the front yards would be
maintained by the homeowners' association (HOA). Mr. Alan
Levin stated no, the HOA would only take care of the entries and
perimeter landscaping. There would be no common area meters.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002-
042 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2002-
752, as amended:
A. Condition: Contouring to be in the lawn area only and not
in the planting area.
Unanimously approved.
G:\WPDOCSWRLC\11-6-02.wpd 4 ATTACHMENT 3
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
November 6, 2002
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Bobbitt/Thoms to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping
Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on December 4, 2002. This meeting
was adjourned at 1 1:37 a.m. on November 6, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\ 11-6-02.wpd 5
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 2002
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751
REQUEST: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 488,050
SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER;
3. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A HEALTH CLUB OVER 5,000 SQUARE
FEET;
4. CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION OF 50.62 ACRES INTO
SIX PARCELS; AND
5. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS
LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 1 1 1, AVENUE 47, WASHINGTON
STREET AND ADAMS STREET
APPLICANT: DALE FRANK AND ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTATIVE: DALE FRANK
PROPERTY OWNER: WASHINGTON 1 1 1, LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459 WAS
PREPARED FOR THIS REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. BASED UPON
THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED NOT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON
THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SOUTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
EAST:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
The currently vacant portion of the proposed project site bounded by Highway 111,
Washington Street, Adams Street, and Avenue 47 consists of 50.62 acres
(Attachment No. 1). In addition, a 1.78 acre vacant site was previously approved for
a two story office building and amended into the Washington Square Specific Plan.
Also, within the Washington Square Specific Plan is Lowe's Home Improvement on
13.66 acres. In total, there are 66.06 aces within the Washington Square Specific
Plan.
The Washington Square Specific Plan was approved by the City in 1989 and amended
in 1991, 1997, and 2001. The 1997 Amendment allowed a 13.39 acre portion of the
site to be created and Eagle Hardware to be constructed (now Lowe's Home
Improvement). In 2001, a third Amendment added a 1.78 acre site into the Specific
Plan which consisted of a proposal to construct a two story 25,240 square foot
building with retail, office and wholesale uses. This Amendment addresses the
remaining 50.62 acres.
The request is for approval of a commercial center consisting of twenty buildings with
parking designed to service the major tenants and grouped building pads (Attachment
2). The project site will ultimately be broken into six development parcels. The uses
proposed include retail, restaurants, fast food, office, bank, and athletic club. Each
proposed building will require a site development permit and the proposed uses may
move or change location among the development pads at the time a site development
review permit is processed subject to the total parking provided for the commercial
center. In addition, each building pad size may be modified subject to the total parking
required to be provided for the commercial center.
Building No.
1.
Proposed Use Proposed
Square
Bank
Building(s)
Footaae
5,000
2.
Mixed Commercial Retail
39,000
3.
Mixed Commercial Retail
12,500
4.
Mixed Commercial Retail
6,500
5.
Mixed Commercial Retail
9,500
6.
Mixed Commercial Retail
21,000
7.
Mixed Commercial Retail
14,500
8.
Mixed Commercial Retail
24,000
9.
Restaurants
16,000
10.
Mixed Commercial Retail
9,000
11.
Athletic Club, Mixed Commercial Retail
64,000
12.
Mixed Commercial Retail
20,000
13.
Mixed Commercial Retail/
General Professional Offices
17,000
14.
Mixed Commercial Retail
5,500
15.
Target
125,400
16.
Mixed Commercial Retail
43,000
17.
Mixed Commercial Retail
40,000
18.
Mixed Commercial Retail
6,200
19.
Mixed Commercial Retail
6,000
20-
Drive-thru Restaurant
3,250
TOTAL
488,050
The applicant intends to construct the project in phases. The phases will include site
grading, parking lot, key driveway improvements, landscaping, and infrastructure
improvements for each of the six parcels at the time building construction is ready to
proceed. Site improvements for each building area are subject to the site development
review process.
Access/Parking/Circulation
Eleven driveways will provide access to the project; nine new driveways are proposed
as follows.
• Along Highway 1 1 1, one new right -in and right -out driveway is proposed on
Highway 111. Two driveways are existing at the Lowe's Home Improvement.
One of which is signalized, and one is right -in and right -out.
• Along Adams Street one new right -in and right -out driveway is proposed.
• Along Washington Street two new right -in and right -out driveways are
proposed.
• Along Avenue 47, three new full turning movement driveways are proposed
with one previously approved shared access on Avenue 47 via Specific
Amendment No. 3, and two new driveways on Simon Drive.
• Along Simon Drive, two new full turning movement driveways are proposed.
La Quinta Center Drive is proposed to be the main driveway into the center dividing
the site and allowing vehicles a southerly access point at Avenue 47(which is aligned
with Caleo Bay). Numerous internal driveways provide easy and ample opportunity to
the parking aisles. Interior parking lot aisles and access drives are provided throughout
the site serving the future building pads. Proposed are 3,212 parking spaces and
3,212 spaces are established as the performance criteria for total building sizes and
total square footage allowed on the site based on a criteria of five spaces per 1,000
gross square feet of building.
The project will be required to provide the following street improvements:
1) Construct Highway 111 from Simon Drive to Adams Street to it's ultimate half
street improvements as established by the City and CALTRANS.
2) Construct Washington Street to it's ultimate half street improvements as an
Augmented Major Arterial and when warranted a traffic signal will be required
at Washington Street and Avenue 47.
3) Construct Adams Street to it's ultimate half street improvements from Highway
111 to Avenue 47 as a Secondary Arterial.
4) Construct Avenue 47 to it's ultimate half street improvements from Washington
Street to Adams Street half as a collector.
5) Traffic signal modification is required at Adams Street and Highway 111.
Modification to traffic signal phasing is required at Washington Street and
Adams Street and Highway 1 1 1.
Development Standards
In general, project development standards meet or enhance Zoning Code requirements.
Maximum structure height proposed is 40 feet; the Zoning Code would allow 50 feet
for the entire project. Maximum number of stories proposed is two; the Zoning Code
would allow three. The Specific Plan is proposing to modify three development
standards for this project:
1) Building setbacks on Washington Street
Proposed is a 20 foot building setback (a 10 foot reduction from Zoning Code
requirement for building setbacks) on Washington Street. The project will meet
Zoning Code requirements for all building and landscape setbacks on all other
streets.
2) Image Corridor height restriction on a portion of Highway 111
The Specific Plan is proposing a 26 foot height limit on Highway 111 (from
Simon Drive easterly to the driveway at Lowe's) within the 150 foot Image
Corridor. Washington Street and Highway 111 are General Plan designated
Image Corridors. The Zoning Code restricts building heights to 22 feet within
150 feet of Highway 111 and Washington Street.
3) Parking standards
The Specific Plan is proposing an overall parking ratio of one space per 200
gross square feet of building. Zoning Code parking requirements are one space
per 200 gross square feet of building for retail uses under 50,000 square feet
and one space per 250 gross square feet of building for retail uses over 50,000
square feet.
Architectural and Landscape Guidelines
The proposed architectural design guidelines provide a framework for the architecture
of all the buildings in the commercial center. The buildings are proposed to have flat
roofs with simple and varied roof lines with deep set multi -paned windows. Exterior
wall materials to consist of smooth exterior plaster, concrete masonry units and tilt up
concrete panels. Building masses will be accentuated by deep-set openings, reveals,
inset detailing, and human scale features. Roofs will be with roof line variations, and
building elevations will vary by the use of multiple parapet heights and setback
screening elements.
The Landscape Concept Plan provides a visual layout of street, building and parking
lot landscaping with conceptual drawings and details of landscape treatment for a
typical building elevation, entryways, parking and street frontages. Landscaping
guidelines identify a pallette of plant material for shrubs, groundcover, and trees for
Highway 111, Washington Street, parking lot(s) and buildings. Ground cover materials
are to enhance the appearance of the project, protect soils from erosion and used to
screen undesirable areas such as trash enclosures. Water efficient landscaping
materials, including native plants are suggested where possible.
Exterior Parking Lot Lighting Plan
The proposed exterior parking lot lighting plan is provided for the entire 50.62 acre
site. Exterior lighting for the parking lot is proposed to consist of two pole heights.
Located on Highway 111 are 98 parking lot light poles which are 25 feet high
including a 22-%2 foot pole with a 2-%2 foot base (matching Lowe's Home Improvement
parking lot pole standards). These poles are proposed to be located in Parcels 4, 5,
and 6. Located on Washington Street frontage are 85 parking lot light poles which are
20 feet high including a 17-%2 foot pole with a 2-%2 foot base (matching La Quinta
Court parking lot pole standards). These poles are proposed to be located in Parcels
1,2, and 3. All lights are high pressure sodium shoe boxes directed downward and
illuminate all parking areas.
The applicant is also requesting approval of the required Conditional Use Permit for an
athletic facility over 5,000 square feet.
►i,•
Proposed is a subdivision of 50.62 acres to create six parcels from three existing lots
with the new parcels ranging in size from 4.63 acres to 11.80 acres (Attachment No.
3).
The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct five buildings
(Attachment No. 4) within the first construction phase of the Commercial Center
including:
A. Target, 126,000 square foot retail facility with a 10,000 square foot
outdoor garden center;
B. Henry's Market and Big 5 Sporting Goods, 26,370 square food specialty
market and a 10,000 square foot retail sporting goods store;
C. 15,900 square foot retail facility;
D. 19,100 square foot retail facility; and,
E. Washington Mutual Bank, 5,000 square foot facility.
Site Plan
A Site Plan for each building is provided which identifies the area to be constructed
including building footprint, parking and circulation, and landscape planter areas. The
current request and future site development permit requests are proposed to be
constructed in phases. The applicant is proposing to phase improvements in the
center by parcel as new buildings are ready for construction.
Proposed is Target, a 126,000 square foot retail facility with a 10,000 square foot
outdoor garden center providing 559 parking spaces which will take direct access from
Highway 1 1 1 and Avenue 47.
Proposed is Henry's Market and Big 5 Sporting Goods, 26,370 square foot market and
a 10,000 square foot retail sporting goods store, and Washington Mutual Bank, a
5,000 square foot facility with a drive through window providing 222 parking spaces
which will take direct access from Simon Drive.
Proposed are two retail facilities, a 15,900 square foot retail facility with a drive
through lane on the west side of the building; and a 19,100 square foot retail facility
provided with 341 parking spaces which will take direct access from Washington
Street.
Architectural and Landscape Design
The proposed architectural design guidelines are illustrative of a "Desert Deco" style
which is described as "... an interpretation of contemporary, modern, and art deco
architecture". All proposed buildings feature flat roofs, mellifluous colors, varied
surface textures with rich facade colors and vibrant accent colors as an integral
component to the overall design approach. Building massing features deep-set
openings, reveals, and inset detailing emphasizing shadow and light. Buildings utilize
canted, staggered roof lines, anodized aluminum trellises, clear anodized aluminum
store fronts, metal doors, fabric awnings, and stone veneer wainscoting. Maximum
building heights proposed include:
Building Height
Target 33 feet
Henry's Market and Big 5 Sporting Goods 37 feet
Washington Mutual Bank 26 feet
Retail Shop 3 26 feet
Retail Shop 4 29 feet
The proposed landscape plan is consistent with the Specific Plan guidelines and palette
of plant materials. The preliminary landscape plan consists of date and fan palm trees
and shade trees. The ground cover and shrub plant material are low water
consumption and native to the area. Landscaping surrounds the outside perimeter of
the parking lot on all sides of each property. An eight -foot wide sidewalk is
incorporated in the landscape easement meandering within the 50 foot landscape
setback on Highway 1 1 1 extending along the entire length of Highway 1 1 1. Planting
materials conform to the City's Design Theme for Highway 111. Landscaping ratio
coverages were submitted and contained errors. Landscaping within the parking areas
are required to equal 5% of the net project area and on -parking area landscaping also
requires 5.0% per Zoning Code Section 9.100.040; the project will be conditioned to
meet these requirement.
Sign Program
Applicant will be submitting a separate sign program for the commercial center at a
later date for Planning Commission approval.
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 6, 2002 (Attachment 5).
The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2002-041, recommending approval with the
following conditions:
1. Delete Bottle Trees from the Landscape Palette.
2. Provide additional landscape/courtyard area by limiting parking in front of
Building No. 3 to handicap only.
Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared
Environmental Assessment 2002-459 for the project. Staff recommends certification
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public
agencies on September 23, 2002, requesting comments returned by October 11,
2002. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on November 15,
2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice.
In conclusion, the findings needed to approve this request can be made provided the
recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed.
i O .1Mel l
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending certification of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (EA 2002-459)
according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; and,
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- ,recommending approval of
Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 4, Design Guidelines and
Development Standards for a 488,050 square foot commercial center; and,
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending approval of
Conditional Use Permit 2002-072 to allow a health club over 5,000 square
feet; and,
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending approval of
Tentative Parcel Map 30903 to allow the subdivision of 50.62 acres into six
parcels; and,
5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending approval of
Site Development Permit 2002-751 to allow construction of five commercial
buildings.
1. Project Location Map
2. Specific Plan 87-011, Amendment No. 4
3. Plans and Elevations for five commercial buildings
4. Tentative Parcel Map 30903
5. Draft minutes for the November 6, 2002 the Architecture and Landscape
Committee
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, Principal Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(EA 2002-459) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011
AMENDMENT NO. 4, PARCEL MAP 30903, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
26th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request
of Washington 111, LTD for approval of development plans including the distribution
of land uses and development standards, for commercial and office uses by means of
Specific Plan (SP) 2002-087-011 Amendment No.4, Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
2002-072), Parcel Map (TPM 30903), and a Site Development Permit (SDP) 2002-
751, collectively "the Project" generally bounded by Highway 111, Avenue 47,
Washington Street and Adams Street, more particularly described as:
A.P.N.'S 643-020-017, 643-020-018, 643-020-022, 643-020-023,
and 643-090-016
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on
November 15, 2002 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public
entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the
public hearing date for the City Council on December 17, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on
November 15, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside
County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters.
PAFRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO EA 2002-459.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2002-459 - Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: November 26, 2002
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of -the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted
as the Findings of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2: The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project
and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-459.
SECTION 4: The 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.
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
SECTION 6: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
SECTION 7: The 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 Project.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO EA 2002-459.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2002-459 - Washington 111, LTD.
Adopted: November 26, 2002
SECTION 8: The Project will not have the 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.
SECTION 9: The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based is the La Quinta
City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 14: The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial
evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code
of Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended
for certification.
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 a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment
2002-459 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community
Development Department and attached hereto.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO EA 2002-459.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2002-459 - Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: November 26, 2002
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\fRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO EA 2002-459.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 4, Conditional
Use Permit 2002-072, Site Development Permit 2002-751,
Tentative Parcel Map 30903
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: The south side of Highway 111, between Washington
Street and Adams Street
APN: 643-020-017, 018, 022, 023, 643-090-016
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Washington 1 1 1, Ltd.
7825 SE 76th Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040
6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Specific Plan Amendment establishes the design standards and guidelines
for a multi -tenant, multi -building commercial center, including a 125,000 square
foot Target store, retail, office and restaurant pads on 65 acres. The site already
includes the Lowe's Hardware building. Total square footage proposed,
including the existing Lowe's building, is 622,540 square feet.
The Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a 25,000 to 35,000 square foot
health club on the site.
The Parcel Map will divide 50.2 acres of the site (not including the Lowe's
building) into 6 parcels for conveyance and development.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChkist459.wpd
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Regional Commercial
South: Developing community commercial, Lake La Quinta
West: Simon Motors, Regional Commercial
East: La Quinta Auto Center
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
P:\FREDXWashingtonPark\EAChkist459.wpd
2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
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 ate
P:\FRED\W ashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
4
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 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Site topography, Slope Study,Figure 5-4)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
;. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General
Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner)
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 nonagricultural use? (No ag. land in proximity to
project site)
I. 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, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
im
X
X
:RED1 WashingtonPark\EAChklst459. wpd
IV.
V.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
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? ("Biological Resources Assessment..."
Thomas Olsen Associates, August, 2002)
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? ("Biological Resources
Assessment..." Thomas Olsen Associates, August, 2002)
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? ("Biological Resources Assessment..." Thomas Olsen
Associates, August, 2002)
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? ("Biological Resources Assessment..." Thomas Olsen
Associates, August, 2002)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("Biological
Resources Assessment..." Thomas Olsen Associates, August, 2002)
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? ("Biological Resources
Assessment..." Thomas Olsen Associates, August, 2002)
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech, August 2002)
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)? ("Archaeological Testing and Mitigation..." CRM Tech,
October 2002)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9)
�FRED\ WashingtonPark\EAChklst459. wpd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey..."
CRM Tech, August 2002)
VI.. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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 Exhibit 8.1)
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 Exhibit 8.1)
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? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
VH. 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? ("Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment" Sladden Engineering, August 2002)
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? ("Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment" Sladden Engineering, August 2002)
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? ("Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment" Sladden Engineering, August 2002)
:\FRED\W ashingtonPark\EAChkist459. wpd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
►j
X
X
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two mules 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? (General
Plan MEA P. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII,. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? ("Preliminary Hydrology
Report" Pardue, Cornwell & Associates, October, 2002)
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 p. III-87 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? ("Preliminary Hydrology Report" Pardue, Cornwell &
Associates, October, 2002)
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? ("Preliminary
Hydrology Report" Pardue, Cornwell & Associates, October, 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
("Preliminary Hydrology Report" Pardue, Cornwell & Associates,
October, 2002)
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 Exhibit
6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) X
FRED\ WashingtonPark\EAChkist459.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? (General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
74f.)
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 P. 71 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
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 p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Residential project -- no
ground borne vibration)
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. III-144 f.)
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? (General Plan
land use map)
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 land use 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, p. 9 ff., application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
►j
X
M
X
X
ER
X
X
X
FA
:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChkist459.wpd
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
OM. 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, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
aV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application
Materials)
Cv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ("Traffic
Impact Analysis" Urban Crossroads, October, 2002)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? ("Traffic Impact Analysis" Urban
Crossroads, October, 2002)
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? (No air traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis" Urban Crossroads, October,
2002)
M
0
s
e
9
X
X
FRED\W ashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
10
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Tentative Parcel Map
30903)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Tentative Parcel Map
30903)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis" Urban
Crossroads, October, 2002)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p.
58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
':\FRED\ W ashingtonPark\EAChk ist459.wpd
11
KI
X
R.
X
X
X
X
X
X
ON
R.
X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly?
XVM. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
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.
OURCES:
taster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
eneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
CAQMD CEQA Handbook.
ity of La Quinta Municipal Code
tesults of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Target Store..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, August,
)02.
'reliminary Hydrology Report for Concept Grading Plan," prepared by Pardue, Cornwell & Associates,
ctober, 2002.
iistorical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report...," prepared by CRM Tech, August, 2002.
archaeological Testing and Mitigation at a Portion of Site CA-RIV-150," prepared by CRM Tech, October,
)02.
Biological Resources Assessment & Flat -Tailed horned Lizard Focused Study..." prepared by Thomas Olsen
isociates, August, 2002.
FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChkist459. wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-459
a), b) & c)
The proposed project is located within a General Plan Image Corridor on both
Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1. The site is located in the center of the
City's Regional Commercial land use district, and is surrounded by commercial
development. The project proponent is requesting a height of 26 feet for a
building within 150 of the right of way in the Specific Plan application. The
building will not be excessive in height (only 4 feet above the stated maximum).
The Specific Plan has been designed to provide visual relief by staggering
building sites within the frontage on both Washington and Highway 111, and
providing enhanced landscaping and building architecture. The project will
reflect the high quality development which the General Plan encourages on both
Washington and Highway 1 1 1. No scenic landmarks occur at or near the site.
I. d) The project will generate light from parking lot lighting. The City's dark sky
ordinance will be applied to all lighting plans submitted for the proposed project
site. These requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties,
which will mitigate the potential impacts associated with the project. The
potential impacts associated with light and glare are not expected to be
significant.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a), b) & c)
The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The Specific
Plan Amendment, Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and
Tentative Parcel Map will result in the construction of 622,540 square feet of
retail and office space, which will generate 10,904 trips at buildout'. Based on
this trip generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes
50 mph 450.6 17.33 92.43 --
Daily Threshold"
550 75 100
1.93
150
Tires
1.93
"City of La Quinta Target Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by urban Crossroads, October,
2002.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd
Based on 10,904 trips/day and average trip length of 8 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos
at 75°F, year 2005. " Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance
in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
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.
The proposed project will also result in stationary source air quality emissions,
from the power generated for commercial facilities at natural gas and electric
generating facilities. The potential impacts of the 622,540 square feet of retail
space is estimated in the two tables below.
Emissions Associated with Natural Gas Consumption
for Commercial Development at Project Buildout
(Lbs. per 10 6 Cu.Ft.)
Estimated Total Months Natural Gas Uwe_ 1,905,366 cf/month
Carbon
Nitrogen Sulfur
Reactive
Pollutants _Monoxide
Oxides Oxides
Particulates
Organic Gases
1.8
1.8 1.9
1.8
1.9
Factor 20
120 negligible
0.2
5.3
Lbs./Month 36.1
216.6 negligible
0.4
9.6
Based on cf/square foot usage and emissions factors provided in Tables A9-12-A
and A9-12-B, "CEQA
Air Quality
Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air
Quality Management District, April
1993.
Power Plant Emission Projections
for Commercial Development at Project Buildout
(Lbs. per 1,000 kwh)
Estimated Total Annual Electric Usage: 8,435,417 kwh/year
Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Reactive
Pollutants Monoxide Oxides Oxides Particulates Organic Gases
8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435
Factor 0.2 1.15 0.12 0.04 0.01
Lbs.Near 1,687.1 9,700.7 1,012.3 337.4 94.4
Based on kwh/square foot usage and emissions factors provided in Tables A9-11-A and Table A9-11-B, "CEQA Air
Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. Assumes continued
availability of natural gas in power plants and an average contribution from hydro -electric sources. Represents total
pounds emitted per year by all commercial development at buildout.
Based on these estimated impacts, the project will have the following
cumulative air quality impacts. It is important to note that the potential impacts
associated with power plant consumption are likely to occur outside the
Coachella Valley, and will therefore not have a significant impact on the local
or regional air quality.
P:IFRED1WashingtonParkWddendum459.wpd 2
Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project -Related Emissions
Associated with Buildout of the Proposed General Plan
(pounds per day)
Total
SCAQMD
Stationary
Moving Source
Anticipated
Threshold
Source Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Criteria*
Power
Nat.Gas
Vehicles
Total lbs.
Total lbs.
Plants
Consumption
at 50 mph
Per day
Per day
Carbon Monoxide
4.6
1.2
450.6
456.43
550.00
Nitrogen Oxides
26.6
7.22
92.43
126.23
100.00
Sulfur Oxides
2.8
2.77
150.00
Particulates
0.9
0.01
3.86
4.90
150.00
ROCS
0.2
2.81
17.33
20.37
75.00
• Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the
significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, April 1993.
The proposed project is expected to exceed thresholds for only nitrogen oxides
at buildout. This excedance will not occur within one air basin, since the power
plant emissions will occur elsewhere. The project site was analysed within the
context of the General Plan EIR in 2002, and falls within the analysis included
in that document. At the time of adoption of the General Plan, the City found
that although air quality impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan
Land Use map was significant, a Statement of Overriding considerations was
adopted, affirming that although the impacts associated with air quality were
significant, the benefit associated with buildout of the General Plan outweighed
the potential impacts. In order to help to reduce impacts associated with
buildout of the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented.
1. Any employer on the project site who has 100 or more total employees,
regardless of shift, shall submit to the Community Development
Department for review and approval, a Transportation Demand
Management Plan, which includes incentives for carpooling and use of
transit, such as preferred and shaded parking spaces for van and car
pools, discounted bus passes, and bike racks for employees. The Plan
shall include a description of the employee education program to be
implemented. The Plan shall be implemented immediately upon
occupancy of any building by any employer of 100 employees or more.
III. c) & d) The construction of the proposed project will generate dust, which could
impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe
non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or
smaller).
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 65 acres of land,
and the movement of 477,000 cubic yards of dirt on the site. Cut and fill is
P:1fREDlWashingtonParklAddendum459.wpd 3
expected to be balanced. This has the potential to generate the following
amount of fugitive dust.
Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout* (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)
65 26.4 1716
Source: a e A - , C QA Air Qua ity Han oo ," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,
April 1993.
The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM10.
These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed
project. These include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The contractors of all buildings on the site will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan
prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with
PM10 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 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. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
P:\FREO\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd
wind erosion. Slope stabilizing landscaping shall be installed immediately upon
completion of grading of said slopes.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related
dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes
or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
10. An air quality monitor shall be on site during all grading and earth moving activities.
The monitor shall be empowered to employ all necessary BCMs to lower the amount
of dust generated on the project site.
11. The project proponent shall submit the PM10 Management Plan to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District for review prior to issuance of grading permits.
12. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards included in the
2002 SIP for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley.
III. e) The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable odors.
IV) a)-0
A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed projece. The survey found that
the project site is suitable habitat for a number of species, but only Palm Springs ground
Squirrel was identified. The project site is also potential habitat for both the Coachella Valley
milk vetch and the Giant sand treader cricket. In addition, 5 acres of mesquite hummocks are
currently located on the site. This plant community can support all the sensitive species
potentially or actually located on the project site. The City has instituted a mitigation
measure for the impacts associated with disturbance of mesquite hummocks, which will
apply to the project site. In addition, the proposed project occurs within the boundaries of the
Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard HCP, and will be subject to the fee requirements
associated with this document. In order to assure that impacts to biological resources are
reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
1. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project developer shall enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and an appropriate non-
profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the purpose of
protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall provide the
organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 10
acres of mesquite hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area.
2. The project proponent shall pay the required fee under the Coachella Valley fringe -
toed lizard HCP prior to the issuance of grading permits for any portion of the site.
'Biological Resources Assessment and Flat -Tailed Homed Lizard Focused Study...," prepared by Thomas
Olsen Associates, August, 2002.
P:\FREDkWashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd
V. a)-d)
Phase I and II cultural resources surveys were completed for the proposed project'. The
Phase I survey identified potentially significant resources on the site, which were
investigated as part of the testing program. The testing program identified materials which
are being investigated in the laboratory, and curated according to City and professional
standards. The studies made recommendations for mitigation measures which were
confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission, as follows:
1. An archaeologist shall be present on and off site during all grubbing and earth
moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community
Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities
on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
2. The final report documenting the results of the artifact analysis and overall
interpretation of the locus shall be submitted to Community Development
Department for approval by the historical Preservation Commission prior to issuance
of the first occupancy permit for the project.
VI. a) i)-iv)
The project site lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The site is not located within an
Alquist Priolo Study Zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to
significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will
be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include
Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. These requirement will ensure that
impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The site is not in
an area subject to liquefaction or landslides
VI. b) The site is located in a severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject to
significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be required to implement the
mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard against soil erosion due to wind.
These mitigation measures will lower the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to
a less than significant level.
VI. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development proposed by the
project proponent. The project proponent will be required to submit a site -specific
geotechnical study at the time of building permit issuance to assure that all building
techniques employed on the site result in safe structures. These standards will lower the
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VII. a)-h)
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed project. The
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey... "' and Archaeological Testing and Mitigation at a Portion
of Site CA-RIV-150..." prepared by CRM Tech, August and October, 2002.
"Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, August, 2002.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd 6
investigation found that the site was not affected by use or storage of hazardous substances.
For any commercial use which uses or stores hazardous materials at project buildout, fire
department and health department standards shall apply which are designed to mitigate the
potential impacts associated with such use or storage. The impacts associated with hazardous
materials are expected to be less than significant.
VIII. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows. A
preliminary hydrology study has been prepared for the project sites The preliminary
hydrology study prepared for the proposed project is still under review by the City Engineer,
and will be modified to conform to the City's standards for on -site retention. In order to
assure that this is the case, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
The project proponent shall secure approval from the City Engineer of the hydrology
study for the project site prior to the issuance of any grading permit.
VIII. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. The
retail development on the project site will be required to implement the City's standards for
water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the
potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of
the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
IX. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will be developed for its General Plan designation
of Regional Commercial. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
designations for the project site. The project will not divide an existing community, or
conflict with a land use plan or with a habitat or natural community conservation plan.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain resources.
XI. a) The project site is located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise levels. The
project will develop as retail commercial development, which is not a sensitive receptor. The
closest sensitive receptors are located to the south of the project site, in the Lake La Quinta
project site. The project site plan includes parkway landscaping and parking lot setbacks
which will increase the separation between the commercial land use and the residential units
to the south. The impacts associated with operational noise are not expected to be significant.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and
activities. Existing homes occur to the south of the site. Homes are considered sensitive
receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a short term negative impact.
In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
"Preliminary Hydrology Study," prepared by Pardue, Cornwell & Associates, October, 2002.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied
residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located in the northwestern half of the site, as far away from existing homes as
possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of commercial
development. No impacts to population and housing are expected.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed
project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract.
Buildout of the proposed project will generate property and sales tax which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services.
The commercial development will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to
mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project or its components will be
required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or
facilities.
XIV. a) & b)
The construction of commercial development will not impact recreational services. The
generation of property and sales tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that
standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will
mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than significant level.
XV. a) & b)
A traffic impact report was prepared for the proposed project'. The study found that the
proposed project will generate 14,539 trips per day, but that 25% of these trips will be pass -
by trips which would otherwise occur were the project not constructed. The study further
found that traffic signal warrants exist at Adams and 47th Street, and that modification of the
traffic signal operation at Washington and Highway 111 to provide a right turn overlap phase
"City of La Quinta Target Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads,
October, 2002.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd 8
is required without the project. With the project, several improvements are required to
mitigate the potential impacts associated with the buildout of the project. These mitigation
measures are:
1. Construct Washington Street from Simon Drive to Avenue 47 at its ultimate half -
section width as an augmented major arterial in conjunction with the development.
2. Construct Adams Street from Highway 111 to Avenue 47 at its ultimate half -section
width as a secondary arterial in conjunction with the development.
3. Construct Highway 111 from Simon Drive to Adams Street at its ultimate half -
section width as a special class of major arterial with a right-of-way requirement of
172 feet established by Caltrans.
4. Construct Avenue 47 from Washington Street to Adams Street at its ultimate half -
section width as a collector in conjunction with development.
5. Project driveways #1 and #4 shall be restricted to right turns only.
6. Project driveways #5 and #6 shall be full access driveways.
7. Project driveway #2 shall be restricted to right turn in/right turn out/left turn in.
8. Construct a 150 foot left turn in pocket for driveway #2 on Washington Street.
9. All improvements shall be completed in conformance to exhibit 7-A of the October
2002 Traffic Impact Analysis.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts associated with traffic
generated at the site will be reduced to a less than significant level.
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create any hazardous
design features. The Specific Plan and site plan include parking requirements generally in
conformance to the City's standards. The site plan provides for a number of emergency
access points. Alternative transportation in the form of bus stops will be implemented
throughout the area based on General Plan policies and programs.
XVI. a)-O
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required to pay
connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed to incorporate future
needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities
at the site.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd
0
0
b+•q
Cd
3
O
0
0
M
cYi
N
O
N
N
O
00
O
O
0
O
M
1
a
4
01
�r
N
O
O
N
-91
o
z°
W
a
0
V m
Z
IL
Q W
W
c�
F
R
W
H
z �
O v
9
U
O
Z
o �
a
c�
O
O
OU.
O W =
0
cn
Zo
E''p4 00
W Lu
W
(V �W
F�
zp z
0
G� a
G1G (9 CO)a� �cc
y
cr. W F-
�o �� a
p ca °C
H f.�
a
c
a:
o
cco
ca
C O
O
p
p
d
o
° c
c
>0Ua.
�U°°-
:�dv
c.-o
OdN
C7N T
c Q c
Q
cnr-
c
2 a�
a�
0
a Q O
Q O
2
a.
cn cn
to
=
a
P cn
to
Q cn C-i >
cn N >
O
N
U)
O
"
O
O
'�
O
C
O
O
C
C
+'
V
V
N
>
a.
>
O
>
O
v
41 W
N>
m
E
E
c
�
E
�
EA
1-
V
c
E
c
U
U-'
a
c
U
0v
CL
n
rn
m
U
U
coo
o a
o
c
0
o
0)o
41
m 0
o
0
rn
o
O v
0
a)
o
O—
b L.
o
0
a)
o
c
c
c
c
.r V
a O
o
►-
a
C
a.
a
co a.
C '� '%
am a
p
0a
o
a
a
p
p
c
c
E
E
o
c
o
c
c
c
E
E
ECD
>
>
yE�
p +,
a)
d
a)
a
a)
a
(D
a
O
O
a
0.
0)0
O
0.
+>+ c
a)
o
E
p
C
m p
p
O
p
L-
E
E
U
�'
rn
c
E rn
m
a
rn
n
E
u,
w
c
E
c
c
u
c
E a
c
>
>
E
a-
a
0a
o 0
o
*'
F'
o
0:3
0
U p
U
U
U
m
U In m
m
a
m
a
M
>
n
o
E
p
—
CL
t
o N
d
(D
a)
vs
O
ca
a)
p
_
to
''
cny
N
C N
U
N
d
O
N
Q
'� a)
0
0
o
N
41
0
co
.
� }'
to
m O
U
4=
coo
0,
r (AO
aEi
c
0
E
rnr
v
rn
0
f- +
U
0. E
7
N
1
-Np
c E
E
H
�
4 •;
O
o
0
+r
io
c
co
0
a
_ o
c
ccn
a)
0
o
3
a)
'O
—
cn
rn cV
E
a�
n
�_
N
c
to
in.
c
E
d
N �=
w 3
�+
to
m
i�
a
o
a
N
�o to
cn +�
N
o
O
cn
t�0
`
G
®
�
V m
V m
v
Q W
Q W
Q W
.J hC
J Y
.:� ]L
C)
ILW
2 W
W
CJ
O V
CJ 0
g
4"
+; C
0) E
g
a
LU
m-0
H
0
HO
cc
O 4-
cc.0
c
m
V
'a O
W-
m y U
-a
m '
V
O
`
O 0
ccv o m
a
a
a`
cn a a
Q
N _
E.
t7
m a
tOp
m
rn
F
rn
rn
d 0
�
rn �'
0
+•
0
a� •c
c '0
0 m
0
m CL
C] rn
a
c
c
00
a�
a
OO
0
Ea
Ix
OC'
W Z
c
o m
W Z
O
U.
W Z
m 0
> E
m 0
>
m 0
cnt:
ZZ
0 ct �
caH
ZZ
p
NF-
ZZ
00
+1 a
> r Q
O O
A l
0g
00
IL
y
E
E
w
m
p
o
m
o
0 �
U C] m
0
U
U
vs
W
m
O
tM
+m_-� C
Z
`0
N
O
aj
a�
0
N
N -o
O
>
D
a
)
a(A
Cal
F_ OC
N
c ^-�
F- OC
►-
0
W
m
y
O
y
W
J
aEi a�i
0
} W
W
x
o tm
E .0
m
�%
c
Q
cUp
m
CC
G
J
m �O
tall
Q
O
>
C m
O
a'C+ V LL
�_.
y
Q
V>
tm
o
�= a
>
<m m
>
cns
Q
~
G
p
Um
vm
z
a ujj
Q W
he
CL
aLu
W
CL
gv
W
V
U
V
U
a
g
W
W
f-
x
c
o
c
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
U
U
U
a
a
a
a)
y
d
a)
d
_
c
C
C
Val
C
U)
C
vni
C
Val
c
c
O
C
0
O
+4
4
z
0
3:
3
3
►_
c
i
c
`
N
z
�_
C
O C
O C
O C
O c
p
~
U
v
U
~
c E
c E
c E
c E
C
c E
=a
=a
=a
2a
=n.
O N
=
U>
O y
U>
O (D
U>
O d
U>
O ql
U>
C]
C]
Q
C
C CDc
D
C D
C
0
O
W Z
C
al
C
m
W z
d
d
m0
E
E
al
E
m0
O
E
O
E
E
E
a)
E
O p
al
(D
a)
O O
aai
aai
aa)
aai
aai
LU
�
�W
C
C
m
m
_ m
m
m
m
m
m
E
V
4�
cc
z
O
d
z
O
L
m
Vl U
F=
>,
co
-�
o
h-
4�
S
w
O
+'
+. L-
a
a
o
E
_
r•�
C7 WJ
n7
C7 W4-
++
O
y
i
Y
0
L
=
HGc
0
rn 3
_
0
c>o
>, 3
n
�t 3
0a
0
Ch
►�
as Co
'a
rnrn
o
�
3
��
v_
Ql
> rn
x
LU
•
cn
U.
ql
0y
N
�3
L
�r
0 `�
C
C Y-
C -
c 0 'D
O
X
U L
_ O=
-j L
LL.
X
U L
U
U L
U L
U N 41
w
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A
66.06 ACRE COMMERCIAL CENTER
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011 AMENDMENT NO. 4
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26T" day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request of Washington 111, LTD for approval of guidelines and standards in a
development plan including the distribution of land uses and development standards,
for commercial and office uses by means of a Specific Plan (SP 2002-087-011,
Amendment No.4), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-072), Parcel Map (TPM 30903),
and a Site Development Permit (SDP) 2002-751, collectively the Project generally
bounded by Highway 111, Avenue 47, Washington Street and Adams Street, more
particularly described as :
A.P.N.'S 643-020-017, 643-020-018, 643-020-022, 643-020-023,
and 643-090-016
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No.4 has complied
with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-459),
and determined that the proposed Specific Plan will not have a significant impact on
the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is
recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan:
1. That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Regional Commercial
which permits the uses proposed for the property.
2. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated
development in the area, in that the project, as conditioned, provides adequate
circulation.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO SP 1987-01 1, Amd No. 4.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 4 - Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: November 26, 2002
Page 2
3. That the proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting uses will require
Planning Commission review and approval of development plans under a Site
Development Permit, which will ensure adequate Conditions of Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution,
subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO SP 1987-01 1, Amd No. 4.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific
Plan, or any other application pertaining thereto. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Specific Plan, and any Parcel Map submitted thereunder, shall comply with
the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code ("LQMC9.
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web
Site at www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water,
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
a. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs five (5) acres of land or more, Permittee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
b. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including
acceptance of all improvements by the City.
d. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
i. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
ii. Temporary Sediment Control.
iii. Wind Erosion Control.
iv. Tracking Control.
V. Non -Storm Water Management.
vi. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
e. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall
be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
f. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed
and accepted by the City.
5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
6. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Parcel Map all public street right-
of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this
development include:
a. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street ( Augmented major arterial, 132-foot right of
way) additional 6 foot dedication measured from the property line
shown in the recorded Quit Claim deed per instrument number
164281 through 164314, to provide for a 132 feet of right of
way. This dedication may be waived if a future General Plan
Amendment is approved by the City Council.
2) Adams Street from Highway 111 to Avenue 47 - No dedication
required.
3) Highway 111 from Simon Drive to Adams Street ( Special class
of Major Arterial, 140 feet), additional 15 foot dedication will be
required measured from the existing 55 foot right-of-way to
provide for a 70 feet of right-of-way measured from the street
centerline.
4) Avenue 47 from Washington Street to Adams Street - No
dedication required.
B. Miscellaneous Right -of -Way Dedications Requirements
1) Right-of-way geometry for standard corner cut -backs at curb
returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings
#805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
2 Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for
dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other
features contained in the approved construction plans.
3. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed
street right-of-ways shown on the approved Specific plan are
necessary prior to approval of any subdivision map dedicating
such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-
of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
4. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements
necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and
structures, drainage basins, bus turn out, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Parcel Map.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
8. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-
of-ways as follows:
A. Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial) - 20 feet from the R/W -
P/L.
B. Adams Street (Secondary Arterial) - 10 feet from the R/W - P/L.
C. Avenue 47 (Collector) - 10 feet from the R/W - P/L.
D. Highway 111 (Special class of Major Arterial)- 50 feet from the R/W -
P/L.
E. Simon Drive (Secondary Arterial) - 10 feet from the R/W -PL
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall
design is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited
to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned
setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those
purposes on the Parcel Map. .
9. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped
setback lot has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top
of curb exceeding 5 feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate,
the maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering
sidewalk requirements by either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as
needed, or 2) installing retaining walls between the sidewalk and the back of
the landscaped area as needed.
10. Direct vehicular access to Highway 111, Washington Street, Avenue 47,
Adams Street and Simon Drive from lots with frontage along Highway 111,
Washington Street, Avenue 47, Adams Street and Simon Drive are restricted,
except for those access points identified on the Specific Plan for this project,
or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval.
11. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
12. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Parcel Map
and the date of recording of the Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved
by the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate.
14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified
below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified,
unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A.
Off -Site Street Plan:
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 "
= 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale)
that show the meandering
sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in
the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
B.
Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan:
1 " = 20' Horizontal
C.
Perimeter Landscape Plan:
1 " = 20' Horizontal
D.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan:
1 " = 40' Horizontal
E.
On -Site Precise Grading Plan:
1 " = 30' Horizontal
F.
Site Development Plan: *
1 " = 40' Horizontal
G.
Site Utility Plan:
1 " = 40' Horizontal
*Prior to submitting the Site Development Plan for review and approval, the
applicant shall submit a site development phasing for approval.
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior
to commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall
& Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-
foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs
& gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements for the parking lot and access to the building.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including
but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm
drainage systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the
Building Official and the City Engineer.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan
and a "Site Utility" plan are required to be submitted for approval by the
Building Official and the City Engineer.
15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction
notes from the City.
16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The
files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully
retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in
order to reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD
format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City
Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans.
17. Prior to the approval of the Parcel Map pertaining to this Specific Plan, or the
issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on site and off -site
improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully
secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA")
guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its
obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be
required by the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
18. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of
any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the
proposed improvements.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and
common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins,
perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured
through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the
development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either
be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
19. Depending on the timing of the development of this Specific Plan, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required
to:
(A) Construct certain off -site improvements.
(B) Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement
of its costs by others.
(C) Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of the tentative parcel map.
(D) Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others.
(E) To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the issuance of any permit
related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements.
20. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant
shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and
off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey
monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such
estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution,
or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the
applicant's detailed cost estimates.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
21. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development,
or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City
shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project,
or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
23. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
24. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. An approved Better Management Plan prepared by a qualified engineer.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
25. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
26. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F)
except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum
slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for
the back slope (ie the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first
six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge
of sidewalk is within six (6) feet of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope
within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas
adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the
first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
27. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
28. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless
the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these
Conditions of Approval.
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than
three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where
the differential shall not exceed five feet.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
29. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the
site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations
shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the
proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance
finding review.
30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if
any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad
soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if
submitted at different times.
31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24,120
(Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically,
stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within
the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The
tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing
the greatest total run off.
32. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two
inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the
applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
33. Use underground drainage facilities for additional storage if the proposed
retention basins are not capable of handling the 100 year storm.
Hydrology/hydraulic calculations and design of the underground facilities shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to installation.
34. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and shall be disposed of in a trickling
sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and
leach field shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of
landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
35. Storm water may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped
setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto
the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas.
The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be
shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
36. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood
boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
37. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
39. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
40. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles
are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
41. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City
Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
_00 GY1012ll'�':• U_
42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access
For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets
43. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue during street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall
be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent
building(s) on the lot.
44. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform
with the General Plan.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Highway 111 from La Quinta Center Dr. to Adams Street, as
required by CALTRANS.
A) Construct an eastbound right turn lane only at Adams
Street.
B) Widen the south side of Highway 111 from La Quinta
Center Drive to Adams Street to its ultimate half street
width as required by CALTRANS. Street widening
improvements shall include all appurtenant components
such as, but not limited to, street pavement, curb, gutter,
traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street
lights.
C) Install Bus Shelter per City Standard approximately 150
feet east of La Quinta Center Drive with power and water.
The applicant shall provide perpetual water and power
service at its expense.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
D) Install an 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
2) Adams Street from Highway 111 to Avenue 47
A) Widen the west side of the street from Highway 111 to
Avenue 47 to comply with Primary Arterial A . street
standard, unless a future General Plan amendment leaves
the street classification as a secondary Arterial, to include,
but not limited to street pavement, curb, gutter, traffic
control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights.
B) Install an 8-foot wide sidewalk.
3) Washington Street between Simon Drive to Avenue 47
A) Widen the east side of the street from Simon Drive to
Avenue 47 to comply with the Augmented Major street
standard, unless the future General Plan amendment
changes the street classification, to include but not limited
to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs,
except for street lights.
B) Construct the median with approved landscaping and
provide left turn pockets for the southbound traffic at the
southerly driveway.
C) Install Bus Shelter per City Standard approximately 150
feet north of Avenue 47 with power and water. The
applicant shall provide perpetual water and power service
at its expense.
D) Install an 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
4) Avenue 47 from Washington Street to Adams Street
A) Repair, replace, any broken, altered or missing sidewalk,
curb. And gutter
B) Reimburse the developer, Spanos, 50% for those
improvements installed on the north side of the centerline
at Avenue 47.
5) Traffic signal
A) At Adams Street
1. A traffic signal at Avenue 47 shall be installed when
warrants are met. The developer shall pay 50% of
the cost to design and install the traffic signal.
B) Highway 111
1. At Adams Street intersection
2.
A. Optical receivers on both the eastbound and
westbound traffic shall be relocated to the
southwest corner of this intersection.
B. The Applicant shall modify the traffic signal as
needed to accommodate the new street
improvement.
3. At La Quinta Drive intersection
A. Optical receivers for westbound traffic shall
be relocated to the southwest corner of this
intersection.
B. The Applicant shall modify the traffic signal
phasing according to the traffic study.
4. At Washington Street.
A. Applicant shall modify the traffic signal
phasing according to the traffic study
B) Washington Street at Avenue 47
Reimburse the developer, Spanos, 25 % of the cost for the
design and construction of the traffic signalization at
Washington street and Avenue 47.
45. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that
utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either
touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals
not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50
and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change
to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander 25 feet
into the landscape setback lot and at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
46. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum
structural sections shall be as follows:
Residential
Collector
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
Major Arterial
Augmented Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a:b.
4.0"/5.00"
4.0"/6.00"
4.5"/6.00"
5.5"/6.50"
5.5"/6.50"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
47. General access points shall be a minimum of 250 feet apart measured between
curb returns, and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Entries at Highway 1 1 1: Driveways shall be restricted to right turn in
and right turn out only, except at existing signalized entries.
B. Entries at Avenue 47: Full access turn is allowed. The second driveway
from Washington Street shall be moved to meet the minimum 250 foot
spacing between driveway approaches measured at curb returns.
C. Entries at Washington Street:
1) At Simon Drive: Shall be restricted to right turn in, right turn out,
and left turn In. Left turn out is prohibited.
2) South driveway shall be restricted to right turn in, right turn out,
and left turn in only. Left turn out is prohibited.
3) The north driveway shall be restricted to right turn in and right
turn out only.
D. Entry at Adams Street: Driveway shall be restricted to right turn in and
right turn
out only. There shall be a minimum 250 foot spacing between the drive
way approach and the intersection at Avenue 47 measured at the curb
returns.
E Entries at Simon Drive: Full access turn is allowed.
48. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and
sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
49. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, and parking areas shall
be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
50 Standard corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard
Drawings #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
51. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
VA1R•T.
52. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks)
& 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
53. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
54. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed
landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant
shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City
Engineer.
55. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along
public streets.
56. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
58. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
59. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program,
but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction
materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and
other applicable regulations.
60. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved
by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built"
or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or
surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The
applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to
the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
61. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
62. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC.)
64. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permit(s).
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111. LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
65. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more
than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular
travel ways.
66. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
67. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000
gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2000
gpm for a 4-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure.
68. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to
run concurrent with the City plan check.
69. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, etc.) shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
70. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or
larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be
submitted to the Fire Department.
71. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct
system for fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.)
72. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
73. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department
for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a
height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed.
74. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite. (Contact
the fire department for an application)
75. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code and
in accordance with NFPA 10.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
76. Prior to approval of a precise grading plan, the applicant shall prepare a
separate landscape plan for Highway 111. The applicant shall prepare a
separate palette of materials in the Landscape Plan consistent with the La
Quinta Highway 111 Design Theme. The plan shall include and
improvements consistent with the City of La Quinta Highway 111 Design
Theme (10-6-97). The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in
the perimeter setback areas along Highway 111 and on the east side of La
Quinta Center Drive. The Highway 111 landscape plan shall be approved by
the Community Development Department Director.
77. All tree specimens shall be 36 inch box or better along the main/central
walkway from Highway 111.
78. Landscaping equal to five percent of the net project area shall be provided
within parking areas per Zoning Code section 9.100.040. The landscape
plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department
Director.
79. Delete paragraph number two under Development Standards on page 11 of
the Specific Plan which does not apply.
80. Further define Item K "Architectural Detail" in the Materials Palette.
81. The total site parking calculation for the Specific Plan shall include all
buildings including useable outdoor space such as outdoor dining and
outdoor garden centers.
82. The parking lot design and parking lot lighting plan shall be incorporated into
the Specific Plan.
83. Within 30 days of City Council approval, the final Conditions of Approval
shall be incorporated in the Final Specific Plan document. Applicant shall
work with staff to correct internal document inconsistencies prior to final
publication of Specific Plan document.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL
ATHLETIC FACILITY OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
26th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request of Washington 111, LTD for approval of an athletic facility over 5,000 square
feet by means of a Specific Plan (SP 2002-087-011. Amendment No.4), Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 2002-072), Parcel Map (TPM 30903)and a Site Development Permit
(SDP) 2002-751, collectively "the Project" generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1,
Avenue 47, Washington Street and Adams Street, more particularly described as :
A.P.N.'S 643-020-017, 643-020-018, 643-020-022, 643-020-023,
and 643-090-016
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-459),
and determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant
impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the athletic facility is designated as Regional Commercial and allows this land
use.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code or amended as allowed in the applicable Specific Plan.
3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has determined that this Conditional Use Permit will
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified.
PAFRED1WashingtonPark\PC RESO CUP 2002-071.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditional Use Permit 2002-071 - Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: November 26, 2002
Page 2
4. .The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been
designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided with
adequate landscaping.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote
t0 wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO CUP 2002-071.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
1. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more
than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular
travel ways.
2. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
3. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000
gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2000
gpm for a 4-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure.
4. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to
run concurrent with the City plan check.
5. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, etc.) shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or
larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be
submitted to the Fire Department.
7. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct
system for fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.)
8. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
9. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department
for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a
height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed.
10. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite. (Contact
the fire department for an application)
11. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code and
in accordance with NFPA 10.
RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
12. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit.
The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
A XPC COA CUP 2002-072.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 30903 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 50.62 ACRES INTO SIX LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26TH day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider a request of Washington 1 1 1, LTD to subdivide six lots on 50.62 acres by
means of a Specific Plan (SP 2002-087-011 Amendment No.4), Conditional Use
Permit (CUP 2002-072), Parcel Map (TPM 30903), and a Site Development Permit
(SDP) 2002-751, collectively "the Project", generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1,
Avenue 47, Washington Street and Adams Street, more particularly described as :
A.P.N.'S: 643-020-017, 643-020-018, and 643-020-023,
WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map 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 was completed for
this project; 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
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said
Tentative Parcel Map 30586:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan
Commercial Land Use Policy 3 in that strip commercial development will be
discouraged and minimum lot depth is achieved.
2. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards
contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -
site streets will be private. Access for the commercial project will be provided
from an internal street planned under the Specific Plan.
3. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, or the proposed improvements, are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or
wildlife, or their habitat.
PAFRED\Washington Park\PC RESO PM 30903.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Parcel Map 30903 - Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: November 26, 2002
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. Therefore,
this project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or
wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures will be implemented.
4. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, or type of improvements, are not likely
to cause serious public health problems.
The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, as conditionally approved, will not
cause serious public health problems because they will install urban
improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements.
5. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, or type of improvements, will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or
use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each building in the
commercial center. All required public easements will provide access to the site
or support necessary infrastructure improvements.
6. The design of the lots, or type of improvements, are not likely to cause serious
public health problems in that the Fire Marshal, Sheriff's Department, and the
City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public
health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate.
7. The design of the lots, or type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision in that the proposed internal streets will be
privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned
improvements within the Tentative Parcel Map.
8. The design of the lots and grading improvements, within the tract are an
acceptable minimum in that the tract design preserves community acceptance
and buyer satisfaction; and
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning
Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs
of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs
of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and
environmental resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO PM 30903.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Parcel Map 30903 - Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: November 26, 2002
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Parcel
Map 30903 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 26th day of November, 2002 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO PM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Parcel Map, or any
Parcel Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have.sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Parcel Map recorded thereunder, shall comply
with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-
DWQ.
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit
a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP).
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at
the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to
this project.
F. The approved SWPPP anad BMPs shall remain -in effect for the entire duration
of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by
the City.
5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
6. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Parcel Map all public street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific
plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street ( Augmented major arterial, 132-foot right of way)
additional 6 foot dedication measured from the property line shown in the
Quit Claim deed recorded per instrument number 164281 through 164314,
to provide for a 132 feet of right of way. This dedication may be waived
if a future General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council.
2) Adams Street from Highway 111 to Avenue 47 - No dedication required.
3) Highway 111 from Simon Drive to Adams Street ( Special class of Major
Arterial, 140 feet), additional 15 foot dedication will be required measured
from the existing 55 foot right-of-way to provide for a 70 feet of right-of-
way measured from the street centerline.
4) Avenue 47 from Washington Street to Adams Street - No dedication
required.
B. Miscellaneous Right -of -Way Dedications Requirements
1) Right-of-way geometry for standard corner cut -backs at curb returns shall
conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #805, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
2 Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right
and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the
approved construction plans.
3. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
right-of-ways shown on the approved Specific plan are necessary prior to
approval of any subdivision map dedicating such right-of-ways, the
applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a
written request by the City.
4. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
bus turn out, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Parcel
Map.
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
8. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial) - 20 feet from the R/W to P/L.
B. Adams Street (Secondary Arterial) - 10-feet from the R/W to P/L.
C. Avenue 47 (Collector) - 10-feet from the R/W-P/L.
D. Highway 111 (Special class of Major Arterial) 50 feet from the R/W to P/L.
E. Simon Drive (Secondary Arterial) - 10 feet from the R/W to PL
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Parcel
Map.
9. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped setback lot
has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top of curb exceeding
5 feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate, the maximum slope
gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering sidewalk requirements by
either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as needed, or 2) installing retaining
walls between the sidewalk and the back of the landscaped area as needed.
10. Direct vehicular access to Highway 111, Washington Street, Avenue 47, Adams
Street and Simon Drive from lots with frontage along Highway 111, Washington
Street, Avenue 47, Adams Street and Simon Drive are restricted, except for those
access points identified on the Tentative Parcel Map for this project, or as otherwise
conditioned in these conditions of approval.
11. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
12. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion
of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and
the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the
City Engineer.
13. Prior to the City's approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Parcel Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
A.XPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Parcel Map.
u-:• _u_anJ__►
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
14. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
15. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall
be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise
authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale
if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to
prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required
by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk,
mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback
area.
B.
Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan:
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
C.
Perimeter Landscape Plan:
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
D.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan:
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
E.
On -Site Precise Grading Plan:
1 " =
30'
Horizontal
F.
Site Development Plan*:
1 " =
40'
Horizontal
G.
Site Utility Plan:
1 " =
40'
Horizontal
*Prior to submitting the Site Development Plan for review and approval, the applicant
shall submit a site development phasing for approval.
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits,
or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top
Of Footing elevations shown.. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor
elevations, parking lot improvements and current ADA requirements.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but
not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage
systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the Building Official
and the City Engineer.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan and a
"Site Utility" plan are required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and
the City Engineer.
16. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may
purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City.
17. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall
be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a
basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions. .
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or
a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
A:\PC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
18. Prior to the approval the Parcel Map, the applicant shall construct all onsite and off -
site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured
and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the
construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same,
or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
19. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the
applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion
of any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
20. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on -
site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the
issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion or the occupancy of
permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
21. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Parcel Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to:
(A) Construct certain off -site improvements.
(B) Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its
costs by others.
(C) Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative parcel map.
(D) Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by -others.
(E) To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Parcel Map,
ARC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such
improvements.
22. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall
submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site
improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking
and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost
schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Parcel Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost
estimates.
23. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
25. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
26. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
D. An approved BMP's prepared by a qualified engineer.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Parcel Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
27. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
28. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain
and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as
otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not
exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the back slope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted
with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb
shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) feet of the
curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All
unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
29. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential
shall not exceed five feet.
Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the
pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
AVC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback
and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds,
pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
37. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
38. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity
to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic
drainage relief route.
39. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
41. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
42. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
43. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation
of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
44. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally), LQMC for public streets;
AVC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
45. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue
during street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to
standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
46. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Highway 111 from La Quinta Center Dr. to Adams Street, as required by
CALTRANS.
A) Construct an eastbound right turn lane only at Adams Street.
B) Widen the south side of the highway from La Quinta Center Drive to
Adams Street to its ultimate half street width as required by
CALTRANS. Street widening improvements shall include all
appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, street pavement,
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for
street lights.
C) Install Bus Shelter per City Standard approximately 150 feet east of
La Quinta Center Drive with power and water. The applicant shall
provide perpetual water and power service at its expense.
D) Install an 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
2) Adams Street from Highway 111 to Avenue 47
A) Widen the west side of the street from Highway 111 to Avenue 47
to comply with Primary Arterial A street standard, unless a future
General Plan amendment leaves the street classification as a
secondary Arterial, to include, but not limited to street pavement,
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for
street lights.
B) Install an 8-foot wide sidewalk.
3) Washington Street from Simon Drive to Avenue 47 (Augmented Major
Arterial, 132 foot R/W)
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
A) Widen the east side of the street from Simon Drive to Avenue 47 to
comply with the Augmented Major street standard, unless the future
General Flan amendment changes the street classification, to include
but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and
signs, except for street lights.
B) Construct the median with approved landscaping and provide left turn
pockets for the southbound traffic at the southerly driveway.
C) Install Bus Shelter per City Standard approximately 150 feet north of
Avenue 47 with power and water. The applicant shall provide
perpetual water and power service at its expense.
D) Install an 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
4) Avenue 47 from Washington Street to Adams Street
A) Repair, replace, any broken, altered or missing sidewalk, curb. And
gutter
B) Reimburse the developer, Spanos, 50% for those improvements
installed on the north side of the centerline at Avenue 47.
5) Traffic Signal
A) At Adams Street
1. A traffic signal at Avenue 47 shall be installed when warrants
are met. The developer shall pay 50% of the cost to design and
install the traffic signal.
B) Highway 111
1. At Adams Street intersection
A. Optical receivers on both the eastbound and westbound
traffic shall be relocated to the southwest corner of this
intersection.
B. The Applicant shall modify the traffic signal as needed to
accommodate the new street improvement.
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
2. At La Quinta Drive intersection
A. Optical receivers for westbound traffic shall be relocated to
the southwest corner of this intersection.
B. The Applicant shall modify the traffic signal phasing
according to the traffic study.
3. Washington Street.
A. Applicant shall modify the traffic signal phasing according
to the traffic study.
B) Washington Street at Avenue 47
Reimburse the developer, Spanos, 25% of the cost for the design and
construction of the traffic signalization at Washington street and
Avenue 47.
47. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes
concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back
of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point
of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic
layout. The sidewalk shall meander 25 feet into the landscape setback lot and at
intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
48. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows:
Residential
Collector
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
Major Arterial
Augmented Major Arterial
3.0"
a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
4.0"/5.00"
4.0"/6.00"
4.5"/6.00"
5.5"/6.50"
5.5"/6.50"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
A:\PC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
49. General access points shall be a minimum of 250 feet apart measured between
curb returns, and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Entries at Highway 111: Driveways shall be restricted to right turn in and
right turn out only, except at existing signalized entries.
B. Entries at Avenue 47: Full access turns are allowed. The second driveway
from Washington Street shall be moved to meet the minimum 250 foot
spacing between driveway approaches measured at curb returns.
C. Entries at Washington Street:
1) At Simon Drive: Shall be restricted to right turn in, right turn put, and left
turn in. Left turn out is prohibited.
2) South driveway shall be restricted to right turn in, right turn out, and left
turn in only. Left turn out is prohibited.
3) The north driveway shall be restricted to right turn in and right turn out
only.
D. Entry at Adams Street: Driveway shall be restricted to right turn in and
right turn out only. There shall be a minimum 250 foot spacing between
the drive way approach and the intersection at Avenue 47 measured at the
curb returns.
E. Entries at Simon Drive: Full access turn is allowed.
50. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
51. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, and parking areas shall be stamped and
signed by qualified engineers.
52. Standard corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings
#805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
53. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure
they safely integrate with existing improvements.
A:1PC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
54. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
55. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
56. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall
obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner,
prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
57. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
58. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit
Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
60. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction
supervision.
61. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
A:\PC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods
employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.
62. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each
sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and
shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -
image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
64. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
19-44V.-IU11001-:110141
65. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
66. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Development Impact Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permit(s)a
67. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than
165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways.
68. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side
that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
69. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 gpm and
the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2000 gpm for a 4-hour
duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure.
ARC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
70. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run
concurrent with the City plan check.
71. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, etc.) shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
72. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger
to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to
the Fire Department.
73. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for
fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.)
74. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot.
75. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting
and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 13"6" clear
and unobstructed.
76. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite. (Contact the fire
department for an application)
77. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code and in
accordance with NFPA 10.
AAPC COA TPM 30903.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS
FOR FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
26th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request of Washington 1 1 1, LTD for approval of development plans for five
commercial buildings within a planned commercial center by means of a Specific Plan
(SP 2002-087-011 Amendment No.4), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-072), Parcel
Map (TPM 30903), and a Site Development Permit (SDP) 2002-751, collectively "the
Project" generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Avenue 47, Washington Street and
Adams Street, more particularly described as :
A.P.N.'S 643-020-017, 643-020-018, 643-020-022, 643-020-023,
and 643-090-016
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta did on the 6th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed public
meeting to consider a request for development plans for five commercial buildings
within a planned commercial center by means of a Site Development Permit (SDP)
2002-751; and
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-459),
and determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant
impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of the Site Development Permit:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the commercial project is designated as Regional Commercial.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code, or amended as allowed in the applicable Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Site Development Permit 2002-759 - Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: November 26, 2003
Page 2
3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has determined that this site Development Permit will
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact has been certified.
4. The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been
designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided with
adequate landscaping.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Site Development Permit request for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\PC RESO SDP 2002-752.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site
Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the
necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting the improvement plans for City approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water),
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land
that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five
(5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
AAPC COA SDP 2002-751.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-751
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any
on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development
Permit.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance
of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC:
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and
accepted by the City.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Property Rights
set forth under Parcel Map 30903.
5. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map set
forth under Parcel Map 30903.
►I'.• _1/_0'_Gl
6. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Improvement
Plans set forth under Specific Plan No. 87-011 Amendment No.4.
A:\PC COA SDP 2002-751.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-751
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
7. Prior to submitting the Site Development plan for review and approval, the
applicant will submit a site development phasing for approval.
8. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of approval for Off -site
Improvement Security Agreement set forth under Parcel Map 30903.
9. The Applicants shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Grading set
forth under Specific Plan No. 87-011 Amendment No. 4.
PO T
10. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Drainage set
forth under Specific Plan No. 87-011 Amendment No.4.
11. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Utilities set forth
under Specific Plan No. 87-01 1 Amendment No. 4.
12. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Street and
Traffic Improvements set forth under Specific Plan No. 87-01 1 Amendment No.
4.
13. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Parking Lots and
Access points set forth under Specific Plan No. 87-01 1 Amendment No. 4.
14. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Landscaping set
forth under Specific Plan No. 87-01 1 Amendment No. 4.
AAPC COA SDP 2002-751.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-751
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
15. The applicant will employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
16. The applicant will employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such Or
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
17. The applicant will arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling
and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which
may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and
methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable
regulations.
18. Upon completion of construction, the applicant will furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or
"As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant
shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City,
revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
20. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks,
0• ••
21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City
for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall
be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and
permits.
A:\PC COA SDP 2002-751.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-751
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
22. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permit(s).
23. Prior to completion of any approval process, the developer has to pay Spanos
50%for the cost incurred in completing the north side portion of Avenue 47, and
25% for the design and installation of the traffic signal at Washington Street and
Avenue 47.
24. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more
than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular
travel ways.
25. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
26. Fire Department connections shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50
feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the street side of the buildings.
27. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 gpm
and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2000 gpm for
a 4-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. This flow is based on
the largest building size at 126,000-2 ft.
28. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to
run concurrent with the City plan check.
29. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, FDC, etc.) shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
30. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or
larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be
submitted to the Fire Department.
31. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
A:\PC COA SDP 2002-751.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
32. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the
16t. floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel.
33. Any commercial operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a
Hood/duct system for fire protection. (Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.)
34. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department
for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height
of 13"6" clear and unobstructed.
35. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial suite and/or building. (Contact the
fire department for an application)
36. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code.
37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a more complete description of Item K
"Architectural Detail" in the Materials Palette is required.
38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, eliminate all wall banners from all
architectural elevations and from the color and material board.
39. Prior to approval of a precise grading plan, landscaping equal to five percent of
the net project area shall be provided within parking areas per Zoning Code
section 9.100.040. The landscape plan site plan for the parking areas shall be
approved by the Community Development Department Director.
A:\PC COA SDP 2002-751.wpd
ATTACHMENT 4
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 6, 2002 10:00 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscap/ommittee was called
to order at 10:02 a.m. by Planning Manager Oo led the flag
salute.
IV.
V.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbit and David Thorns. It was
moved and seconded by Committee Me ers Thoms/Bobbitt to excuse
Committee Member Cunningham. Un imously approved.
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Os
Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, Q
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
CONFIRMATION OF THE AGEN
CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Staff asked if there
2002. There bein
Committee Mem
submitted.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
Orci, Principal Planner Fred Baker,
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
/Gere any changes to the Minutes of October 2,
no corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Bobbitt/Thoms to approve the Minutes as
----..
A. Sire Development Permit 002-751; a request of Washington 111, LTD -
Dale Frank and Associates for review of architecture and conceptual
landscaping plans for the first.phase of Washington Park Commercial
Center located on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, between Washington
Street and Adams Street.
G:\WPDOCSWRLC\l 1-6-02.wpd ii
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
November 6, 2002
1. Principal Planner Fred Baker gave an explanation of the project and
introduced Mr. Dale Frank, developer of the project, gave
presentations on the project and introduced Mr. Saeid Shantiyai,
Project Director for MCG Architecture, Mr. Greg Lyon, Director of
Design for MCG Architecture, Mr. Hal Hall with HH Landscaping,
Mr. Fred Stephenson, Director of Marketing for Moorefield
Construction, who were available to answer questions.
2. Committee Member Thorns asked if there was a proposed tenant
for Buildings 3 and 4. Mr. Frank stated he has not concentrated
on the smaller users, but on the larger users. Committee Member
Thorns asked about the space between the smaller tenants
building and Lowe's building. Mr. Frank stated the space will be
for the required storm retention and it will also be spread out
throughout the site and landscaped. Between the buildings there
will be a fountain/water feature that re -circulates. It will be an Art
in Public Places feature. Committee Member Thorns stated that
between Building 3 and 4 there appears to be a place for public
use. Mr. Frank indicated the public use areas on the plan.
Committee Member Thorns stated it is more visual appealing if you
do not have cars parked in front of that area. The south side does
not have cars and the north has cars headed in. He would like to
see that moved. Staff stated the entire specific plan is under
review including landscape setbacks and additional right of way.
Committee Member Thorns stated he would like to restrict any
parking in front of the public use area.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the parking area behind
Building 3; what divides this area from the Lowe's parking. Mr.
Frank stated there is no access through to Lowe's but an area with
a planter. It is for deliveries and employee parking. Lowe's has a
five foot perimeter landscaping around their building. Committee
Member Bobbitt asked about the shade structures in front of
Target. Mr. Shantiyai, stated there were no covers; the area was
for cart storage. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about small
planters in front of the building. Mr. Frank stated they originally
had them, but removed them. Committee Member Bobbitt asked
if there was any exterior wood work. Mr. Greg Lyon, MCG
Architecture, gave a presentation on the building architecture.
G:\WPDOCSWRLC\I 1-6-02.wpd 2
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
November 6, 2002
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the front of the building was
wainscot. Mr. Shantiyai stated yes, but there is a change in
material to break up the building. Committee Member Bobbitt
asked if the shade covers would be wood or metal. Mr. Shantiyai
stated they are going toward metal due to the weather in the
desert. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the same material
should be for trash enclosures.
5. Committee Member Thorns asked if the Target building was block.
Mr. Shantiyai stated it will be split face and precise block to break
it up and create depth and the wainscot effect. Mr. Shantiyai
stated the purpose is to break up the mass of the building.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the mechanical
equipment. Mr. Shantiyai stated it would be hidden behind the
parapet wall.
7. Committee Member Thoms stated he had a concern about the
building having so much grey material. Mr. Shantiyai stated they
will be introducing different colors. The sample board shows
texture, not color. The Target building will have different colors
and textures.
8. Committee Member Thorns stated he has no problems with the
landscape concept. He would like to see at key points some scale
and interest versus having a lot of plants. Get some strength out
of the landscape materials to give importance to certain areas. Mr.
Shantiyai stated they have done this on the entrances to the site.
Committee Member Thorns stated it is not important to
concentrate on the smaller areas where people travel. Mr. Frank
stated the City has a requirement for mounding that will lend itself
to the site.
9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the trees proposed for the
parking lot will give a good feel to the site. What he is concerned
about is that the planting areas being too small for a tree to
survive. He would suggest the Mesquite tree not be used in a
small area. He would also suggest using a different tree than the
Bottlebrush to eliminate the mess. Also, do not use the Date
palms in heavy traffic areas and they should not come from an old
grove to see that they are not stressed.
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\l 1-6-02.wpd 3
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
November 6, 2002
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-
041 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2002-
751, as amended:
A. Condition added: Parking in front of Building 3 parking shall
be restricted to handicapped only.
B. Condition: Delete Bottlebrush trees from the landscape
pallette.
Unanimously approved.
B. lopment Permit 2002-752; a request of Cornerstone
r�ng
nt for review of architecture and landscaping plans for a model
Z
ocated at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred
ve.
1. "Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit gave an explanation of the
e,
project and introduced Mr. Alan Levin and Joe Swain, representing
Cornerstone Development, who gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Thorns asked about the contour mounding as
it appears to be partly in the planting area and partly in the lawn
area a6d he would prefer it be in the lawn area only. He asked if
they wo Id be doing both the front and rear yard landscaping. Mr.
Swain st ed front only.
3. Committee I ember Bobbitt stated it would be nice to upgrade the
irrigating systVm as well as the planting material.
4. Committee Me ber Thorns asked if the front yards would be
maintained by th homeowners' association (HOA). Mr. Alan
Levin stated no, th , HOA would only take care of the entries and
perimeter landscapi There would be no common area meters.
5. There being no further iscussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Bob 'tt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002-
042 recommending appro al of Site Development Permit 2002-
752, as amended:
A. Condition: Contouring to",be in the lawn area only and not
in the planting area.
Unanimously approved.
G:\WPDOCS\AP LC\ I 1-6-02.wpd 4
0 &Vq 0
le 1 3 W
Z N _�
•e� �b� y _eJ�
102 S. SUNRISE WAY • PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 • (760) 325-8282 • FAX (760) 322-4703
November 25, 2002
Mayor John Pena
Councilpersons Don Adolph, Terry Henderson, Ron Perkins and Stanley Sniff
Planning Director Jerry Herman
Dear City Council,
First, I would like to say what a pleasure it is for us to be in La Quinta. Our experience
with the city has been a very positive one. However, recently it has come to our attention
that Dale Frank & Associates, the developer of our site at Washington and Highway I 1 1
is planning to develop another center adjacent to ours, which will include a Henry's
Marketplace food store. This greatly concerns us. We have been open in La Quinta
nearly one year, and are still operating well below projections, due in large part to the fact
that street access from Washington heading South was only completed about a month
ago, and we still hear daily complaints from customers about their frustration at not being
able to turn South onto Washington from our driveway. We feel that the addition of a
store that features many of the items we carry would greatly hinder the chance of long-
term success for our Jensen's in La Quinta.
The proposed development has been planned all along, and while it is to be named
something ditJerent, it appears to have similar architecture and could be considered by
some simply as an extension of our center, especially since the same person is developing
it. We have several exclusive uses in our current lease, including that of a food retailer,
delicatessen, liquor or wine store, and florist. While we are all for free enterprise and
competition, we also have to fight to retain our market share in whichever way we feel is
appropriate We definitely feel that Mr. Frank's proposal to put another fresh food
retailer right next to one he recently recruited and lobbied for is just plain bad business.
You just don't go putting competition right next to your own tenants. To us, it just seems
unethical. Regardless of ethics, our legal counsel is researching whether our lease would
be violated in any way with this new development, and we pledge to exercise all options
available to us. We only recently were informed of the new center, but our preliminary
legal analysis points to the new project violating the exclusive use clause in our lease, as
well as Business and Profession Code 17200 which addresses unfair business practices.
We know that the city will continue to expand and be prosperous. We also know that
Henry's has at least one other approved location in the city, so La Quinta would not be
deprived of the sales tax income that they would generate and the services Henry's would
offer La Quinta residents. We simply feel strongly that they should not be allowed right
PALM DESERT PALM SPRINGS . RANCHO MIRAGE
BLUE JAY CEDAR GLEN 0 WRIGHTWOOD RUNNING SPRINGS
next to our location. We have been serving the desert for nearly 20 years, and we felt
strong enough on this issue to make our feelings known.
If I can answer any questions or provide additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me. My office phone number is 325-8282. Thank you for your time and
allowing us to express our views.
Very truly yours,
JENSEN'S FINEST FOODS
A
Adam Mo. Zack
Vice President
Encl.
C: Gene Fulton, President, Shahen Hairapethian, Esq.
E. Late Charges
Unpaid installments of rents or other sums due pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 hereof shall
bear interest after the fifteenth day from the date due at the interest rate of 100% per
annum. Said interest rate shall apply until the day of payment.
Lessor's acceptance of less than the full amount of any payment from Lessee shall not be
deemed an accord and satisfaction or compromise of such payment unless Lessor
specifically consents in writing to payment of such lesser sum as an accord and satisfaction
or compromise of the amount which Lessor claims.
ARTICLE 5: CONSIDERATION
As consideration for the execution of this Lease, Lessee has previously paid to Lessor the sum of
$20,000 receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. The consideration shall be tendered to Becker
& Becker C.T.A. to be placed in an interest bearing escrow account, with all interest accruing to
Lessee. In the event Lessor fully complies with all of the terms and conditions of this Lease, but
not otherwise, an amount equal to such sum shall be tendered to Lessor and credited to the first
two months Minimum Rent upon commencement of the term of this Lease.
ARTICLE 6: PERMITTED USES
Lessee agrees that Lessee will use and occupy said Premises for a grocery store and related
services with the exclusive rights to the following items:
• Food retailer including a butcher shop, bakery (excluding bakery items that may be sold by
a coffee retailer similar to Starbucks), and produce store.
• Delicatessen
• Liquor or wine store
• Florist
• Specialty food gift baskets
Lessee shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary use permits and licenses to conduct the
aforesaid business.
Lessee will not use or permit to be used in said Premises anything that will increase the rate of
insurance on the building or any part thereof; nor in any manner deface or injure said building or
any part thereof; nor overload any floor or part thereof, nor permit any objectionable noise or
odor to escape or to be emitted from said Premises; nor do anything or permit anything to be
done upon said Premises in any way tending to create a nuisance or to disturb any other tenant or
occupant of any part of said building. At Lessee's expense, Lessee will comply with all city,
county, state and federal health, fire and policy regulations respecting said Premises.
ARTICLE 7: OPERATION OF LESSEE'S BUSINESS
Lessee covenants to operate its business in a manner similar to Lessee's existing stores, at all
times maintaining high standards of display, product quality, and merchandising. Lessee agrees to
keep the Premises adequately stocked with merchandise, with sufficient sales personnel to care for
the patronage, and to conduct said business in a manner similar to Lessee's existing stores. In the
event of breach of Lessee of any of the conditions contained in this Article 7, Lessor shall apply
the same remedies as outlined in Article 18 ("Default") hereof.
ARTICLE 8: FLOOR PLAN AND BRROVEME14TS
The floor plan and specifications for improvements regarding Lessee's occupancy shall be
attached hereto and marked "Exhibit C", and shall be approved by Lessor and confirmed by
Lessee in writing prior to commencement of construction by Lessee.
DATE:
CASE NO.:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 2002-012
DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY OF
THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
PORTION OF CALLE TAMPICO NEAR AVENIDA NAVARRO
LOUIS CAMPAGNA
Pursuant to State law', the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is
consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element for any street right of way or public
easements being vacated by the City Council. The planning agency in this case is the Planning
Commission.
Due to the realignment of Calle Tampico, as shown on Attachment 1, Calle Tampico contains a portion
of right of way that is no longer required. This portion of right of way is specifically described in
Attachment 2 and is not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:
The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS:
On November 8, 2002, staff mailed notices to potentially affected public agencies, informing them of the
proposed vacation. If the utility companies respond with requests for easements to continue operation
and maintenance of existing public utilities, a utility easement will be reserved, however, no comments
are expected.
Goverment Code Section 65402
T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\GUZMAN\ROW\stvac-pc-rpt
FINDINGS:
The proposed right of way vacation will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the
human population, either directly or indirectly because the street segment is currently unused by
the public and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will have
no physical environmental effect.
2. The right of way vacation will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained
for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2002-_ finding that Right of Way Vacation 2002-012 is consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan.
Prepared by:
HECTOR GUZMAN, Assistant Engineer II
Submitted by:
OSCAR ORCI, Planning Manager
HG/hg
Attachments:
1. - Plat Map
2. - Legal Description
T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\GUZMAN\ROW\stvac-pc-rpt
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
VACATION OF A PORTION OF CALLE TAMPICO IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
CASE NO.: RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 2002-012
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26T" day of November, 2002, consider the request for right of way
vacation of a portion of Calle Tampico near Avenida Navarro; and,
WHEREAS, State Government Code Section 65402 requires that prior
to streets being vacated by the City Council, the Planning Commission make a finding
that the proposed right of way vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan;
and,
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory
Finding confirming that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City's
General Plan:
1. The proposed right of way vacation will have no environmental effects that
adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, because
the street segment is currently unused by the public and inaccessible to
vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will have no
physical environmental effect.
2. The right of way vacation will not impact public utility agencies, provided
easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing
public utilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does find the proposed Right of Way Vacation 2002-012, as shown on
the attachments 1 and 2, are consistent with the City's General Plan for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution.
T:\pwdept\staff\guzman\sv2002-012pc res.wpd
Resolution 2002
Right of Way Vacation 20021-012
November 26, 2002
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26T" day of November, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
T:\pwdept\staff\guzman\sv2002-012pc res.wpd
30
No.C=24176 r
EXP. 12/31 /05
Civi
�OF,
GRAPHIC SCALE
is 30 80
(IN FEET )
1 inch = 30 ft
ATTACHMENT
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
PLAT
20
jA�ptco ,3�" R + r� 00,
C�LLE o - 0s, _ 63
� oo-oo
N7T39?6 pf
t
�• EX/SnIVG CURB FACE
50.00' -- -``
J-
N7-r39 *2
-71.36' Qsp o �►
area to be 2027 SQ '4 r`vi
_ vacated 0.04 AC �; Z
cq1 A 8D.C15° N4 2 Ate.
N89'57'001W ® = 8951:37" o I
w 1 P.O.19 R — 20.00'
g 1 L = 31.37' tv
E N89 54'37"E_[R
1 o Lot 1, Block 123 1
w � MB 18183
1 00 - -
---- — —00 — — — — — — ��20-00'
1 — — — — S69'57'00"E 1
120
RIGHT-OF-WAY ATTACHMENT
VACATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
AREA TO BE VACATED
A PARCEL OF LAND IN A PORTION OF UNIT NO. 14, SANTA CARMELITA AT
VALE LA QUINTA AS SHOWN ON MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 18 OF MAPS AT
PAGE 83, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; ALSO
BEING IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 1,
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 123 OF SAID
UNIT NO. 14;
THENCE S 89057'00" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE
OF 80.05 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH THROUGH
A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89051'37" A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET AN ARC LENGTH OF
31.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT l;
THENCE N 00005'23"W A DISTANCE OF 24.01 FEET;
THENCE N 51008'01" W A DISTANCE OF 38.92 FEET TO A POINT PARALLEL
WITH AND 50.00 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF CALLE TAMPICO;
THENCE S 7703926" W PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 71.36
FEET;
THENCE S 00005'23" E A DISTANCE OF 13.14 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID LOT 1 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 2027 SQ. FT. (0.04 AC.) MORE OR LESS
�OP
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: November 21, 2002
CASE NO.: STREET VACATION ( RW-V 2002-011)
REQUEST: DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
OF THE PROPOSED 60 FOOT WIDE STREET RIGHT OF WAY
VACATION.
LOCATION: PORTION OF MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 58 AND
AVENUE 60
APPLICANT: GRADY N. SPARKS, President of Coral Mountain, LLC
Pursuant to State law', street right of way being vacated by the City Council require that
the "Planning Agency" make a finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the
City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the
Planning Commission.
The Coral Mountain annexation was approved and recorded August 13, 2002.
The developer desires to realign Madison Street to accommodate its on -site development
plan shown on Exhibit "C" and submitted this street vacation application.
Street Right -of -Way Vacation Case RW-V 2002-01 1, is specifically described and shown
on Exhibits "A" and "B". There is existing street pavement and utility poles within the
proposed area to be vacated. Comments received from other agencies or utility
companies will be considered prior to filing the Intention to Vacate.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:
The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS:
On November 8, 2002, staff mailed notices to potentially affected public agencies,
informing them of the proposed street right-of-way vacation.
Government Code Section 65402
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Paisley\Vacation-Res\RWV 2002-011 Plan Com.wpd Pagel
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed street right-of-way vacation will have no environmental effects that
adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly and the act
of vacating the street right-of-way will have no physical environmental effect.
2. The street right-of-way vacation will not impact public utility agencies, provided
easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing
public utilities if requested.
3. The proposed new street alignment will provide access to the same area.
Adopt Resolution 2002- subject to the findings that the vacation of the 60 foot street
right of way between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, shown on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B",
is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan, subject
to dedication of new right of way to accommodate the new street alignment shown on
Exhibit "C".
Prepared by:
Elsa S. Paisley, Associate qgineer
Submitted by:
Oscar `i5rci, Planning Manager
Attachments: Exhibit "A", legal description
Exhibit "B", plot
Exhibit "C", new alignment
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Paisley\Vacation-Res\RWV 2002-011 Plan Com.wpd Page2
EXMIT "A"
MADISON STREET VACATION
THE WEST 30.00 FEET OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST SAN
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTHERLY AND
SOUTHERLY 30.00 FEET.
THE EAST 30.00 FEET OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH RANGE 7 EAST SAN -
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY 20.00 FEET OF LOT "A"
OF TRACT 3686 AS FILED IN BOOK 60 OF MAPS AT PAGES 12 AND 13, RECORDS OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA:
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTHERLY 30.00 FEET OF SAID EAST 30.00
FEET OF SECTION 28.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; -
THENCE N 000 17' 42" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 A DISTANCE
OF 586.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE AND BEING THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. (THE BEGINNING RADIAL BEARS N 77° 33' 15" W);
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,455.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL -ANGLE OF 3 58' 02" AN
ARC LENGTH OF 169.99 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST 30.00 FEET OF
SAID SECTION 28 AND THE POINT OF TERMINATION.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28:
THENCE N 0017' 42" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 A DISTANCE OF
1,001.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. (THE BEGINNING RADIAL BEARS S 20° 25' 36" E); .
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY
HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 160 21' 36" AN
ARC LENGTH OF 51.40 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "A";
THENCE N 000 17' 42" E ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "A" A DISTANCE
OF 60.26 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE. (THE BEGINNING
RADIAL BEARS S 60 15' 18" E);
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY
HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 240 35' 10" AN
ARC LENGTH OF 51.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY
HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 00 36' 28" AN ARC
LENGTH OF 1.91 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 28;
THENCE S 000 17'42" W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 A DISTANCE
OF 66.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
QnpF ESSI pN�
' c �
r
v.lo. u_
aC
MARCH 31, 2004
lF OF
EXHIBIT "B"
CORAL MOUNTAIN
MADISON STREET VACATION
_--._—_58TH AVENUE —2� RQp--
2 5-fT
0=03'58'02" I I
R=2455.00
L=169.99
T=85.03
w
w
xx
z
0
Ln
0
a
)0'17'42"E
419.87 '\
N
N 00'05'35"E
1 2652.54
N 81.31'17"yy (R) I 1_--
N 00*17'42"E
586.74 /
�30'
20 ��7�30'
TT A N _
89°30'53"E
30.00
DETAIL "B"
NTS
\i
30
30'
wr
Z
J
Z
W
W
W
U
w
N
d
U)
-i
Z
U
Q
z
U)
�
Q
X
w
N 00*17'42'E
2721.54
a
S 1 /16 LINE SEC 287 ~o
4Q 1@@@
I 50'.4 3 2 1
CALLE CONCHITA
5 6 7 8
SEE I DETAIL "A" TO RIGHT
SEE I DETAIL "B" ABOVE
Qua e�\wEsS N�
��, oy� ATs tic
a 0.26662 `-
MARCH 31, 2004
\`fP Cl
TF OF CAO.. 2,-'1
1t/,rlb
�l
VICINITY MAP
NTS
SECYM 27. TBS. RM SBM
S 30'50'28_E R
I
0=24*35'10" �a o=00'36'28"
R=120.00 \ o R=180.00
L= 51.49 \ L=1.91
T= 26.15 T=0.95
S 06_15 18 E.(R,1 I
N 30'04'53"W Q
A------
N 00'17'42"E
N 00*17'42"E
60.26
66.62
CALLE CONCHITA
LOT "B"
L S 20'25'35"E
S 04_03'59" E
I
w
I
0=16'21'36"
R=180.00
N
L=51.40
w
I
T= 28.87
zo
� �
0
�O
Z
60TH AVENUE
DETAIL "A"
)30' NTS
30'
60TH AVENUE
3nNaAv mog
4-4
T1_
ti
u
z
z
f.3
41
CORAL MOUNTAIN
MADISON STREET UTILITY EXHIBIT
ADi2 !�!f 0.2�'1AT/off oev. y
___-- 58TH AVENUE —M 22—_
� o �� T
I
EXISTING POWER LINE I I ►RLD rMDNG DR
III Z EXISTING TELEPHONE
nraranr, rr,m .�+rn n r..
N 00'05'35"E I! I
2652.54
II
I
30'
30C
W
Z_ —1
F—
X �
W ►--
U
vWi
E -4
�
w
I
U
U
Z_
F-
I
I
W
I O
N 00'17'42"E I
cl)
2721.54 a
I
S 1 /16 LINE SEC 28
J
O
O
ID
50'-- I
4 3 2 1
a CALLE CONCH TA
s @@A 2.10 e
I
fl
II
60TH AVENUE
SI'
VICINITY MAP
NTS
SECTIM 27, TBS. R7E, SBu
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAY VACATION OF A PORTION OF MADISON
STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 58 AND AVENUE 60
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
CASE NO.: RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 2002-011
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 261h day of November, 2002, consider the request for street right of way
vacations of a portion of Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60; and,
WHEREAS, State Government Code Section 65402 requires that prior
to streets being vacated by the City Council, the Planning Commission make a finding
that the proposed street right of way vacations are consistent with the City's General
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory
Findings confirming that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City's
General Plan:
1 . The proposed street right of way vacations will have no environmental effects
that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, and
the act of vacating the right of way will have no physical environmental effect.
2. The street right of way vacations will not impact public utility agencies,
provided easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation
of existing public utilities if requested.
3. The proposed new street alignment will provide access to the same 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;
2. That it does find the proposed street Right of Way Vacations 2002-011, shown
on Exhibits "A" and "B", are consistent with the City General Plan for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution.
T:\pwdept\staff\Paisley\vacation'project\RW-V 2002-011\RWV 02-011pc res.wpd
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26T" day of November, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
T:\pwdept\staff\Paisley\vacation'prcject\RW-V 2002-011\RWV 02-011pc res.wpd