The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 03 11 PCI 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 MARCH 11, 2003 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2003-010 Beginning Minute Motion 2003-005 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 February 25, 2003. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARING: 0 c3 C. Item ................. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-090, ZONE CHANGE 2003-011, AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2001- 055, AMENDMENT #1, Applicant .......... California Intelligent Communities and La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. Location ........... Southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. Request ............ Request to add an Office land use designation, bringing the zoning into conformance with the General Plan and modify the Specific Plan development standards and uses. Action .............. Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003- , Resolution 2003- Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-468, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-089, ZONE CHANGE 2003-110 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31123 Applicant .......... Vista Encanto La Quinta, LLP Location ........... North side of Avenue 52, 300 feet west of Vista Bonita Trail Request ..........1. Recommendation to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2. A request to amend the General Plan from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 19.6 acres; 3. A request to rezone 19.6 acres from Residential Very Low Density to Residential Low Density; and 4. A request to subdivide 19.6 acres into 60 residential lots Action .............. Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003, Resolution 2003, and Resolution 2003 Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ........... Request ............ Action .............. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 Gensler Architects for Bank of America Northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street within Point Happy Commercial Center Request to approve development plans for a 4,000 square foot bank facility Resolution 2003- PC/AGENDA D. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2003-682 Applicant .......... Dale Frank Location ........... Washington Park Commercial Center, bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Adams Street, Washington Street, and Avenue 47 Request ............ Review of a proposed sign program for the Center Action .............. Minute Motion 2003- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. CONTINUED - SIGN APPLICATION 2002-616 AMENDMENT #1 Applicant .......... Graphic Resources for Desert Automotive, LLC Location ........... Southwest corner of Simon Drive and Highway 1 1 1 Request ............ Revision to a previously approved sign program Action .............. Minute Motion 2003- B. Item ................. PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE 7397 AND 7398 Appellant .......... Donald and Patricia Cross Location ........... 78-570 Saguaro Road Request ............ Appeal of a Public Nuisance Determination Action .............. Minute Motion 2003- C. Item ................. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ISSUES Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Review of proposed changes to the front yard setback regulations Action .............. Provide staff with direction VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of City Council meeting - Commissioner Jacques Abels X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on March 25, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. PC/AGENDA The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's Office at 777-7025, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentation to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the Community Development Department at 777-7125. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Community Development Department for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 25, 2003 7:00 P.M. 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 Butler. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 11, 2003. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as modified. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None Vl. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None A. Site Development Permit 2001-707 Amendment #1; a request of Trans West Housing and La Quinta Talante LLC for review of architectural plans for three prototype single story residential units that range in size from 3,172 square feet to 3,555 square feet for a 12 lot single family subdivision (Tract 30331, Amendment #1) located on Althea Court, a private cul-de-sac street on the north side of Avenue 50, east of Tract 28964 and west of Jefferson Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler noted the caliper of trees was below the City's required minimum and asked that any reference to corner lots be deleted. 3. Commissioner Abels asked that the tree sizes be brought up to Code. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked how staff reached the requirement for the percentage of turf. Staff explained they are the same conditions placed on the adjoining tract which is also owned by the applicant. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Geoff McComic, the applicant, stated he did not remember a specific percentage of turf being a condition. 6. Commissioner Kirk noted they were above the 50% turf. Mr. McComic stated he concurred with the condition. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if he had any objection to the increase in the caliper of trees. Mr. McComic stated he had no objection. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the Talante development. 8. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not agree with Commissioner Abels comment on the quality of the application package. Discussion followed regarding the application package and the quality of the house product. 10. Commissioner Kirk commented on the quality of the product, but still thinks there is too much turf. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-004, approving Site Development Permit 2001-701 Amendment # 1, amending the caliper of tree size to 1.5 inches. Motion passes with Commissioner Robbins voting no. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 2002-616, a request of Graphic Resources for Desert Automotive, LLC for a revision to a previously approved sign program for the car dealership located at the southwest corner of Simon Drive and Highway 111 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance of this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to continue Sign Application 2002- 616 to March 11, 2003. Unanimously approved C. Discussion of Zoning Issues, a request of staff for review of zoning issues pertaining to side yard setbacks and second story definitions. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Ordi gave the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if any changes would require a Zoning Ordinance change. Staff noted it would require a public hearing at a later date with final action by the City Council. Chairman Butler asked if these changes are approved will it alleviate the accidental setback problems that have been occurring. Staff noted the applicant will always have the opportunity to apply for a variance to allow the deviation. 3. Side Yard Setbacks. Commissioner Robbins stated he understands the basic side yard setbacks are five feet per side. This setback is appropriate in the Cove, but in other areas where you have larger lots, it is inappropriate to have 3500 houses with five foot side yard setback on both sides of the house. The Commission should consider increasing it to a total of 15 feet, or ten feet. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 a. Commissioner Abels asked if this was from the overhang or sidewall. b. Commissioner Robbins stated from the sidewall. C. Chairman Butler noted a development where the houses were developed to the maximum of the lot. d. Commissioner Robbins stated the lifestyle they are trying to achieve for La Quinta is not the "cram it in" development that utilizes every inch of the lot. The other issue is that when it is a five foot minimum, it should not allow garden windows, etc. where you cannot walk down the side of the house. e. Chairman Butler noted the Commission should take public comment before making any more recommendations. f. Commissioner Robbins stated he understood that if there is a large side yard setback, the Code requires that if there is pool equipment, etc., it is to has a have five foot sideyard setback. g. Chairman Butler asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Joe Swain stated he currently has a community called Tapestry in Cathedral City that has a problem with the five foot side yard setback. They would like to have an allowance where they can install the air conditioning condenser 30 inches square on the side yard with five feet between the house and property line that would be on the dead side of house. Access to the backyard would be denied on this side of the yard. The other side would have the freedom of flow. Air conditioning condensers in the back yard where you are actually living, and is a nuisance. h. Commissioners questioned why there is a requirement for the buffer. Staff stated it was established by the Commission in the past. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated there are many ways to accommodate the condenser such as indenting the wall. The five foot was created solely for access. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 Chairman Butler noted some exceptions to this requirement. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted that if they were approved under a specific plan, they can deviate from this requirement. j. Commissioner Tyler asked why the air conditioning unit was put in the side yard instead of in the garage. Why isn't there more variation in where it can be located? Mr. Swain stated the condenser is normally placed in line with the FAU for efficiency. Condensers in the garage are not conducive for good operations. In regard to pool equipment it seems to make sense to have it in a pool enclosure. In regard to front yard setbacks the present day garage has a 20 foot setback to allow stacking. If you have a side turn garage you have a provision for 15 feet from the property line. They have a unit that has an option to have a side turn garage, or a bonus room and from the street you cannot tell what it is. They would like the Commission to consider having a 15 foot setback provision. k. Commissioner Tyler stated the same applies to casitas units. I. Commissioner Robbins stated he has a problem with the inconsistency of this as it is measured from the property line which can change depending on the development. It should be consistent such as 25 feet from the back of the curb. M. Commissioner Kirk asked that this be added to the issues to be discussed. n. Mr. Mike Marix, Cornerstone Developers, stated he agrees with Commissioner Tyler's comment regarding casitas units. o. Chairman Butler stated there are many issues in regard to each issue and questioned whether the Commission should provide direction to each issue. Staff suggested the Commission generally discuss the issues and staff would prepare some options for the Commission to consider at the next meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 P. Commissioner Kirk stated one easy issue is to place pool equipment in the back of the lot. Staff suggested having the equipment next to the property line with a restriction that it be so many feet from the house. q. Commissioner Robbins stated he didn't believe there was any difference in sound whether it is up against the wall or setback. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if they were looking to change the five foot clear access. There is no requirement to allow the condenser next to the house or wall. Commissioner Robbins stated the Code states it has to be five feet from the wall and from the house. r. Commissioner Kirk suggested locating it on the dead side yard with a two foot setback. Staff stated the issue has been to have a clear access to the backyard and reviewed the requirements as they now exist. S. Mr. Mike Marix, Cornerstone Developers, asked that the Commission consider each item separately. This is important to him as they are in the grading phase on two developments. t. Commissioner Robbins asked how they would feel about a total of 15 feet for the setback with a minimum of five feet. This would allow flexibility of where the house is placed on the lot. Mr. Marix stated it is a hard issue to answer, as there are many different facets to the problem. U. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to look at the Rancho Mirage model and see if it lends any information. V. Commissioner Robbins asked about the popouts, etc. that are allowed to enter into the side yard setback. If the setback is five feet it should be held to that. Mr. Marix stated fireplaces are another issue. They are an encroachment into the setback. W. Commissioner Kirk stated some zero lot line approaches are a possible solution. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 X. Commissioner Robbins suggested looking at requiring a variable on the side yard and where to put the pool and air conditioning equipment. Y. Staff summarized the Commission's discussion, which included modifying the setbacks to have a five foot minimum and a 15 foot requirement. Allowing the condensers and pool equipment in the side yard as long as there is a five, or three foot space. Z. Commissioner Kirk suggested one of the side yard setbacks have a five foot clearance and the other side yard could be anything. Staff noted both sides should have a clearance for fire control. aa. Staff asked if it was the Commission direction that there were to be no more intrusions with the fireplaces or windows into the side yard. Commissioner Kirk stated he has no issue if it is on the dead side. bb. Commissioner Robbins asked that they be brought back at one time for the public hearing, but as each issue is brought to the Commission staff would bring the prior discussion summarization what had been agreed to. It was determined that all zoning issues pertaining to residential units would be one public hearing and the commercial issues at a separate hearing. 4. Second Story Definitions. Staff explained that a resident had requested a change in the interpretation of a second story and staff was bringing it to the Commission for their review and discussion. a. Chairman Butler stated that as explained, he would not be in favor of any changes to the current definition of a second story. a. Commissioner Robbins suggested granting a waiver. Staff explained there has to be a hardship for a variance. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated it is expanding a nonconforming use. This is beyond what the Code allows. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 b. Commissioner Tyler asked about decks. Staff noted they were not addressed at this time. Commissioner Tyler suggested leaving it as it is written. C. Commissioner Kirk stated that if it is within the building envelope, he has no issue. Staff stated there was an issue with windows. Commissioner Kirk suggested not allowing windows, but perhaps skylights. d. Commissioner Robbins asked if it would be an issue if there was no window. Staff noted this could be done if you restricted it to slant roofs only. e. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to not to make any changes to the Code. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Kirk gave a report of the City Council meeting of February 4, 2003. B. Commissioner Abels gave a report on The Hideaway open house. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 11, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. on February 25, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 8 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 11, 2003 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-090, ZONE CHANGE 2003- 111, AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #1 REQUEST: A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL; AND REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDING HOTELS AND RETAIL -RELATED USES, AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET. APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA INTELLIGENT COMMUNITIES AND THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AN ADDENDUM HAS BEEN PREPARED TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 5, 2002, UNDER RESOLUTION 2002-07. THE REVISED PROJECT DOES NOT REQUIRE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN THAT THE REVISED PROJECT DOES NOT INVOLVE: (1) SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT NOT PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED; (2) SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PROJECT IS BEING UNDERTAKEN; OR (3) NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE WHICH WOULD INVOLVE NEW SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOT PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED. CURRENT GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PARK P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC STAFF REPT.wpd MOR ►. i 1_ 9 The approximate 50-acre subject property is situated at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, a major entry point to the City. The property is bound by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel to the south, the La Quinta Del Oro residential subdivision and vacant residential land to the north across Miles Avenue, and the Desert Pride and Sienna Del Rey single-family subdivision to the east. To the west is vacant land within the City of Indian Wells. The following applications have been filed for review: 1. A General Plan Amendment to reconfigure the Tourist Commercial, Park and Medium Density Residential land use designations, and add the Office designation. 2. A Zone Change to reconfigure the Tourist Commercial, Park and Medium Density Zoning Districts, and add the Office Commercial District 3. A Specific Plan Amendment to modify the adopted development standards and design guidelines for the mixed use development including resort style hotels, timeshares, condominium -hotels, up -scale restaurants, office uses including a medical -surgical facility and commercial retail uses. Also, proposed are designated areas for townhouses, attached and detached single family residential houses, casitas, zero lot line units and a neighborhood park. The developer is proposing to develop the following uses on the site: A. A 134 unit suites type hotel; B. 132 Casitas type hotel units; C. Two approximately 6,000 square foot restaurants; D. 165,000 medical office/clinic facility; E. 30 unit Boutique hotel; and F. Up to 90 residential units The Specific Plan includes a number of development standards unique to the site and the uses proposed. The following table illustrates the changes from the Zoning Code development standards to the Specific Plan development standards. P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC STAFF REPT.wpd TOURIST COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed Approved modifications Specific Plan Zoning Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback (in ft.) from Washington Street 20/20 20/20 30/20 Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback (in ft.) from Miles Avenue 20/20 20/20 30/20 Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback (in ft.)from residential districts 50/15 50/15 30/15 Parking (Resort) 1 /unit 1.5/room 1.5/room Parking (Commercial/Retail) 1 /250 sq. ft. 1 /250 sq. ft. 1 /250 sq. ft. Parking (Restaurant) 1 /1 15 sq. ft. 1 /250 sq. ft. 1 /75 sq. ft. Parking (Casitas) 1.6/unit 1.5/room 1.5/unit Hotel- maximum building height 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. Hotel- maximum stories 3 3 3 Resort Casitas- maximum building height 33 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. Resort Casitas- maximum stories 2 2 2 Boutique Hotel- maximum building height 33 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. Boutique Hotel- maximum stories 2 3 3 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS Proposed Modifications Minimum lot size 4,500 sq. ft. Minimum lot frontage 45 ft. Minimum front setback with side loaded garage 15 ft. with front loaded garage 20 ft. Minimum rear yard setback 20 ft. Minimum side yard setback 5 ft. Minimum livable floor area for single-family detached excluding garage 1,200 sq. ft. Parking 2/unit (garage) Building Heights adjacent to existing residential 20 ft. Maximum stories 1 Building Heights not adjacent to existing residential 28 ft. Maximum stories 2 Specific Plan Zoning ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS Proposed Modifications 7,200 sq. ft. 5,000 sq.ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.* 25 ft. 25 ft.* 20 ft. 15 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 1200 sq. ft. * * 1400 sq.ft. 2/unit (garage) 2/unit (garage) 28 ft. 28 ft. 1 2 28 ft. 28 ft. 2 2 Specific Plan Zoning Minimum lot size 2,975 sq. ft. 0 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot frontage 35 ft. 0 50 ft. Maximum structure height 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. Maximum stories 2 2 2 Minimum floor area 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. Minimum open space 30% 30% 30% Interior street building/landscape setback not addressed 20 ft. Not addressed Minimum front yard setback not addressed 20 ft. 20 ft. Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback Miles Avenue 20/20 ft. 20/20 ft. Not addressed Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback from Tourist Commercial District) 5 ft. 20 ft. Not addressed Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback Seeley Drive 20 ft. Not addressed 10 ft. Parking 2/unit 2/unit 2/unit P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC STAFF REPT.wpd SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER COURTYARD DWELLING UNITS Minimum lot size Minimum lot frontage Maximum structure height Maximum stories Minimum floor area Minimum open space building setbacks front yard facing common area facing streets side yard rear yard Interior street building/landscape setback Minimum front yard setback Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback Miles Avenue Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback from Tourist Commercial District► Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback Seeley Drive Parking Proposed Specific Plan Zoning Modifications 2,200 sq. ft. Not addressed 5,000 sq. ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. 2 2 1,200 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 30% 30% 15ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. not addressed Not addressed not addressed 20 ft. 20/20 ft. Not addressed 5 ft. Not addressed 20 ft. Not addressed 10 ft. 2/unit* * * 2/unit OFFICE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed Specific Plan Zoning Modifications Maximum structure height 40 ft. Not addressed 40 ft. Maximum stories 3 3 Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback Washington Street 20/20 ft. 30/20 ft. Minimum perimeter building/landscape setback Residential Districts 50/15 ft. 30/15 ft. Parking 1 /250 1 /200 • Zoning Code allows 20 feet with a roll up door ** For not less than 30% of the units * * * Up to 205 may have single car garage and one uncovered parking space This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 1, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. All written comments received to date are attached. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC STAFF REPT.wpd The findings necessary to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan can be made, as noted in the attached Resolutions. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-090. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2003-1 1 1. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment No. 1. Attachments: 1. Specific Plan Document (Commission only) 2. Letter from Desert Sands Unified School District - February 6, 2003 3. Letter from Coachella Valley Water District - January 30, 2003 4. Letter from Imperial Irrigation District - February 26, 2003 5. Letter from Kristina M. Archer - February 19, 2003 6. Letter from Carl & Helga Paul - February 21, 2003 P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC STAFF REPT.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL A RECONFIGURATION OF THE TOURIST COMMERCIAL, PARK AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND THE ADDITION OF THE OFFICE DESIGNATION FOR THE CENTERPOINT PROJECT, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MILES AVENUE ON THE NORTH, COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND THE INCO SIENNA DEL REY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-090 APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA INTELLIGENT COMMUNITIES AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 th day of March, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review a General Plan Amendment to reconfigure the Tourist Commercial, Park and Medium Density Residential land use designations, and add the Office land use designations for the property generally located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and more particularly described as: APNs 604-040-012, 604-040-013, 604-040-023 and 604-040-037 WHEREAS, said General Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment (EA 2001- 436) was prepared and found that the Revised Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent environmental review 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 Environmental Assessment 2001-436 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 Environmental Assessment 2001-436 or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or (3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436; and P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO GENERAL PLAN.wpd ) Planning Commission Resolution 2003- General Plan Amendment 2003-090 Adopted: March 11, 2003 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-090: 1. Internal General Plan Consistency. The proposed Amendment to the Land Use Map is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan in that it changes existing Tourist Commercial, and Medium Density Residential land uses to include Tourist Commercial uses and Office uses. The Medium Density Residential serves as a buffer between adjacent Low Density Residential and Tourist Commercial uses. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed Amendment will not create additional impacts to the public safety and welfare due to the relatively minor change in land use designations. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan Amendment will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Tourist Commercial and Office uses are located at a major intersection providing adequate access and circulation to and from the property. Medium Density Residential serves as an adequate buffer between adjacent Low Density land uses and Tourist Commercial land use. 4. Property Suitability. The proposed Amendment is suitable for the subject site. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of the best build out configuration. This Amendment accommodates the changing market and desires of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the Addendum prepared for Environmental Assessment 2001-436 that assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2003-090 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO GENERAL PLAN.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- General Plan Amendment 2003-090 Adopted: March 11, 2003 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11 th day of March, 2003, 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:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO GENERAL PLAN.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- General Plan Amendment 2003-090 Adopted: March 11, 2003 20' ,� w� zI w Q CO w� J BUY � a Y v � v I G ' 0-100 148 C.) 1^ 203' m oo viz g n / z .J / a 0 Q a Jz �w Q.� W on 09 Z m; Qa. O J QZ ® _ (0 0 W00o w W Z W SO U W < a t~- EXHIB 1 g gig yam. S r `N J V N y �14 � W 4 1: IT "A" �r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTAIN ZONE CHANGES TO THE CENTERPOINT PROJECT, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MILES AVENUE ON THE NORTH, COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND INCO CENTURY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2003-111 APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA INTELLIGENT COMMUNITIES AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 th day of March, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for review of a Zone Change to change the zoning designation on 50 acres generally located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and more particularly described as: APNs 604-040-012, 604-040-013, 604-040-023 and 604-040-037 WHEREAS, said Zone Change 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 Addendum to the Environmental Assessment (EA 2001- 436) was prepared and found that the Revised Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent environmental review 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 Environmental Assessment 2001- 436 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 Environmental Assessment 2001-436 or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or (3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zone Change: PABETTMENTERPOINT PCRESO ZONE.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Zone Change 2003-111 Adopted: March 11, 2003 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, the Land Use Map for the General Plan, and surrounding development and land use designations ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The Zone Change will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conforms with the City's standards and requirements. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it supports the development of Medium Density, Tourist Commercial and Office Commercial uses. 4. The Zone Change is suitable and appropriate for the site and supports the orderly development of the City. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of the best build out configuration. This Amendment accommodates the changing market and desires of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the Addendum prepared for Environmental Assessment 2001-436 that assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2003-1 1 1 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11 th day of March, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PCRESO ZONE.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Zone Change 2003-111 Adopted: March 11, 2003 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PCRESO ZONE.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Zone Change 2003-111 Adopted: March 11, 2003 ao' _ • • ��r• rr��rrr�rr�rrr�rrrr�rr�r� I I. [51 s 114 t Z gU� i M v 2 � p 0 K 3L ZWa ,\ i ti n 2ii 17 ^ 148 X I 1 203' / , 0 � �/ ; C � j�41 �I W W Z � ) V � n- AO' N z Z u' a- 0 m. Z N o CL W 0 W cr W � 0 CO Z � 00 U Q w I 2:v a EXHIBIT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES, OFFICE USES, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK FOR THE CENTERPOINT PROJECT GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MILES AVENUE ON THE NORTH, COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND INCO CENTURY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA INTELLIGENT COMMUNITIES AND CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 th day of March, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #1, to allow the development of Resort uses, Office uses, Medium Density Residential and a Neighborhood Park generally located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and more particularly described as: APNs 604-04-12, 604-04-13, 604-04-23 and 604-04-37 WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment (EA 2001- 436) was prepared and found that the Revised Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent environmental review 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 Environmental Assessment 2001- 436 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 Environmental Assessment 2001-436 or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or (3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436; and P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO SPECIFIC PLAN.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003 Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment No. 1 Adopted: March 11, 2003 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #1: 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the parcels have been designated for Tourist Commercial, Office Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Park and Recreation on the Land Use Map, as amended by General Plan Amendment 2003-090. 2. This Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the commercial development will occur at a major intersection and medium density residential will provide buffering to the residential land uses to the east. 3. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project is to be located on land designated as Tourist Commercial, Office Commercial, and Medium Density Residential. 4. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the Addendum prepared for Environmental Assessment 2001-436 that assessed the environmental concerns of the Specific Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2001- 055, Amendment #1 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 1 1 th day of March, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO SPECIFIC PLAN.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003 Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment No. 1 Adopted: March 11, 2003 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 1 J P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO SPECIFIC PLAN.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #1 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 The Specific Plan document shall be modified to include the following and five final documents submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any permits: 1. Add to the Development Standards for Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential (RM), and Office Commercial that the first 150 feet along Miles Avenue and Washington Street is limited to structure heights of 22 feet. 2. Page 7. Attached Dwelling Units Standards. Change the minimum perimeter building/landscape setback from Tourist Commercial (casita units) from 5 feet to 10 feet. 3. Page 7. Attached Dwelling Units Standards. Add an Interior street building/landscape setback of 20 feet. 4. Page 7. Attached Dwelling Units Standards. Add a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. 5. Page 7A. Single Family Cluster Courtyard Dwelling Units Standards. Add an Interior street building/landscape setback of 20 feet. 6. Page 7A. Single Family Cluster Courtyard Units. Change the setback from Tourist Commercial (casita units) from 5 feet to 10 feet. 7. Page 7A. Single Family Cluster Courtyard Dwelling Units Standards. Change the minimum perimeter building/landscape setback from Tourist Commercial District from 5 feet to 10 feet. 8. Page 16. On -Site Improvements. Move the last bullet point,"The Public Works Department shall consider the option to install a left turn pocket for Seeley Drive southbound to the Off -site " to the off -site improvement section. 9. Exhibit "B" and "F" is for illustrative purposes and is subject to modification based upon the development standards in this Specific Plan and applicable Zoning Development Standards. 10. Page 8. Land Use Area IV. Add "C." Prohibited Uses: 1. Helicopter Landing Areas; and, 2. Emergency Center. P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO SPECIFIC PLAN.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003 Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment No. 1 Adopted: March 11, 2003 11. Comply with the Coachella Valley Water District Letter dated January 30, 2003, Attachment A. unless modified by the District. 12. The Developer 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. P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT PC RESO SPECIFIC PLAN.wpd ATTACHMENT #,' Jp�fiEO 8 : y O Rr".� r Desert Sands Unified School District RAlICMO MIRAfiE O t PALM DESERT � Y 47-950 Dune Palms Road • La guinta, California 92253 • (760) 777-4200 • LAiNow ouixr� .a 'gyp L� February 6, 2003 Jerry Herman o City of La Quinta �&ITY Community Development Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Request for Comments: General plan amendment 2003-090; Change of zone 2003-111; and specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment Number 1. Southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. Dear Mr. Herman: This is in response to your request for input on the above referenced project and its effect on public schools. All actions toward Commercial development will potentially result in an impact on our school system. School overcrowding is a District -wide concern for Desert Sands Unified School District. The District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state and federal budget cuts that have had a devastating impact on the financing of new schools. As you are aware, there is a school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued. Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. Thank you. Si�cerely, Peggy eyes, Director Facilities Services PR/mg 1 Feb-1S-03 04:46pm From -WATER DISTRICT/COACHELLA VALLEY +7603953711 ATTACHMENT A ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY �as tt.e COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX i Ma - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 3@8-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS dOHN W WADDEN. PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEW, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RUSS ELL KITAHARA, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY TO OENERAL MANAGER TELLIS CODEXAS January 30, 2002 STEVEN 8. R08BINREDDWINETANT AND SHERq LL. ATTORNEYS PATRICIA A. LARSON PETER NELSON File: 1150.14 Christine Di Iorio City of La Quinta Community Development Department Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Ms. Di Iorio: Subject: La Quinta Gateway, Environmental Assessment 2001-436, General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105, Specific Plan 2001-055 This is in response to the Specific Plan for the La Quinta Gateway that we received on January 14. This project will affect our domestic water system, sanitary sewer system and stormwater facilities. Our comments can be found in the enclosed Attachment A. If you have any questions please call Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292. Enclosure/l/as JF_C.JI\eng'�sN \ian\diior 0 %X i 02-18-03 16:47 You s very truly, Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY RECEIVED FROM:+7603983711 P - 0 2 Feb-18-03 04:47Pm From -WATER DISTRICT/COACHELLA VALLEY +7603981711 T-TOS P 03/03 F-859 Attachment A l . Page IS, section 3.3, Drainage and Flood Control, to address the following: This project is adjacent to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. This channel is sized to accommodate regional sormwater flows. On -site nuisance water may not be diverted to the channel. Exhibit "F" of the report shoves proposed concrete channel lining adjacent to the project. However, the report only discusses on -site stormwater facilities. The district will require concrete slope protection on the channel bank to prevent erosion. Plans for slope protection must be submitted to and approved by the district. We request that this report include a statement regarding the construction of the concrete slope. 2. Page 17, section 304.2, Water Plan, to address the following: This project will require 1 domestic well site to satisfy the district's requirements. Exhibit "'K' identifies one existing well site adjacent to Miles Avenue. The City of La Quinta had previously dedicated this site to the district to satisfy a past well site requirement. Another well site is needed for the proposed La Quinta Gateway project. Both well sites will require block walls, driveways, gates, landscaping, water stubs and drainage systems and must be located at least 1,000 feet from each other and the nearest well site. The water distribution system shown in Exhibit "IC' is regarded as an illustration for the purposes of this report and does not necessarily represent approved pipe sizes or layout configuration. Prior to construction, the district will require design calculations for the pipe layout to determine water demand and fire flow water availability. 3. The specific plan should incorporate the water conservation goals of the Coachella Valley Draft Water Management Plan (CVDWMP). Each new development adds incrementally to the groundwater overdraft in the Coachella Valley. The CVDWMP dated November 2000 was prepared to address the valley -wide overdraft. The CVDWMP sets goals to eliminate the overdraft and replenish the groundwater supply. These goals include water conservation measures, source substitution and groundwater recharge. Water conservation goals stated in the CVDWMP include reducing urban water demand by 10 percent, agricultural water demands by 7 percent and existing golf course demands by 5 percent. More efficient landscaping, irrigation and plumbing and similar conservation efforts may help meet these goals. The source substitution goals stated in the CVDWMP include providing canal water and recycled water to golf courses, treating canal water for domestic use and desalting agricultural drain water for reuse. The groundwater recharge goals stated in the CVDWMP include continuing the current level of groundwater recharge in the upper valley and implementing a lower valley groundwater recharge program which will require groundwater pumpers in the lower valley benefit area to pay replenishment fees. Future development within the project area will contribute incrementally to the valley -wide overdraft. Therefore, the project must include mitigation measures to offset the incremental contribution to the overdraft. Incorporating the goals of the CVDWMP into the specific plan to protect the valley's groundwater supplies will assure adequate supplies of safe, high quality water to the City of La Quinta by requiring compliance with the CVDWM-P. JEC jJ\eng\5Wy4a\diiorio 02-IB-03 16:48 RECEIVED FROM:+7693983711 F•0:? ATTACHMENT F [ COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISIONA 81-600 AVENUE 58 • P. O. BOX 1080 o LA QUINTA, CALIFO RNIA 92253-1080 TELEPHONE (760) 398-5854 • FAX (760) 391- 5999 IIDPD-DDC City of La Quinta Jerry Herman, Dev. Director PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 February 26, 2003 Subject: GPA 2003-090, C of Z 2003-111, SP 2001-055, Amendment No. 1 Review of the plans for the above mentioned project determined it would impact electric service to the area. The cumulative impact of projects of this size increase the electrical demand on the IID's existing facilities at peak loading periods, and results in the need for additional generation, transmission, substation, and distribution facilities. When additional facilities are needed, projects of this magnitude directly impact power rates in the IID's service area and may results in higher electric rates in future years. Although the Imperial Irrigation District has received these preliminary plans for impact assessment, we will not begin to engineer nor derive cost estimates for this project until the owner/developer/contractor applies for electrical service. This procedure helps eliminate wasted manpower spent on projects that never reach construction stage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (760) 398-5825. Sincerely, Enrique De Leon Distribution Supervisor cc: C. King, Div. Supt. EDL/ms f. '1 Ar ,. ATTACHMENT #; February 19, 2003 7b: Jerry Herman City of La 2,uinta Redevelopment .Agency ,From: Xristina-M..Archer Re: Center Point Dear -%lr. Herman,, I would Cike to take this opportunity to introduce myself. sty name is Xristina .Archer andl currently reside at 45-415 Coldbrook Lane, La 2uinta. I have been a desert resident in business here for 16 years. -my home is one of the properties that backs up to the sand dune on the southeast corner of Miles and -Washington where the proposed Center Point project is to be located at. I am also one the residents who attended your very informative meeting held at The J'aC& Steakhouse. I want to thank you and your associates for taking the time to meet with aClof us andfor aCCowing us to express our concerns anddesires for the project. I must also teCCyou that I was one of the attendees who arrived with a slight attitude regarding the proposaCbut after Listening to the presentation left with many positive things to consider. First andforemost of those considerations regarding this development is how specifically this project is going to effect me. Next for me to consider is the overaCCeffect on the wonderfuC neighborhoodandneighbors that I have enjoyedgetting to know in the time that we have aCCliveddhere. -'Alany of us have formed life Long bonds that wilt be carried with us throughout our lifetime. our childrenplay safety together andhave been able to experience the values and CfestyCe that come with Living in a residentiaC community. In addition, for those of us whose properties back up to the undeveloped desert, we have been blessed to enjoy the serene views of the pristine mountains that the desert communities have built their trademark resort CfestyCe upon. For many of us, the views also came with a considerabCe Cot assessment to the original price of our properties. ..After attending the meeting Monday evening, I decided to Cook at the complete picture of this matter. I determined that I would try to remove my narcissistic desires that coufdkeep me from being objective as to what woufdnot onCy be goodfor my neighborhood but the City of La 2uinta as weCG I also questioned myself as to whatpreciseCy my concerns were andwhatpriority they held regarding the development. Of course, the first to come to mind is not onCy the Coss of our views but also the values of ourproperties andthe overaCCsafety of our residents. Nany have expressed concern that commercial development so close to the back walls of our homes could jeopardize the safety of their famiCLes andpersonaCbeCongings. .Added concerns would also be that of traffic noise, I'Whting pollution as weCCas invasion of privacy if two-story homes and casitas were to be built behind existing single -story homes. 'With aCCof that in mini; I decided to narrow it down to what I felt was the bottom fine of concern here..Ancd that for me is one of being able to feeCsafe andsecure within my home andmy property. I'CCbe the first to admit that I would not be of utmost integrity if I saidl did not have concern about loosing the incredibCe views that I have truCy been blessed to enjoy here. But mans basic needs in Cfe are to be fed clothed and to have the Cove of family andfriends, but most of a16 TO FEEL SAFE .AND SECURE. This safety and security shouCd most be felt within the confines of one's home first as weCCas on a nationafandglobafscaCe.'With the uncertainty of our gCobaCsecurity many more of us are seeking refuge within the comforts of our family, friends, and homes. I for one certainCy woufdnot feeCthat sense of security if I felt that I was now under the visuaCmicroscope of my adjoining neighbors residing in two- story dwellings behindme. So now, this issue has boiled down to the matter of the grading for this development. T�f.AT is what RE-ILL1y matters for those of us who back up to the proposedpfan. -We would like to retain our sense of privacy andsecurity as weCCas retain what views of the mountains that we may have. -As we aCf know, what is gained also Y'y comes with a loss of some kind. Though we realize that we wiCCnot be fully abCe to maintain the views we now enjoy, we know as weCC that the sense of security andprivacy that we most desire can be achieved by bringing the sand dune down to our CeveC By utilizing creative landscaping buffer zones an effect of privacy can also be created. Now this does not mean I am willing to Cook out my back wall and onto that of an elevated waCCeither. I am hoping that the developers of this project consider the visual effects on our neighborhood. `When we purchased our homes we were assured by the Redevelopment .Agency that only single -story, single family homes would be built behind us. It has now become apparent that the city counciChas decided that on a grand- scaCe Center Point would be an even bigger advantagetto the community of La 2uinta. I cannot say I disagree. Center Point will bring not only jobs to the community as wed as revenue but also an upscale introduction to the city. For those of us Cooking to move beyond this neighborhood for resale or rentaCthe businesses behind us wid also bring a real estate market to the area. .ktany people wid be Cooking for homes that are close to where they will now be employed..As Long as the housing developments that are to be built stay within the price range of the existing homes we shouCdsee our values not onCy hold but rise as a result of. For the overall benefit of the community I believe that Center Point wid be a valuable asset to the City of La Quinta. So with aCCof this said as tong as the concerns of grading are met on this matter you wiCChave my i00% totaCsupport of this project andl wiCCdo aCCthat I can to enlist the support of my feCCow neighbors as well. I beCieve in Richard OCbphant and aCCthat he has done to enrich the valley over his many years here. I personally feet more comfortabCe with a CocaCdeveloper in charge and would much prefer that than one from out of the area. If commerciaCdeveCopment is sCatedfor that corner, I for one support an upscale development as opposed to Cower end housing and or commerciaCprojects: e.g., fast food; gas stations, etc... The only other comment I can think of to make at this time is a consideration of the speCCing of the name for the project. Right now it is designated to be Center Point. -My thought on this is to consider that since an upscale tone is being sought here, how about an upscale spelling? JWy suggestion wouCd be to either spell the name Centre Pointe or better yet, a complete change of name to Centre Pointe at La Quinta Norte. That way when visitors come to the area they hill not only have the confirmation of which city they are in but also clarify that they are within the "northern" limits of US Hwy. in. I know that this letter has been lengthy, but I appreciate your time on this matter not only with the meeting Nonday night but also the phone calls andupcoming visits that many of you wiCCbe making to our neighborhood Thank you once again for giving us a venue to express our concerns. I beCieve that I can say most of us Cook forward to a beautiful andsuccessfulproject for the City of La Quinta and the rest of the CoacheCla. 'VaCley as weCG If I can be of further assistance on this matter please feel free to contact me at. ( 760 ) 831-4704• Again, I thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Xristina N. Archer Xms/hs Cc: Susan Burton EhCine Development Company Richard Oliphant C. sw, ATTACHMENT February 21, 2003 City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 To: Redevelopment Agency Attention: Jerry Herman Regarding: Center Point Project p rFEB 2Qfl CITY ppF eQ —INTA COMMUNITY DEV .OPMEN' PEPAR,TNiFNT As residents having attended the meeting of 2/10/03 regarding the Center Point Project, it was a little disturbing that nobody knew what the grading would be. Especially the grading right next to our wall (45-395 Coldbrook Lane) with the single story homes and single story Boutique Hotels. The proposed project maybe very good but the grading is our biggest concern. The single story homes and single story Boutique Hotels should be on our level. If the property is graded in tears we along with our neighbors will lose our view and have the new homes looking into our back yards. Our privacy will no longer exist. Surely this will cause our property to decrease in value. Our other concerns would be the lighting for the proposed Boutique Hotels, Medical Center and Parking Lots. If these issues could be resolved we feel the families living along the westside of Coldbrook Lane and Rockberry Court maybe satisfied with the proposed project. Sincerely, Carl & Helga Paul Phone: 760 200-2503 Email: CP92253@AOL.com 45-395 Coioole �`an� n, i7 -f n225? STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 1 1 , 2003 CASE NO's: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-468 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-089 ZONE CHANGE 2003-110 TENTATIVE TRACT 31123 REQUEST: 1 . RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2003- 468, 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-089, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ON ± 19.6 ACRES, 3. ZONE CHANGE 2003-110, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LA QUINTA ZONING MAP, FROM VERY LOW DENSITY (RVL) TO LOW DENSITY (RL), ON ±19.6 ACRES, AND; 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323, A DIVISION OF ± 19.6 ACRES INTO 60 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, ±300 FEET WEST OF VISTA BONITAA TRAIL (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: VISTA ENCANTO LA QUINTA, L.P. ENGINEER: FOMOTOR ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-468, FOR TT 31123. BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND, ACCORDINCLY, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. GENERAL PLAN: (EXISTING) VERY I_CW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VLDR), UP TO 2 UNITS PER ACRE ZONING: (EXISTING) VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RVL) GENERAL PLAN: (PROPOSED) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), UP TO 4 UNITS PER ACRE ZONING: (PROPOSED) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) BACKGROUND: Site Background Tentative Map 24507, a division of 35 acres into 25 lots, was originally approved for this site. The map was approved September 6, 1989, but was never recorded and subsequently expired. Another map, Tentative Map 25700, was later filed in August 1990, proposing 53 single-family lots. The applicant suspended it's processing at the Planning Commission level, and never followed through on the project; the application was formally closed in July 1993. The site was part of Annexation #5, which became effective on January 31, 1991. Currently, the site is vacant, but has historical signs of agricultural use. An irrigation line traverses the property diagonally, through the southwest corner. Project Request The applicant proposes to subdivide ± 19.6 acres into 60 residential lots (Attachment 2). To accomplish this, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) have also been filed, requesting the site be re -designated from Very Low Density Residential (Up to 2 units/acre) to Low Density Residential (Up to 4 units/acre). General Plan Amendment 2003-089 The proposed GPA involves 19.6 acres in an area that is predominantly rural residential. There are nearby equestrian facilities and active agricultural uses. The applicant has applied to re -designate his property to Low Density Residential (Up to 4 units/acre) so as to build a gated project with small and large lot homes. The Community Development Department has added two contiguous properties which have been determined as appropriate to include with this proposal (Attachment 3). Zone Change 2003-110 This application would implement the Low Density Residential (RL) zoning district on the project area. Again, staff has included the two contiguous properties, as referenced above, with the applicant's proposal. 002 Tentative Tract Map 31 123 The overall density of the project is 3.06 units per acre. Two access points have been designed from Avenue 52; these lead into the subdivision through a "crossover" intersection. There are two retention basin sites located at this intersection. The majority of the lots (51) range in size from 7,200 to approximately 9,500 square feet; the nine remaining lots range from approximately 10,000 to 16,000 square feet. Public Notice This proposal was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 18, 2003. 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, one written comment (Attachment 4) 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 applicant's request to responsible public agencies on February 3, 2003. 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. ISSUES 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 Very Low Density Residential (Up to 2 units per acre) which allows single family uses (e.g., large lot detached housing projects). Tentative Tract 31123 proposes an overall density of 3.06 units/acre, which is not consistent with the Land Use Element. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential (Up to 4 units per acre) has been filed. Land Use Issues The project site is part of a rural area annexed into the City in 1991, under the premise that the area remain rural. Development pressures have extended into the southeasterly areas of the City, increasingly over the past few years, as evidenced by the proposed 200-acre Annexation #15. While the three properties proposed for re -designation are in this area, their size and configuration are considered to be more suitable for development at a higher density. The proposed Amendment area is somewhat isolated from the surrounding community; it is limited by the All American Canal, Avenue 52, 003 and the La Quinta Poo Fstates. As such, this area would ultimately be a small isolated enclave of sl.cgh"il�/ higher density than the surrounding rural land uses; there is no ;uwentiE,i )r ;;;;;_�ansion of it's borders, as it is a small pocket of land surrounded on all sidr;s 'ray physical barriers and approved developing projects. 2. The Price Nursery property is about 5.9 acres, and has been included for re - designation as residential development pressures and construction will one day affect this parce'. A:, t s currently a non -conforming use, any re -designation will not affect it's current operation. The size and triangular configuration of the property indicate a marginal propensity for it to develop as a Very Low Density land use. It should be provided with access by the property on it's east side. 3. The owner of the 1 G-.7 acre parcel, located to the west of the project site, has filed a map (TT 301 3B), \M11Ch is on hold pending the outcome of this proposal. If the Amendment is approved, the applicant has indicated he will revise his map to incorporate Eic,diiicmal units. He is in favor of the proposed Amendment area being c desic;, ; Based on the proposed des:,an of TT 31 123 and the properties proposed for inclusion in this Amendment, no other General Plan issues have been identified that are not adequately addressed. STATEMENT OF IViANDATOR ' INDINGS: Based on the provisions c; tlic General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Ordinance, he followinc; c;very ,;vvl of the project is provided: General Plan Consistency The General Plan designates the site as Very Low Density Residential (Up to 2 units per acre). Thc-: prnnosed Plan Amendment would re -designate the site , and two contiguoos pruper,ics o; ;,,r, of the tentative map, to Low Density Residential (Up to 4 units per acre). Tc�nt�ve Tract 31123 proposes an overall density of 3.06 units/acre. With an approval of the or o„osec' General Plan Amendment, any issue of consistency reverts to the Ger,.cral 1aiai, , ocL, neat. The project would then be consistent with the General Plan, as ameudec . A -ecommendation of denial would require that the tentative map be denied wei,, as it would not be consistent with the Land Use Element, Exhibit 2.1 , of th(, La Quinta General Plan. Tract Desjqi lrij_)r over, ir: �i: The design of the private: c ric;; streets and the proposed residential and lettered lots is consistent with standarc],, of e General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance. Street 004 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. 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. This is to limit barriers to views from surrounding Polo Estates lots, and to minimize noise impacts from Avenue 52. Health and Safety Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be required during development of TT 31123. 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 conditions of approval, which serve to address the assessment of these issues in the Environmental Assessment. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending certification of the Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2003-468, subject to findings, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-089, as revised, 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending approval of Zone Change 2003-1 10, as revised, and; 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending approval of Tentative Tract 31123, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. TT31123layout 3. Expanded Amendment area 4. Comment Letter Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner 005 P:\Wa11y\Casedocs\Current\TT31 1 23\reports\perpt31123.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-468 APPLICANT: VISTA ENCANTO LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 11 th day of March, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-468 for General Plan Amendment 2003-089, Change of Zone 2003-1 10, and Tentative Tract Map 31123, herein referred to as the "Project" for Vista Encanto La Quinta, L.P.; and, WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the Ciil for iia Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-468) to evaluate the potential for adverse envirnnrr;�ntal impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact shnuld be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon 'iearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessn ent: 1. The Project will not be clutrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been Mposed which will minimize project impacts. 2. The proposed Projec', will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substZintiaily 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history cr prehistory. 3. Considering the record E;s a whole, there is no evidence before the City that 006 P:\Wally\Casedncr, Ciirf; I TT:', 1 1 ',' ;s'fw,(i s0en/1ri8wpd wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on vvlich "-he wildlife depends. 4. The proposed 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 by the Environmental Assessm(int. 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no signrficant intl)acts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potenti�il or public services. 6. The City 'pas on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set to th in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2002-443 and the cor,,ii-ents received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact ,he environment. 8. EA 2003-468 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgrTm ,t a id analysis. 9. The location and cu: loth ,n of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the CCI�Wluni,y Cc;velopment Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-49h Calle Tam!)Ico, La Quinta, California 922253. NU* FHE-REr L; z_, 8E IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Qu i.c:, Caliic;r � c,, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Comm,ssimi for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does erel:y ecommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-468 for the reasons set forth in this Resolutic , and as stelae in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, PASSED, �� :'; .� a�€ i) and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planninc; Ccmmissioi� !,eld on this 1 1th day of March, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: P:\Wally\Cascdocs' (',irrE:nt\TT3 11 ' /;;,Ncs )s,per(aoea468wpd.wpd 007 Planning Commiss,on ! csolujnor. JC3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community 'development Director City of La Quinta, CaliforniE P:\Wally\Casedocs\C,irrrnt',TT:'� ! /:4 N;!tins,perosoE:,i4fi8wpd.wpd 008 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 91 Environmental Checklist Form Project Title/Name: Lead Agency Name/Address: Contact Person/Phone Number: Project Location/Address: Project Sponsor Name/Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Vista Encanto: General Plan Amendment 2003-089 Zone Change 2003-110 Tentative Tract Map 31123 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Wallace Nesbit 760-777-7069 North side of Avenue 52, f 300 feet west of Vista Bonita Trail Vista Encanto La Quinta, L.P. 23679 Calabassas Road #386 Calabassas, CA 91302 Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Very Low Density (RVL) Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Amendment to the La Quinta General Plan, from Very Low Density Residential (VLDR; 0 - 2 units/acre), to Low Density Residential (LDR; 0 - 4 units/acre); zone change from Very Low Density Residential (RVL), to Low Density Residential (RL); and subdivision of a 19.4 acre residential parcel into 60 single family lots. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: La Quinta Polo Estates; Watercourse (All American Canal) and LDR (Mountain View Country Club) South: LDR land (Hideaway residential/golf project) East: Subdivided VLDR land (La Quinta Polo Estates) West: Vacant VLDR land (Proposed TT 30138, Dan Jewett) 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, orparticipation agreement.) N/A P:\Wally\Cased0cs\Current\TT31 123\eadocs\cklst468.wpd 009 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. IN 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 ,w41"L,4 c e AA-5,0i ! Printed Name 2 /i 8/03 Date Department 010 PAWa11y\Cased0cs\Current\TT31 123\eadocs\ck1st468.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 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 173\eadocs\cklst468.wpd 3 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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? (Site assessment) 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 night time views in the area? (Project info.) If. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: (California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model, prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation, may be used to assess impacts on agriculture and farmland) Would the project: a► Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? (Farmland Mapping info) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c1 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; Farmland Mapping info) III. AIR QUALITY. (Significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon). 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? (2002 PM1O SIP) 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 SIP) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis) X X X fI X X X X X X X PAWa11y\Casedocs\Current\TT31 1 23\eaducs\ck1st468.wpd 4 012 e► Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff.) b1 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; EIR, Figure 4.4-1 ) 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, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; EIR, Figure 4.4-1) 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) 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? 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)? c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed delineation map) X X X X X X X X X P:\Wally\Casedncs\Current\TT31123�eadnrs ck1st468.wpd 5 013 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (Site location) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? (EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a► Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (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? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing; Site/project assessment) X X X X X X X X X 14 X X P:\Wa11y\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\eadocs\ck1st468.wpd 01 6 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? (Not applicable) 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? (Aerial data; Site assessment) Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or waste discharge requirements? (MEA, pp. 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantialNy 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? (EIR, p. 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, In a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site? (EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter) d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? ( EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems to control? (EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter) 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) g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? MEA, p. 6-13) M KI KI X X X X X X X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site assessment) X P:\Wa11y\Casedocs\Current\TT31 1 23,eadncs\ck1st468.wpd 7 015 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? 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, p. 72; Exhibit 5.1) 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, p. 72; Exhibit 5.1) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a1 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? (MEA; pp. 116-121) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground - based vibration/noise levels? (MEA; pp. 1 16-1 21) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Site assessment) 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) 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) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Nould 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) ? (Project assessment) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project assessment) X X X 9 X X X X X X X P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT:i1 1 23\edclncs',cklst468.wpd 016, 8 c1 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project assessment) X 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? (MEA, p.4-3 ff.) Police protection? (MEA, p. 4-3 ff.) Schools? (MEA, p. 4-9 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan) Other public facilities? (MEA, p. 4-14 ff.) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Not applicable) d) Substantially Increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) e► Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment, Fire/police comments) X X X X X X X KI X 91 94. X P:\Wally\Casedncs\Current' TT31 1 23\e,tdncs\ck1st488.wpd 9 017 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment) X g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project site assessment) X XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Project assessment) 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 comments). 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 comments) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD comments) 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? (CVWD comments) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 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 X X X X KI X P:\Wally\Casedncs�Curr(!nt,TT:;1173,o,idncs cklst46Fi.wpd 10 018 Earlier analyses 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 analyses used. Identify earlier analyses 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. SOURCES CONSULTED: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. City of La Quinta General plan, 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993. City of La Quinta Municipal Code 2002 Coachella Valley PM 10 State Implementation Plan for in the, June 2002. Habitat Conservation Plar for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, Section 10A Permit, June 1985. Archaeological and Paleontological Investigations - prepared by CRM Tech, Letter dated March 3, 2003. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 20 acre Residential Development; Sladden Engineering; January 6, 2003. Tract 31123 - Preliminary Noise Study; prepared by Urban Crossroads; January 14, 2003. P:\Wally\Casedurs\CUrrF)nt\TT31123',!,idoc5 ;k1st4(38.wpd 019 11 Checklist Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2003-468 Infmchir_tinn This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for a proposed 60-lot, single- family subdivision, to be located on ± 19.4 acres in the City of La Quinta. The project proposal involves the following actions: 1. Amendment to the La Quinta General Plan (GPA 2003-089), from Very Low Density Residential (VLDR; 0 - 2 units/acre), to Low Density Residential (LDR; 0 - 4 units/acre); 2. A zone change (ZC 2003-110), from Very Low Density Residential (RVL), to Low Density Residential (RL); and, 3. Subdivision of a 19.4 acre residential parcel into 60 single family lots (TT 31 1 23). The site location is the north side of Avenue 52, approximately 300 feet west of Vista Bonita Trail, or ± 1 /4 mile west of Madison Street. The project site is currently vacant, with subdivided residential areas to the immediate north and east (La Quinta Polo Estates), The Hideaway project area to the south, and proposed TT 30138 to the west (24 lots on ± 14 acres). An expansion of the proposed General Plan Amendment, to include approximately 20 acres around the site, is recommended by City Staff and is made part of and included in this Environmental Assessment. I. (a-d) - AESTHETICS There are no scenic view sheds specifically identified on site, nor are there any rock forms, buildings or other scenic resources. The site is in line with view windows from the La Quinta Polo Estates lots. There may be some view obstruction to thosc residents whose units back up to the project, but with the minimal increase in density to be involved, it will not go beyond existing approved land use for the site. Based on the project objective of a low density development, no significant impacts of an aesthetic nature are anticipated. II. (a-c) - AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The site is in an area identified by the latest available Farmland Mapping program (1 996) as being classified as Farmland of Local Importance. These are lands which could be listed as Prime Farmland, or of Statewide Importance, but lack the irrigation to qualify. The soil type is of the Myoma series (MaB, MaD, which are excessively drained with rapid permeability. The Myoma series are not considered to be prime agricultural soils, though they are suitable for crops as well as homesites. The property is not, nor has it been, in agricultural production in recent times. P'\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\eadocs\ea2003468 wpd 0 02: 0 III. (a-d) - AIR QUALITY Development of the proposed project will not, in and of itself, have an appreciable impact on ambient air quality. Air quality impacts for a development of this type and scale are generally limited to short-term construction. In the Coachella Valley, the greatest concern relative to construction emissions is particulate matter. The site has been previously disturbed from early use as agriculture, and is a source of fugitive dust during moderate wind periods. The Coachella Valley has in the past been a serious non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). While in recent years the area has met criteria for reclassification to attainment status, the Valley has now moved back into non -attainment status. In order to control PM 1 0, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust, and is in the process of shifting responsibility for implementation of its current ordinances to improve monitoring and compliance requirements. All projects which qualify must meet the requirements of Chapter 6.1 6, Fugitive Dust Control. Implementation of these requirements will limit the increase of impacts to air duality from fugitive dust, such that the proposal will not exceed those under the present condition on the site. IV. (a-f) - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site has been impacted by prior land disturbance activity. The site and surrounding and is isolated by Avenue 52, existing Polo Club development an the All American Canal, and is not viable as habitat nor would facilitate the transitional migration or movement of species. While the site is not within any identified wildlife habitat areas, it is proximate to potential Palm Springs Pocket Mouse habitat, and the applicant has commissioned a trapping survey for the species, which is currently in progress. No significant stands of trees or other vegetation exist on the site. Impacts to any biological resources are likely to be insignificant, however the survey will be referenced and compliance with it's recommendations will be part of project approval. Proposed IVlitigatior,. 1. Prior to submitting civil plans for any grading or other land disturbance permit(s), the applicant shall have completed the Palm Springs Pocket Mouse trapping survey. A final report of summation and reccimmendatiun shall be submitted to, reviewed, and accepted by, the Community Dcveiopment Department prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit or other entitlement. If mitigation is recommended and determined by Community Development to be appropriate, said mitigation shall be completed before grading can be authorized. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\eaoocs\ea2003468 wpd V. (a-d) - CULTURAL RESOURCES A Phase I (survey level) cultural resource assessment has been prepared for the proposed site. The assessment uncovered a previously unrecorded archaeological site, now designated as CA-RIV-7013. Most of the artifacts recovered came from surface collection and surface scrape fieldwork; trenching investigations revealed only negligible artifacts, but the extent of the site and it's potential for further artifact recovery require that monitoring during project development activities be conducted. As a result, while unlikely based upon the preliminary findings of the assessment, there is some unknown potential for impacts to prehistoric/cultural resources. Standard monitoring requirements will be conditioned upon project approval to ensure detection and retrieval of any uncovered resources. to �)c based on findings of the final report for the site. Proposed Mitigation 1. Prior to submitting civil plans for any grading or other land disturbance permit(s), the E,pplicant shall have completed a final report of summation and recommendation on the archaeological fieldwork, as completed by CRM Tech. The final report(s) shall be submitted to, reviewed, and accepted by, the Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission, prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit or other entitlement. 2. The applicant shall have entered into a contract for archaeological monitoring with a qualified archaeologist, with a copy of that contract/agree rnent to be submitted with civil plans for any grading or other land clis,urhance. The contract shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any grading permit approval. VI. (a-e) - GEOLOGY AND SOILS The proposed project area lies within the Zone III ground shaking zone. The property, as witri the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures already constructed within the area have been required to conform to Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones. Required Mi,igal o , 1 . Applicant shHl, comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared by Sladden Engineering, dated January 6, 2003, to the extent they are applicable. 022 PAWa1ly\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\eadocs\ea2003468.wpd VII. (a-h) - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS There is no identifiable risk of upset or hazardous material release due to the location or development of this project. There will be no transport, use, or disposal of such materials associated with nor proximate to this project. The site is not located close to major trucking, rail or air transport facilities which might impact the residents of this project. There is no apparent risk from wildfires in the areas surrounding the project. V111. (a-g) - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No water quality or water supply and demand issues or impacts have been identified in regard to this proposal. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicates that sewer and water service can and will be provided. Drainage consideraticns are a local issue, and the developer will be required to provide on -site retention in accordance with standard City practices. The site is not subject to inundation, although it is not included in current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) of the area. IX. (a-c) - LAND USE AND ,'LANNING In regard to land use isscaes, the primary concern is that an amendment and rezone of this parce to a higher use would constitute a "spot zoning" of the site. To that end staff has proposed an expansion of the request to include similarly zoned neighboring properties, which due to their size and configuration are considered to be more suitable for development at a higher density. The proposed amendment area is somewhat isolated from the surrounding community; it is limited by the All American Canal, Avenue 52, and the La Quinta Polo Estates. As such, this area would ultimately be a small isolated enclave of s i:;htly higher density than the surrounding rural land uses; there is no potential ru[ expansion of it's borders, as it is a small pocket of land surrounded on all sides by physical barriers and approved developing projects. The three properties involved total about 40 acres, allowing a maximum of 80 units under the existing \/ery Low Density (0-2 units/acre) land use designated on all three parcels. This maximum would double to 160 units if the same properties were to be re -designated to Low Density Residential (0-4 units/acre), but since the proposed tract map has only 60 units, that maximum would be 140 units. The potential addition of 80 units would increase available housing opportunities, but not create significant impacts to utilities, public service levels, tratfic and other related land use factors. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed density of the current project, at 3 units/acre, would be the maximum physical m7pacity for the remaining two parcels. X. (a, b) - MINERAL RESOUIRCES No mineral resources arc identified as part of the site or any surrounding properties. No potential mineral resource recovery areas are designated, nor are there any locally idci,,tified mineral resources available on the site. P:AWally\Casedocs\Currer,,\T-T3'"%:i'�t ao,�svea2CO346S wpd 023 XI. (a-e) - NOISE Noise impacts for r;�sidential land uses primarily originate from adjacent transportation corridors (rail and arterial roadways). Residential uses are almost always considered sensitive receptors for noise, as opposed to generating the impact, The only significant noise impacts will be generated from arterial roadway traffic on Avenue 52. The General Plan has adopted an exterior CNEL standards of 65 dBA (weighted decibels). The applicant has completed an acoustical analysis W project noise impacts and mitigation, based on the previous General Plan exterior standard of 60 dBA CNEL. This analysis indicated that project impacts from Avenue 52 could be mitigated, using wall and berm combinations at heights of 6 to 7.5 feet. The study, however, will need to be revised m reflect the current standard, which should reduce the level of anticipated impact and the required level (wall height) of mitigation. Proposed Mitigation 1. Prior to apoiying For any perimeter wall permit(s), the applicant shall submit a revised acoustical analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads on January 14, 2003, to incorporate the current General Plan exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL. The study shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any perimeter wall permit(s) being issued. XI1. (a-c) - POPULATION AID HOUSING The project will not induce substantial population growth, nor will it displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. The site of the project is just under 20 acres, anti with inclusion of the total expanded General Plan Amendment area as proposed is just under 40 acres. All property is vacant of any existing housinc, and the project itself will generate an additional population of 168, only 56 people above the current land use allowed. Development of the project site and the expanded General Plan Amendment area as proposed, c; rwritly could support a population of 224 persons. If amended, the maxiiii,im potential population would be about 448 persons, but it is anticipated that i-in average net density of 3 units/acre could actually be achievable on these ,iroperties. This would allow a population of 112 persons above the existing _ii d use density allowed. XII1. (a) - PUBLIC SERVICE:-: No comments have been received from any public agencies providing necessary services b,-yond commonly required procedures. No mitigation of any public service impacts is proposed, as no such impacts have been identified. P:\Wally\Casedocs\C,irrc,nt\TT31121\: dm:s\c,a2003468 wpd 0 421 4 XIV. (a, b) - RECREATION The project will not increase the use of any existing recreational facility, such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. The prnlect does not include any recreational facilities, but is required by ordinance to pay in lieu fees as it's benefit share for parkland acquisition. XV. (a-q) - TRANS PORTAT'ON/TRAFFIC There will be an inc:i emental increase in traffic volume associated with the project's developmer i (i.e. vacant to urban transition). The project itself will generate 572 average: daily trips (ADT). The following ADT numbers apply for comparison: ADT rate 9.53 CURRENT LAND USE Proposed site only GPA area w/o site GPA area w/site 0- 381 0 - 381 —1— 0 - 763 PROPOSED LAND USE 572 0 - 763 0- 1,525 While the maximum trip generation occurs at build out of the involved properties as Low Density Residential, at the high end of the density range (4 units/acre), it is more probable ghat a density o' 3 ,mits/acre is the highest physical density achievable. Avenue 52 is designated as il Primary Arterial status roadway (4lanes, divided, raised median), and has the capacity to accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes, regardless of the generation rates identified above. No traffic issues were identified and no studies or ii ea wic,(� .ralfic patterns or generation were requested. No impacts have been identified that would require mitigation. XVI. (a-g) - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS There will be an incremental increase in the need for utility services and their respective natural res0u'ces, as expected with any level of growth. However, the minimal cumulative impact involved with the project area to the overall utility systems will not affect a need for new, altered or otherwise modified aspects of those facilities. No impacts are anticipated. P-\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31173\eadocs\ea2003468 wpd 025 0 co co 4-1 0 Cl) (Y) > V 11 00 0 Cl) (1) 00 4- 00 CD CD H-- CN 0 0 0 (Y) +i (Y) o - (-4 Lc) < C) LLI C.) Lr) C/i z :j C: U Ucn (10 U) 0 CD > < 6i m _0 co 0 (1) C) cu 0 _0 u C%4 cr) CO CN 4, 0 U 00 c1r) z LU a- 1* CC 0 0 U. U) O cc m -Fo LL, —) < 0 rr rn z 0 L) cr 0 (L co 0 co 0 CN ai (ID __j 00 0 C cy" cy) 0 N 00 CO C, L) C 0 — ;t c W CN < ,0 ca CY) n- 0 o (D C,4 > M 0 2 6 z < z uj cr a.a_ in 0 LU < .......... ............ LLJ UIm >. z UJ ........... ......... aV.......... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... Ul........... .......... ........... :r ........... .......... � % ........... ........... '0 K .......... LLJ .. .......... Ir O .......... .......... . ..... ..... ... .......... LL Lu z K:K: cr o .......... z z o 0 r cc ... -+cl E cn cl CD 0 O CU CD (D co -0 LU 0 -r— U cLsCD Cl CU E E3 uj E uj > (1) 0 U) uj 0 CL - 0 Cf) m 0 az LLJ fn uj > (1) 0 co LU 0 0 F- Or z on" .......... uj .......... ........... ....... ........... ............. ....... ........ z U, .............. O ......... .......... .... .... ......... .... .. .......... .... .......... .......... . .... LU .......... ........ ....... . .. cc ........... .......... .......... ........... ... ..... . . ... ... . ... ...... ........ ....... .... .. .... ........... ........ ........... .......... ........... ........... ...... .. ..... ... . .......... ........... ........... .... .......... .......... ..... . ............ ........... ........... ........... .......... ......... .......... ..... . .... . . ... . ... . ..... ...... . ... .. ..... .... .......... . . ...... ... ... ..... .. .... .......... ... ........... .. ... .. 0 ...... ........... ... . .. .. LL uj......... m 0 . .... ......... .. ... O LLJ....... cr-.......... .... . .... ... ..... .. .. .. .. . . .... ... .. ... .... . . ........ .......... .......... .. ...... ..... ...... ....... . ... ...... .. .......... 4-1 cO z ul 0 E 0 0 0 cn ui X C) C) < Ir C)- 0 CO (on -i CL E w> wo Lli CL) *5 0 D cr LU c6 0 0 23, 0 z LLJO >. ❑ I . . . . . . ...... jo > 0 RS D o . . . . . . . LU rr is co ........ ...... .... ...... CU O cu ......... .. .......... ........... ....... XX..... .......... .......... O O L.L z....... uj . . .......... CO 0 0 0 9L (n LU O O (D cu LLJ rc > ri) cu C6 m LL, 0 C.) co cu CL E Lii cu E CD O ci - o > - EZ -Fu CD Z UJ cu CD CU LU 0 (6 o a 0 r2 7 ........... .......... ........... ........... ........ X. ....... ........... X X, X, LU >. .......... .......... ... ... . . ... .. X. zo X: 5 uj .......... H E . ..... ..... ....... aU........... uj ......... .......... ........... X+ ..... ;:x. X .......... .......... O CL cc Cl) uj .......... ..... .......... 0 ......... X .......... ........... .. ....... ........ ... . . .. .. .. ... .......... ....... ... . ...... .... ...... .. ... . ..... ... .... ... CL ..... ..... 0) .......... O c co ..... ...... CM . .... .. . .... 0 .......L CO ............. 0 :3 ....... ... ............. ....... .......... U) C/) .......... O ..... CD ........... I.LO. ul ... . .. .......... ...... CL .... ...... . ... ... . . ... ......... (D ........... ..... z —z ... ......... ....... . ...... 0 0 ........... ... LLI....... ........... . ......... ...... X. .... .. .. .. ... ...... .... . 0 . ....... ... ... .. ...... a) 4� 0 CY) 0 m z ca Q.0 — 7a E 0 LU 0 E -0 cm 0 p cc >- cn O UJ Z) 0 > CL) cc cn uj E U> E " 0 -;-, >- Q m 0 co — :3 -Fo C/) co a_ -0 J to c 0 OL 0) r %+-- C: co co CL 0 .— CL E 0 E — Lij > LU r OL C: M " cn 0 CD z L) cn .0 0 -a a) Ri - w -I a) :3 (n cn V) E B w o J-- 1 0 1 a) a- " - I E A u rn r O Q) c LU ...... 0 .......... cc cr a- w ......... co ......... O O CD 0 > x cu (D a E oc o LL U) LL Z > LU cc cD E ca C) xx 0 0 0 C) CL ca O> LU cc 0 to O cu u a- a- ca a) +, 0 -0 U) m a.E 0 :3 a 0 CD E cn p U.1 w Lu co cu :3 0 +1 cn cn -(n cc n 0 0) C D 0 C: CL 0 " ca 0 0 fn Lu 2) cn _0 0 (M Q) UJ C U0 E M — m Cc Co -C CL cu 7 0 0 M D +j > > co to o CL) -- 0 0 (1) a) -j _j Z LU CU a 0 :t ca -0 & OU 0 (D C) C: F-- 8L m UJ 0 co ffal E w F- .......... ........ ........ . ..... . .......... ... .. ..... . .... M ........ . ... ... . .. ........... ..... . ......... c ........ . ... . .. ........... ........... . ......... a) 0 .... ...... .. ........ ... .... ... ....... . . .... . .. ...... .......... I., . ......... ... ..... 41 co c ... .. ......... ....... ....... ......... ........ CD 0) C U) -0 'Co Lj a) C: > ...... ........... .......... ..... ... ... u _0 0 CO CD ... ....... .... ... .... . .... .. ... ...... . .. . .. ........ ..... .... . . . C: 0 co . . . . o.......... c...... ... ..... .. ........... ..... ............. .. ... ... .. . .. ... . .. ........ .... .... CD .. ... . ... ..... . .. Q. cm X, .... .. ...... ...... cn (j) CL 0 4- ........... 0 0) 0 0 C ... ...... ... ... ... O -0 0 0- C) .... ... CY) CC... ..... LL..... ..... 41 im C) .............. CD co 0 0 a- C...... -.4 co LU cc .......... L) 4 CD . ....... ........ O :3 co CL (f) En 0ti 0 CY) 4- C) OL ca a) 0 co CL 00N C) (n -0 0 E co 4� 4- 0 cu a) > CO 0 UJ co co 0 4- a) u 0 co 0 4-1 CD 0 E -;D E cn a) E co cm 0 4-- En cn 0 0 0 >- < z 0 cn co - in -a3 a) CD > ui co la cn E -C (n 4- 0 0 -i > C) > uj C) uj :3 -0 E D '5 C > -a I a) _0 CD E > o 0 C cu LLJ 5-. < Cc) 0 0 a) U tm 00 cc LU a z X 0 U- CD z o Cl) �- z —Z 00 a. ch E LLI cc co 0 cm 0 O cu Lh 10 X P Q a) E -0 uj Q X 0 C: CU z U) C: 4- U) CD LU 4" cu Cc N ca -6 CIL E a) a) ju N 0 > uj CC Cr CD CU CD x z LU o (D CL 10) C) 0 cu LU 0 c6 0 CL E E z W F- Q W i Z 0 . Q — W J Y a U w O S U U X. Q w F- v C7 Z_ F- m O 0 u Z w — .. J � m F- Z Z 00 a m w m N c E a) a) O Z W N U 0 G Cn i +1 Cn E Q C Co C (7 W ❑ C N Z m N %' 0co a) -9 •� Q Co+� N > O F- CC J CL E w > m +, a) C U_0 W :3 O ❑} O a) 0 > p O CC Z) Cr a) Cl) = d Z w ` ` a) � � — m U m Z Q W J Y CL V 5; W 0= U U i m w F- CC U a Z_ F- m 00 LL. Z w— J m 0 N f- Z Z 00 CL Cl) uw m C Z Ca O L W J c +, F - = a- v vi (n Z c +' Cn W W N U Co p E C CO E � 0 Cu CD O L a) N W 7 CO)Z Q cn N C z V N �+ CD J W c ,F QCD W .......... ....... .. .... ... .......... ....... .... - ........... ........... . ......... ........ ..... ........... .......... ........... .... ... ......... .... 0 m .......... st LLI he E uj .......... X X ..... ..... ........ . . . . .. il......... ....... .......... ...... . .......... . .... O .......... a X q NX. .......... ............ .......... . .......... O O LL...... . ......... ........... . ..... .... ... 00 LLI 0 0- O E C/I Lu LU L) CC T- Z) 2 0 ch 0- cc LU uj L) -j cl 6i c :3 m 0 CD < E > 2V) cc cr uj Z o Z 0 a) > (1) V) uj 0 x c6 0 n- E :E Z fr cc C-) a z E a) CL 0 0 'C CD a_ a c cc O ........... CD ........... z ......... Xliii� CL w . ........... .......... .......... ........... O ......... In . CD > CD cn 0 :3 u CL C: P C.) co > CD co :3(n 0 co E co CY) U, c CD a u) E 0 0 — " 0 cn co 0 0 C) CO < CC LU M 0 c c Co m co E m LU co cl r- E Lii > co C.) . . ui CD > 4-1 — — C: 0 Z Lu Co +1 cn > r- 41 R .6 — 00 o LU 2 0 u co 031 LU ...... . ..... . .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... uj >. .......... ..... ........... ......... CL uj . ......... ........ .......... .... ...... ......... ........... .......... ........... ......... ............ ...... .......... .. .......... ... .. .. .. .... . . ....... . ...... ......... ........ ........ ........ ...... . ...... . .... .. ...... ........ ..... uj ... . ... . . . .... .. .... .... O ...... ..... ..... ..... . ......... ........... ...... .. ..... .. ... ....... .......... .... ........ .. . .... ... . ........ . .. ... ......... ...... .. .......... ........... ... ... CC o ...... .... ..... LL CC ca C) ........... cA.. . . . ..... .......... 00 LLJ . . . ............. CD :3 0 +- z 0 I-_ Cu 0 a) L) p :B 0 < Cl) _0 m ul — cil 0 m Cl) < 73 o 0 Ul < E ca _0 N E CD -E > x uj :3 cy cn CL 0 0 E m C) cn CD I? m 4- E C < Lu a) r o -j cc a z 21 0 z E cc 0 U- cr. co 0 Fj) � — Z Z 00 CL U) LIJ cc vi z 0 cn LLA rj) F— LU C.) 0 > OC UJ Lu 0 .; tUp cl C.) 0 cc ai E CD CL E > (D :3 cr D CL 0 z < CD < mC: 0 o LU 0 z 0 3 ".) uj ...... ... ........... ........... .......... ... ......... ....... ... .. ...... ........... . LIJ >- Im . . . ..... ..... ...... ....... .......... xX ..... Uj . .. . . he CLU........... uj . ......... ........... .......... .... ........... ..... uj . . ..... ....... ......... ....... - ....... .. . . . . . . . . ..... .......... .... ...... . ........... ...... . .... . ....... ........... . ..... .......... ...... .......... ...... ............. ........... LL Lu CL LLJ rr..... .... . . ........ ...... .... en Iz I cc n. Cl) ul U) 1= -Q) 0 Cl) < z 0 L) 0 cc UJ 4- < co � 0 .. t-- E E > cc co a uj . :3 0 0) E 0 1 Ir cr LU CD cn ca E -0 lc LU 0 c _—j --a CD Z co z U- U. < M co 0 0 Co LU Z 0 (D E If.- co) c"a UJ CC C) CU Co CL CA co CL CLj 4- Q) %- CD z > 0 c co 0 < o F- z L) LU 0 C.) m CD E CO :3 CL -0 Co 0 a) 033 LU >- C-) co LIJ CL..... ..... ... .. ........ RE LIJ cr ............ cr uj cr O Cl) uj cr cn uj -0 cn c co ul Cc) 0 EU) > CU +� cn < uj cn C) (n >- W co U) CD co a W > CL cu E > E > a-) - — (—D (1) U) cr- O 0 Z U Lu cn N— _0 c E a) en m a) 0 uj r 0 0 2i . z 034 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ON ± 19.6 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, ± 300 FEE t WEST OF VISTA BONITA TRAIL CASE NO: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-089 APPLICANT: VISTA ENCANTO LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, file Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26t" day March, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Vista Encanto La Quinta, L.P., for a General Plan Amendment, as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 14367, AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 68, PAGE 73 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, it any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Comm;ssion dice find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment. 1. This General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives and policies General Plan that are not being amended. The proposed Genera! °Ian Arllenument focuses on the Land Use Plan only; the proposed project for which this Amendment was prepared is consistent with all other aspects of the General Plan. The Amendment will allow increased housing opportunities wnile maintaining a low density character in the area, consistent with goals as statec' Jn the General Plan. 2. The General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The properties involved in the Amendment are served with adequate utilities, public services and access to properly suoport development at the requested land use designation. 3. The new and use designation is compatible with the adjacent properties, in that COntigLlous properties have been included and other residential projects of varying tyues are bcinc developed in the immediate area of the subject lands. 4. The nMA/ i,nd use -cs!gnation is suitable and appropriate for the subject properties, as they are served with direct transportation access to Avenue 52, are or can be served without adverse impact by all necessary public services 03 P:AWally\Casedocs C„rrf-nt,TT311i i Kt,snti,peresogpa089.wpd Planning Commissior, Resolution 2003- and utilit cs to supi.mrt development at the new designation of Low Density Residentiai, and there are no natural physical constraints to restrict the properties' development at this designation. 5. Approval of this General Plan Amendment is warranted, as the situation and surroundinc] conditions affecting the property have substantially changed since it was designated Very Low Density Residential. Development pressure has been building greatly over the past few years. The area once was sparsely developed, with little or no sign that surrounding approved projects would ever develop. The surge in housing demand in the City has caused many of these protects n quickly r volve. The need for more housing opportunities beyond large lot anchettes and estates warrants this proposed Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, Califor�iia, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan AmendmE:r,; request 'or the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, AP€ IROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 1 1th day of March, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERVAN Community DevE�lopmen( LIrector City of La Quinta, Califorr•iLi 03E) PAWally\Casi!dw:, . ,•,11',TT'i I , ;emns'peresogpa089.wpd J z w m ° z ' = w I X 0. W Q ' z •— 7 a n a. J Q L.L w z - w � � J z 537.75 ...� 729.00 0 I W Z p �d Z p D ._.l tioz.84 �d'y �` o f U) I w cc I N U Z I �ry ') ��- ? o r I ellLn . �, NI \ Z v N U I S Jf � r I co H I 389 a a` 03PI PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 19.6 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET WEST OF VISTA BONITA TRAIL CASE NO: ZONE CHANGE 2003-110 APPLICANT: VISTA ENCANTO LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 11 th day March, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Vista Encanto La Quinta, L.P., for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 14367, AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 68, PAGE 73 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 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 said Zone Change. 1 . This Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan, in that the proposed Zone Change will allow increased housing opportunities while maintaining a low density character in the area, consistent with goals as stated in the General Plan. 2. The Zone Change is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is a small, isolated tract of land which is more suitable for the higher intensity residential use. 3. The new zoning designation is compatible with the similar designations within the City in that contiguous properties have been included and other residential projects of varying types are being developed in the immediate area of the subject lands. 4. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that The properties involved are served with adequate utilities, public services and access to properly support development at the requested land use designation.. OR P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\Resos\perescz1 10.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003 Zone Change 2003-110 Adopted: March 11, 2003 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 Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Zone Change request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11`h day of March, 2003, 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 039 P:\Wal1y\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\Resos\perescz1 10.wpd i Moo4Z VCD W I a J I' I . Z a 0 U m� z •-- U Z_ O C] ' W o Z O O Q r M O = O X N W LlJ 0 Z Q CU w z O N 040 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 31123 CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31123 APPLICANT: VISTA ENCANTO LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11 th day of March, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract 31123, a request to subdivide ± 19.6 acres into 60 single family residenti,il 'ots 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 Tentative Tract Map 31123: Finding Number Consistency with CEQA The La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Asscssm,ent 2003-468. Based on this assessment, the Community Developninent Department has determined that, although the proposed project could !,ave a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporat'-d into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts c level c;' ,significance. Finding Number 2 - Consis�_ency 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 adopted Low Density Residential land use designation of Up to 4 dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan and as amended by General Plan Amendment 2003-089. Finding Number_ 3 - Consis.ency of Design and Improvements The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the City's General "Ian, with the implementation of recommended conditions P:Mally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\Resos\peresoTT31123.wpd 041. Planning C0111MISSI0n H(!S01utI01) )00l i Tentative Tract :i 1 1 2:i Proposed Vista Encanto La Quint,i, L.P. March 1 1, 2003 of approval to e isu e proper street widths, perimeter walls, parking requirements, and of their construction. Finding Number 4 - Consis-,ency of Public Easements As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and type of improvements, acquired for access t!lrough, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision will not conflict with such easements. Finding Number-5 - Public-lealth and Safety The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public heiillh 1,3roblems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2003-468, in which no significant health or safety impacts ware ident�f eo for the proposed project. Finding Numbers Suitak;i ,ty of Site The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the proposal as natural slopes do i1ot exceed 20%, and there are no identified geological constraints on the ,)roperty that would prevent development pursuant to the geotechnicai study prepared for the subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, Califorrirl, �,s follows: 1 . That the above reciti,tions are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commissio 1 in this disc:; 2. That it does hereby 'ecru! e compliance with those mitigation measures required for Tental,vrt Traci , 3"I 123; 3. That it does recom, mio approval of Tentative Tract Map 31123 to the City Council, frn 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 Commissicn held on this 1 1th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: P:\Wally\Casedoe5\Current\TT31123\r2esos\peresoTT31123 wpd 042 Planning Conunissniii ilcs(lutimi JU;; Tentative Tract 3 1 1 Proposed Vista Encanto La Quiwii, LP March 11, 2003 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Conimu v,y -)evelopment Director City of La Quirlt2, California 043 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\Resos\peresoTT31123.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 31123 VISTA ENCANTO LA QUINTA, L.P. MARCH 11, 2003 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. 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 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 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\coa\coapc31123.wpd n ` Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ . A. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NO1"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City.) B. 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"). C. 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. D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. G. 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. 045 P:\Wa11y\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 PROPERTY RIGHTS 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 Final Map all public street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1 . Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial, 110 foot ROW option) - Total width required is 55 feet from existing centerline. 8. 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. 9. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS Property line shall be placed at the back of curb similar to the lay out shown on the tentative map, except as noted below. All onsite streets, except in the entry gate area, shall have a 40-foot wide right of way width if a wedge curb is used. If a vertical curb is used, the right of way width may be reduced to 37 feet. In the entry gate area, the right of way width shall be wider and adjusted as needed to accommodate the median islands and travel ways. 2. Knuckle - The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. 046 P:\Wal1y\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 10. Dedications shall include any additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 1 1 . 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. 12. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map the 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. 13. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaped setbacks along all public rights -of - way as follows: A. Avenue 52 (Primary 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. 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. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 15. Direct vehicular access to Avenue 52 from lots with frontage along Avenue 52 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 047 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123. wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 17. 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 18. 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. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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, P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\coa\coapc31123.wpd 048 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 mounding, and berm design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. B. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical D. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "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. 21. 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. 22. 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 23. Prior to the approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off - site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully 04° P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 1 23\coa\coapc31123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 24. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 25. 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 monuments. 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. 26. 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: 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 tract 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. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\coa\coapc31123.wpd O �1 U Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31123 March 11, 2003 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. 27. 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 monuments, 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 28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 29. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared by Sladden Engineering, dated January 6, 2003, to the extent they are applicable. 30. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 31. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: 051 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31123 March 11, 2003 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. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), 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. 32. 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. 33. 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 backslope (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) 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. 34. 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. 0J._ P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 35. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot from the building pads in adjacent development. 36. 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 1.5 feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed 3.0 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. 37. 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 Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. To accommodate a balanced grading project staff will consider pad elevation adjustments up to 2.0 feet on interior pads only. 38. 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. DRAINAGE 39. 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. 0 5:3 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 40. 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. 41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of using a trickling sand filter and leach field, or an alternative nuisance water device 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. 42. 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. 43. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 44. The on -site common area retention basins shall be designed in accordance with Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and attractively landscaped. 45. 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. 46. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 47. 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. 48. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\coa\coapc31123.wpd 054 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31123 March 11, 2003 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 53. 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. 54. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option): Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Tract Map boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. 055 PAWally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 1 23\coa\coapc31123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31123 March 11, 2003 The pavement/restoration improvement work located beyond 20 feet from the outer curb face (i.e. in the arterial core) is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. Off -site Improvements within the 20 feet dimension measured from the curb face towards the street centerline shall be constructed by the subdivider. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include: (a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. 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 into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. All on -site residential streets, except in the entry gate area - Construct 36-foot wide roadbed (flowline to flowline) 2. Knuckle - Construct the knuckle to conform with the lay -out shown in the tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. 55. All gated entries shall provide for a two -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 entry into the development can safely make a "U" Turn back out onto Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, from the gated entry. 056 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 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. 56. 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 Primary Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.5"/6.00" or approved equivalents of alternative materials 57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Westerly Street Entry): No restrictions on turning movements. B. Secondary Entry (Easterly Street Entry): No left turns allowed; right turn -in and right turn out movements are permitted. 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 61. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd 057 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 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. 62. Prior to applying for any perimeter wall permit(s), the applicant shall submit a revised acoustical analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads on January 14, 2003, to incorporate the current General Plan exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL. The study shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any perimeter wall permit(s) being issued. LANDSCAPING 63. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 64. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 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 Coachella Valley Water District (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. 66. 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. 058 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31123 March 11, 2003 PUBLIC SERVICES 67. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as may be required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. 68. 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 69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. 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 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 74. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. 0513 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 FEES AND DEPOSITS 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 78. Building heights shall be limited to one story/22 feet along all exterior boundaries of the Tentative Map, including Avenue 52, for a distance into the site of 150 feet. 79. Prior to applying for any perimeter wall permit(s), the applicant shall submit a revised acoustical analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads on January 14, 2003, to incorporate the current General Plan exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL. The study shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any perimeter wall permit(s) being issued. 80. Prior to submitting civil plans for any grading or other land disturbance permit(s), the applicant shall have completed a final report of summation and recommendation on the archaeological fieldwork, as completed by CRM Tech. The final report(s) shall be submitted to, reviewed, and accepted by, the Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission, prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit or other entitlement. The applicant shall have entered into a contract for archaeological monitoring with a qualified archaeologist, with a copy of that contract/agreement to be submitted with civil plans for any grading or other land disturbance. The contract shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any grading permit approval. 00 P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31 1 23\coa\coapc31123. wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Tract 31 123 March 11, 2003 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. 81. Prior to submitting civil plans for any grading or other land disturbance permit(s), the applicant shall have completed the Palm Springs Pocket Mouse trapping survey. A final report of summation and recommendation shall be submitted to, reviewed, and accepted by, the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit or other entitlement. If mitigation is recommended and determined by Community Development to be appropriate, said mitigation shall be completed before grading can be authorized. 82. Revisions to the tentative map during plan check including, but not limited to, lot line alignments, easements, improvement plan revisions, and similar minor changes which do not alter the design (layout, street pattern, etc.) May be administratively approved through the plan check process, with the mutual consent and approval of the Community Development and Public Works Directors. This shall include increases or decreases in number of lots, that meet the general criteria above, but involve a change of no more than 5% of the total lot count of the Tentative map as approved. Any revisions that exceed the General Plan density standards, based on net area calculations, must be processed as an amended map, as set forth in Title 13, LQMC. 83. If Lot 42 is a residential lot, it shall be re -plotted, relocated or deleted, in order to avoid the apparent entry gate conflict at the east drive entry. n 6 1 P:\Wa1ly\Casedocs\Current\TT31 123\coa\coapc31 123.wpd wau u14 unb•o„� No. 13362 153•41_ ) E t , N o 'T rt4 S • '� 6. p - F'P 4 s l may. .'f a y,�! .e 4 1rA ATTACHMENT 1 0f? ATTACHMENT 2 SITE PLAN El me 0 T 31123 PRELIMINARY NOISE STUDY, La Quinta, California - 00789:02 URBAN CR05AN 0 m W a 99. c.� C'. Ll.— �— ac ` Z c Z Cl- 0- L F— +� -wC �C =E= Visa N t4-.) 00 cc ap CO tap G'2� 0- � � . (1 UZ et co �— tV 4- m O 537,76 729.00 w LL J �s o z w z w � {lop ui 4 �ti 389 w n J Q \ \ A 003 D'f A. 7*-.vsr43� ye...y cc 12� ATTACHMENT 4 n� PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 11, 2003 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT BANK FACILITY WITH A DRIVE THROUGH LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MADISON/ PTM LA QUINTA, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: RONNIE DIMLA, ARCHITECT FOR BANK OF AMERICA ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: CITY OF INDIAN WELLS RESORT COMMERCIAL SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WEST: RESORT COMMERCIAL A:1PCstaff rpt 2003-760 B of A.wpd BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: rOTIT-Ti VA PIXT4• C on The currently vacant project site (Attachment 1), located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, consists of .55 acres. The project site is governed by Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2000. The design guidelines portion of the Plan provides specific design criteria which includes architectural guidelines utilizing a contemporary interpretation of Colonial Spanish style architecture; and landscape guidelines that complement and accent the project with perimeter landscaping which is consistent the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. The Specific Plan allows a drive through facility on this parcel. The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a bank on a .55 acre site within the Point Happy Commercial Center. The project consists of a 4,000 square foot bank building with a drive through lane (Attachment 2). Site Plan The site has frontage on Highway 111 with access to Point Happy Commercial Center located at Washington Street and Highway 111. Parking for the center was completed by Madison Development. Proposed adjacent to parking is the pedestrian entrance to the bank and the walk-up ATM. The vehicular drive through banking lane wraps around the building with a wood landscaped trellis at the teller station. Visual screening of cars in the drive through lane from Highway 111 is provided. Architectural Design The proposed structure is basically rectangular in shape and uses a variety of roof types and heights ranging from 17 to 22 foot with clay the gable and hip roof towers. Tower elements will be highlighted with a stone the veneer at the base. The proposed front elevation provides entry double doors with cornice trimmed plaster columns and two decorative light fixtures; a wood trellis covers the ATM machines and night depository. The proposed rear elevation is provided with recessed man doors, arched insets with inset tiles and metal lattice for vine growth. Wall material consists of exterior cement plaster with a light sand finish in a four shades of brown with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around each elevation. Proposed windows will be sectional pane glass with anodized aluminum frames. 0 2 A:1PCstaff rpt 2003-760 B of A.wpd Landscape Plan The Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters. Plant material along the perimeter of the site in planter areas are proposed to have, Baja Fairy Duster, Bouganvillea, Lantana, and Texas Ranger with Desert Museum Parkensonia, Purple Orchid and Guajillo trees. The landscape plan is consistent with the Point Happy Specific Plan and complements and enhances the Highway 111 landscaping. Visual screening of cars in the drive through lane from Highway 111 is provided with a 4'7" screen wall and additional mounding and landscape material in the Highway 111 landscape setback. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 5, 2003 (Attachment 3) . The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2003-007 recommending approval of the project subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this review: 1. Realign the tile insets on the south elevation. 2. Consider a change in tree variety for the two trees on the east elevation. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on February 18, 2003, requesting comments be returned by March 5, 2005. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on March 1, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution. 0 3 A:1PCstaff rpt 2003-760 B of A.wpd RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_1 approving development plans for a 4,000 square feet bank facility with a drive through, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Exhibit (Parcel Map 29736) 2. Site Plan and Elevations 3. Draft Minutes of the ALRC meeting of March 5, 2003 Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner - 4 A:1PCstaff rpt 2003-760 B of A.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT BANK CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 APPLICANT: GENSLER ARCHITECTS FOR BANK OF AMERICA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 1 1 th day of March, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 4,000 square feet bank, on .55 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street; and WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 5th day of March, 2003 hold a public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 4,000 square foot bank, on .55 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 29736, PARCEL NO. 6 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Specific Plan 2000-043, Point Happy Commercial Center. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit 2003-760. 1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial (CC). The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Point Happy Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. A:\PC RESO. SDP 2003-760.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-760 - Bank of America Adopted: March 11, 2003 3. The proposed Bank building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 supplement, replace or, are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5 The landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned by the ALRC, complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar in scale; the building materials provided are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, with a blend of surfaces and textures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2003-760 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 11 th day of March, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California 0 6 A:\PC RESO. SDP 2003-760.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2003-760 - Bank of America Adopted: March 11, 2003 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO. SDP 2003-760.wpd �` PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify,* and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this site development plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 3. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). n 8 AAPC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 4. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. 50 feet from property line The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. 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. 5. The following improvement plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of qualified engineers, architects and landscape architects, as appropriate, and submitted for review and approved by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Site Development Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal "Site Development Plans" shall normally include all surface improvements, including but not limited to: parking layout, finish grades, curbs & gutters, sidewalks, ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 6. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City Resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. () 9 A:\PC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 7. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCAD menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCAD or a file format which can be converted to AutoCAD, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. 9. 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. 10. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 11. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. fYI 0 AAPC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 13. 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 backslope (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) 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. 14. "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Specific Plan 2000-043. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved method." The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this Site Development Permit excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 15. PARKING LOTS 011 AAPC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 A. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 16. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 17. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 18. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 19. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. (11 AAPC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 22. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 23. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 24. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. 25. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. 26. 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. 27. 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). 28. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be spaced every 330 feet and 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 (not line of sight). (113 AAPC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 29. 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. 30. The required fire flow for this building will be 1,750 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. Based on 4,0002 ft. type V-N construction and no fire sprinkler system. 31. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1 st. floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. 35. 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. 36. Install a KNOX key box on the building. (Contact the fire department for an application) 37. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code in accordance with NFPA 10. 38. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall identify and locate specific plant types and quantities consistent with the proposed pallette of material within the Highway 1 1 1 landscape setback. Landscape Plan shall also include a alternative plant type to replace two trees in the landscape planter directly adjacent the east side of the building. As part of the landscape plan, applicant shall also include a screen wall design including lighting for the)Iiy thru lane. 4 A:\PC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-760 ADOPTED: MARCH 11, 2003 39. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall provide a balanced design for the inset tiles on the south elevation of the building. n1.5 A:\PC COA SDP 2003-760.wpd ATTACHMENT # 133HIS NOIDNIHSVM �1� ATTACHMENT #3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 5, 2003 10:00 a.m. k" CALL TO ORDER ,- ,f A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:12 a.m. by Planning Manager Oscar.Oici who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Babbitt, Dennis CL rwingham, and David Thoms. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Or'Management Analyst Debbie Powell, Principal Planners Stan Sawa acid Fred Baker, Associate Planner Martin Magaria, and ;Executive Seetary 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 February 5, 03. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by 'Committee Members Cunningham/Thom to approve the Minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2002-760; a request of Gensler Architects for Bank of America for review of architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for a 4,000 square foot bank facility with a drive through located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street within Point Happy Commercial Center. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker gave an overview of the project and introduced Mr. Ronnie Dimla, architect for the project, who gave an overview of the project. He introduced Mr. Blake Hinman of Lantex who gave an explanation of the landscaping. n17 GAWPD0CS\ARLC\3-5-03.wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 5, 2003 2. Committee Member Thoms asked if the colors presented on the color board would be the exact colors used. Mr. Dimla stated yes. Committee Member Thoms stated he likes the colors as presented as it does offer variety. In regard to the landscaping, the trees on the east side need to be separated. Mr. Hinman suggested a more vertical tree. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned the height of the wall. Planning Manager Orci stated it would meet the City's Code. Committee Member Bobbitt stated if the wall was not sealed, water would leach through the wall. Mr. Hinman stated they would treat the wall to ensure no damage. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked the material of the wall. Mr. Dimla stated it would be a block wall covered with plaster. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that any wood on the trellis not be wood but a different material such as a paralem. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated the architecture is in line with what exists. His area of concern is the public view from Highway 1 1 1, which is the rear of the building. The effective use of the retaining wall and that it is set back from Highway 1 1 1, mitigates the impacts. Architecturally he asked if the windows were recessed. Mr. Dimla stated they are the recessed tiles. Committee Member Cunningham stated the inset tiles seem to be out of balance and should be balanced. He would also like to see something added to the wall on the drive through side below the insets. Mr. Dimla stated it was an attempt to blend it with the building to the east. 7. Committee Member Thoms asked if a plant material would be on the vertical steel trellis. Mr. Hinman stated bougainvillea would be used. Staff stated the trellis over the ATM would not have any plants. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2003-007, approving Site Development Permit 2002-760, as amended: 1118 G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\3-5-03.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 5, 2003 a. Realign the the insets on the south elevation b. Consider a change in tree variety for the two trees on the east side of the building. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2003-761; a request of Kleine Building and Development, Inc. for review of architectural and landscaping plans for seven commercial buildings on a six acre site located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 310 feet west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa gave an overview of the project and introduced Robert Pitchford, Bob Mainiero and Bob Klein, representing the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated he has no issue with the renderings. Buildings 1 and 2 south elevations being set back, and with the use of the stone and landscaping it softens the look of the hard building. Buildings 5 and 6 are similar to what is along Highway 111. The area with no windows needs some architectural relief in the center section. Also on the south elevation. Mr. Klein stated that on the north side of Buildings 5 and 6, will be selling to the owner occupant. They have single client for the north building. Therefore the architectural glazing will continue across. Committee Member Cunningham stated that wherever there is a blank wall it needs to be landscaped or some detail added. 3. Committee Member Thorns questioned the use of the stone. It appears to be added for mitigation measure and is overdone. The roof line has no relief. Mr. Klein stated they will be using an artificial cantera stone running across all the parapets of the buildings. This will allow some relief to the roof line. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated the recessed arcade of ten feet gives relief. 5. Committee Member Thorns stated he questions the use of stone in these elevations. Mr. Klein stated this was an enhancement on the plans on Cook Street and Highway 1 1 1. Committee Member Thorns stated the more you add a residential approach to a commercial building it is not a good use of the material. To make each building different would be better. Mr. Klein stated you tend to get a lot of maintenance problems along the lower portion of G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\3-5-03.wpd 3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 11, 2003 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2C ). 1 - SIGN PROGRAM APPLICAI :ADILLAC (FORMERLY SIMON M APPLICANT: GRAPHIC RESOURCE PROPERTY OWNER: DESERT AUTOMOTIVE, LLC REQUEST: REVISION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIMON DRIVE/HIGHWAY 111 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL), WITH A NON- RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) Site Background The applicant applied for and received Planning Commission approval to modify the existing signs (SIMON MOTORS) for the new CHAMPION CADILLAC CHEVROLET dealership on May 28, 2002. Staff noted the size difference during a review of the site and advised the applicant by letter on October 31, 2002, that the signs being installed looked bigger than those approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant has now submitted an inventory of the sign changes they wish to modify from the May 28, 2002 Planning Commission approval. The overall square footage of the new sign modifications is more than that originally approved by the Planning Commission by 21 square feet. PABetty\sa616.wpd 1 The chart below identifies the sign locations, the original sign program for Simon Motors, previous Planning Commission approval for the new Champion Motors, and the proposed changes: LARGE MAP SIMON COMMISSION PROPOSED MAP- LOCATION MOTORS APPROVAL REQUEST PAGE SIGNS MAY 28, 2002 NO. 1 of 5 Highway 1 1 1- Chevrolet - 88 sq. ft. 76 sq. ft 84 sq. ft Bowtie inc. two bowties inc. one bowtie 1 of 5 Highway 111 - 126 sq. ft. 57 sq. ft. 115 sq. ft Champion 1 of 5 Highway 111 - 88 sq. ft. 57 sq. ft. 48.5 sq. ft. Cadillac and Logo 2 of 5 Tower - Champion & Logo 129 sq. ft. 75 sq. ft. 75 sq. ft. & 3 sides (eliminated logos 5 of 5 for Chevy & Cad.) 2 of 5 West Wall- next to 56 sq. ft. 38 sq. ft. 37 sq. ft. shopping center 3 of 5 Service Drive Entrance 27 sq. ft. 40 sq. ft. 44 sq. ft. service - Cad & chevy 3 of 5 East Wall - 48 sq. ft. 35 sq. ft. 35 sq. ft. Simon Drive 3 of 5 Customer parking - < 9 sq. ft. > < 9.1 sq. ft. > < 12 sq. ft. > 4 of 5 Wall above Parts Dept. 14 sq. ft. 35 sq. ft. 92.5 sq. ft. with 3 logos 4 of 5 Monument sign 0 sq. ft. 50 sq. ft. 41 sq. ft. 5 of 5 Illuminated Awning with 3 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 25 sq. ft. logos TOTAL 576 sq. ft. 463 sq. ft. 597 sq. ft. INCREASE / DECREASE -113 SQ. FT. +21 SQ. FT. The applicant is requesting an illuminated awning with three logos on the eastern side of the building facing Simon Drive. Awnings are permitted, however, translucent or transparent signs on internally illuminated awnings are prohibited. FINDINGS: The Planning Commission can make the following findings in support of this request in that Sign Application 2002-616, Amendment No. 1 complies with the Sign Regulations in that: A. The alternate type of sign modifications have been made to facilitate compatibility with the structure on the site and improve the overall appearance of the signs. B. The additional sign area granted is to overcome a disadvantage as a result of the large setback and the sign. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2003- , approving Sign Application 2002-616, Amendment No. 1, subject to the following conditions: 1. Exhibit A, Sheets 1, 2, 3, and 4 - Approved as submitted, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The awning and signs on the awning can not be translucent or transparent. 3. The two buildings located on the southeast corner of the site are prohibited from any signs on their south and west elevations. Attachments: 1. Approved and Proposed dealer signs - large exhibits 2. Photos w H 0 H W O W U O C� O H U U a a r a [,�,RR 2 W U z cn W U W PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 11, 2003 CASE NO.: PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE NO. 7397 AND 7398 APPELLANT: DONALD AND PATRICIA CROSS REQUEST: APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE DETERMINATION LOCATION: 78-570 SAGUARO ROAD On February 11, 2003, a letter of appeal was received in regard to a Notice of Public Nuisance. The Public Nuisance was declared to exist on January 30, 2003, at the above -noted address. The determination was based on the existence of a partially constructed, approximately five foot. high garden wall at the location, for which the owner had not obtained a building permit. Based on LQMC 8.01.060 (Attachment 2), it is unlawful to construct any structure without first obtaining a building permit unless the project is exempt from the permit requirements. A five foot high garden wall is not exempt from obtaining a building permit. Section 8.01.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) (Attachment 3), specifically indicates that, "Fences not over six feet high" are note exempted from the Uniform Administrative Code, which is adopted by the City. Section 1 1.72.030 M. (Attachment 4), of the LQMC declares any violation of the uniform codes adopted by the City to be a Public Nuisance. Case Background 12/1 /99 Applicant applies for a permit for a wood framed plastered garden wall. After review by staff, he is informed that a structural design will have to be provided by a licensed professional. 12/6/99 Applicant picks up his plans 5/9/00 Applicant resubmits plans without a structural design by a licensed professional. Plans sent to City's structural consultant for review. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Crossmemo.doc tant ons 5/16/00 Plans returned from the City's waall that ltmustrbe'designed (Attachment Plans 5) specifying components of the returned to applicant. 10/18/02 A Cease and Desist Order (Attachment 6) is issued for the partially constructed wall at the site. Owner instructed to obtain building permit for the wall. 11 /18/02 Owner meets with City Manager and Building and Safety Director to discuss the issue. The requirement for a permit and a structural design for the wall by a licensed professional is reiterated. 12/27/02 Final Notice of Violation is sent to the owner (Attachment 7). 1/30/03 The wall is officially declared a public nuisance (Attachment 8). 2/11 /03 Owner appeals the determination that a Public Nuisance exists to the Planning Commission. During this time, staff has consulted with two licensed engineers to inquire as to the feasibility of developing an engineered City standard for wood framed plastered walls. Both were reluctant to provide such a design because they considered a wood post embedded in concrete to be an inherent design weakness. At some point the wood will rot (even if it is treated) and the structural integrity of the wall will be severely compromised. Adopt Minute Motion 2003- Attachments: 1. Appeal letter 2. Section 8.01.060 3. Section 8.01.020 4. Section 11.72.030 5. Correction list 6. Cease and Desist Order 7. Final Notice of Violation S. Public Nuisance notice G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Crossmemo.doc upholding the Public Nuisance Citation as issued. vr" ATTACHMENT #1 RECEIVED 2003 FEB I I PM 4: 52 Cl a, YY O ER LA TA K , S OFFICE ATTACHMENT #2 8.01.060 Permits required. Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows: Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service equipment from the Building Official. (Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § I (part), 1985) 8.01.070 Construction site security and debris. A. The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an existing building shall maintain security measures as deemed necessary or as required by the building official to control vandalism, fires, blowing dust, sand or debris. B. The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an existing building, shall keep the construction site clean by having on site an all metal, minimum three yard container with hinged lid (except rolloff containers), compatible for use with standard trash removal trucks, commonly referred to as dumpsters, for the depositing of trash and debris. Containers are to be provided by commercial trash collection companies and shall not be placed in the right-of-way. As used in this section, "trash and debris" shall include papers, cartons, bottles, cans, garbage, roofing materials, insulation, plaster, concrete, boards and other substances that may be accumulated as a result of construction activities. C. A trash container shall remain on the construction site until the building inspector has completed the final inspection. Said container shall be emptied of its contents on a regular schedule or as ordered by the building inspector in order to avoid blowing debris or other public nuisances. D. Disposal shall be by transportation to a legally established dump site by the city's refuse contractor or other person authorized by law to remove any container from the location where the container was placed by the person in charge for storage and collection. E. Refusal to comply with the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable as stipulated in Section 205 of the Uniform Administrative Code; and/or be sufficient cause for the revocation of the issued building permit pending compliance. (Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 130 § 1, 1988; Ord. 97 § 1, 1986: Ord. 68 § 1 (part), 1985) 8.01.080 Violation —Penalty. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this title. Any person, firm or corporation violating, or failing to comply with, any of the provisions of this title or a code adopted in this title is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this title or such code is committed, continued or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation, such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The application of the penalty provided in this section shall not be held to prevent the abatement of prohibited conditions as a public nuisance as provided by Section 1.01.250 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. (Ord. 68 § 3, 1985) 167 (la Quinta 9-99) ATTACHMENT #3 Chapter 8.01 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Sections: 8.01.010 Adoption of the Uniform Administrative Code. 8.01.020 Modification of certain parts of the Uniform Administrative Code. 8.01.030 Establishment of board of appeals. 8.01.040 Fees. 8.01.050 Exempted work. 8.01.060 Permits required. 8.01.070 Construction site security and debris. 8.01.080 Violation —Penalty. 8.01.010 Adoption of the Uniform Administrative Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Administrative Code, 1997 Edition," published by the International Conference of Building Officials, are adopted for establishing administrative, organizational and enforcement rules and regulations for technical codes which regulate site preparation and construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, use and occupancy of buildings, structures and building service equipment. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of such "Uniform Administrative Code, 1997 Edition," published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the building and safety d6partment, are referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (Ord. 330 Exh. A(1), 1999; Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 150 § 1 (part), 1989; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part), 1985) 8.01.020 Modification of certain parts of the Uniform Administrative Code. The following portions of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1997 Edition, are deleted: A. Section 204 (Board of Appeals); B. Section 301.2 (Exempted Work): 1. Section 301.2.1.2. Fences not over 6 feet high, 2. Section 301.2.1.5. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable liquids, 3. Section 301.2.1.11. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and if the capacity does not exceed 5000 gallons; C. Section 304.2 (Permit Fees); D. Section 304.3 (Plan Review Fees); E. Section 304.5.2 (Fee) Change reference to "...Tables Nos. 3-A through 3-H" to read "...the Resolution of the City Council establishing fees."; F. Section 305.8 (Reinspections) Change reference to "...Tables Nos. 3-A through 3-H" to read "...the Resolution of the City Council establishing fees."; G. Table No. 3-A (Building Permit Fees); H. Table No. 3-B (Electrical Permit Fees); I. Table No. 3-C (Mechanical Permit Fees); J. Table No. 3-D (Plumbing Permit Fees); K. Table No. 3-E (Elevator Permit Fees); L. Table No. 3-F (Elevator Annual Certificates of Inspection Fees); M. Table No. 3-G (Grading Plan Review Fees); N. Table No. 3-H (Grading Permit Fees). (Ord. 330 Exh. A(2), 1999; Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part), 1985) 165 (la Quinta 9-99) 11.72.010 ATTACHMENT #4 Chapter 11.72 PUBLIC NUISANCES* Sections: 11.72.010 Definitions. 11.72.020 Public nuisances prohibited. 11.72.030 Public nuisances declared. 11.72.040 Inspections. 11.72.050 Abatement of public nuisances. 11.72.060 Costs of abatement. ° Prior ordinance history: Ords. 10, 72, 79. 11.72.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: A. Polluted water. "Polluted water" means water in a swimming pool, pond, or other body of water containing bacterial growth, algae, remains of insects or deceased animals, reptiles, rubbish, refuse, debris, papers or any other foreign material constituting an unhealthy, unsafe or unsightly condition. B. Premises. "Premises" means any lot or lots and the buildings or structures located thereon. C. Property Owner. "Property owner" means the owner of the premises where a public nuisance is located as indicated on the last available tax assessment roll. D. Refuse and Waste Matter. "Refuse and waste matter" means unused or discarded matter having little or no substantial market value including but not limited to: rubble, asphalt, concrete and building materials, plaster, tile, rocks, bricks, soil, crates, cartons, containers, boxes, machinery or parts thereof, scrap metal, furniture, inoperative vehicles, vehicle bodies or parts thereof, trimmings from plants or trees, cans, bottles, and barrels. E. State of Partial Construction. "State of partial construction" means buildings and structures which are partially constructed when the building permit for such construction has expired. (Ord.160 § 1(part), 1989) 11.72.020 Public nuisances prohibited. No person shall create, maintain, or allow any nuisance as declared in this chapter to remain on any premises within the city. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989) 11.72.030 Public nuisances declared. The following are declared public nuisances: A. Buildings or structures which are abandoned, partially destroyed or in a state of partial construc- tion; B. Buildings or structures that have dry rot or warped materials, are infested with termites, or the paint is cracked, peeled or blistered, rendering the building unsightly; C. Exterior walls, fences, driveways or sidewalks in a condition of deterioration or disrepair which are defective or unsightly; D. Broken windows, damaged doors or gates which constitute a health or safety hazard or which act as an invitation to trespassers, vagrants, wild or domestic animals or minor children; E. Parking or storing construction equipment, machinery or building materials in a residential zone except during excavation, construction or demolition operations conducted pursuant to a building or grading permit; F. Land graded without a grading permit which causes or may cause eroding, subsidence or surface water drainage problems and is injurious or potentially injurious to adjacent properties and the public health, safety and welfare; G. Any excavation, pit, well or hole maintained in a manner that is dangerous to life or limb; 424 11.72.030 H. Any accumulation of dust, sand, gravel, refuse and waste matter or discarded materials including building and construction materials that endangers public health and safety; I. Outdoor stairs, porches, hand railings, balconies and swings not maintained in accordance with the Uniform Building Code adopted by the city; J. Any swimming pool, spa, pond, foundation or other body of water which is abandoned, unattended, unfiltered or not otherwise maintained resulting in polluted water; K. Premises so maintained as to cause the accumulation of polluted or stagnant water from any source which may cause a hazardous or unhealthy condition, breeding area for insects or erosion of foundation walls or soil; L. The use of any spray, paint, dye, chalk or similar substance to mark or deface any building, structure, hillside, rock(s), stormchannell, or any other surface open to public view which is commonly known as graffiti; M. Violation of any of the zoning or sign ordinances of the city or any of the uniform codes adopted by the city including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, plumbing code, electrical code, mechanical code, swimming pool code, fire code, health code and Uniform Housing Code; N. Maintenance of property so out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties which causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties; O. Outdoor burning of any material or structure unless sanction by the fire department as a training fire or when used as a cooking or comfort fire contained in a fireproof container no larger than four feet in diameter, P. Permitting any abandoned, unattended or discarded icebox, refrigerator, freezer or other similar container with an airtight door or lid that cannot be readily released from the inside to remain unattended inside or outside any building or structure; Q. Stockpiling fill dirt or other material without a grading permit; R. Maintenance of grounds, landscape, shrubs, plants or vegetation visible from the public right-of-way which causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties; S. Landfills containing organic materials except those permitted by the building director or the public works director of the city; T. Allowing the following to exist on property: 1. Lumber, junk, refuse and waste matter or abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as fumiture, appliances, and play equipment which is visible from the public right-of-way, 2. Attractive nuisances such as abandoned or broken equipment and machinery, hazardous pools, and excavations, 3. Clotheslines located in front yards or side yards of comer lots, clothes hung to dry on walls, fences, trees, bushes or inside open garages or carports which can be observed from the public right-of-way, 4. Materials stored on rooftops which are visible from the public right-of-way, 5. Trash containers or plastic bags causing offensive odors or a breeding place for flies, 6. Gasoline, oil, grease, water or other materials flowing onto a right-of-way or an accumulation of refuse, waste, grease and oil on any surface including but not limited to, surfaces such as improved or unimproved ground, rights -of -way, buildings, structures, walls or fences, 7. Any tree, shrubbery or plant growing onto or over the public right-of-way which impairs pedestrian or vehicular traffic or prevents drivers from clearly observing safety signs and signals, 8. Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, hedges, weeds, shrubs and overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats or vermin or constitute an unsightly appearance or fire hazard; U. Dumping refuse and waste matter upon the following: 1. Any public or private highway or road, 2. Private property where the public is admitted by easement or license, 3. Private property with or without the consent of the property owner, and 4. Any public property not designated for such purpose; V. Dumping or placing any rocks or dirt upon private property without the consent of the state or local agency retaining jurisdiction over such highway or property; W. Repairing, storing, or otherwise working on any motor vehicle or parts thereof not belonging to the person residing on the premises in any residential area within the city unless: 1. Such activities are completely enclosed and not visible from the public right-of-way, or 425 (La Quinta 2-96) 11.72.030 2. Such activities constitute emergency repairs, provided that such repairs do not exceed seventy-two hours; X. Parking a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, in public view when a failure to maintain its extenor causes such vehicle to constitute an eyesore. Vehicles shall be deemed unsightly when body parts rust or become corroded, paint becomes faded, chipped, or peeled or the vehicle exterior becomes otherwise dilapidated; Y. Sanding or painting a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, anywhere in a residential zone; Z. Failure to obscure vehicles and equipment which are stored in a residential zone out of public view; AA. Storage of any item in a residential zone in a manner which endangers public health and safety; BB. Any offensive or unwholesome business or establishment operated in a manner dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare; CC. Those offenses declared a nuisance anywhere in the code of the city or the statutes of the state of California or known at common law as nuisances when the same exist within the jurisdiction of the city. (Ord. 265 § 1, 1995; Ord. 177 § 1, 1990; Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989) 11.72.040 Inspections. A. Authorized Representative. The city manager and the community safety director or their representative(s) are authorized to make inspections and take such actions as may be required by this chapter to provide for the abatement of public nuisances. B. Right of Entry. Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that a condition, activity, or use of property exists which constitutes a public nuisance the city manager or community safety director or their representative(s) may enter the premises at a reasonable time for the purpose of inspection. If such premises are occupied, entry shall be requested and proper credentials shall be presented. If such premises are unoccupied, a reasonable effort shall be made to locate the property owner. If entry is refused or if the property owner cannot be located after a reasonable time, a twenty-four hour written notice of intent to inspect shall be left at the premises. The notice shall state that the property owner has the right to refuse entry and if such entry is refused, the city may seek assistance from a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain entry to inspect the premises. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989) 11.72.050 Abatement of public nuisances. A. Dangerous Buildings. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings shall apply and preempt the provisions of this chapter whenever the public nuisance to be abated constitutes a dangerous building as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. B. Notice of Public Nuisance. Upon determination that a public nuisance exists a notice shall be issued to the property owner. The notice shall read "Notice of Public Nuisance," in letters not less than one inch in height. The notice shall direct abatement of the nuisance, identify the nuisance by referring to this chapter, and contain a general description of the property sufficient to identify the location of the public nuisance. C. Service. The notice of public nuisance may be served by one of the following methods: 1. Personal service; or 2. Certified mail; or 3. Posting the notice at a conspicuous place on the premises where the nuisance is located or at the abutting public right-of-way in addition to personal service or notice by certified mail. D. Time to Abate. Public nuisances shall be abated by the property owner no more than twenty-one days from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance. If a public nuisance constitutes an immediate fire hazard, within five days of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance. E. Summary Abatement. Whenever a public nuisance exists which constitutes an emergency present - (La Quinta 2-96) 426 ATTACHMENT #5 fi9llY67FY671YVFERIY6S,E,Rvlc,Es . Engineering • Arehiteeture•Surveying• Building & Safety Sen4ces Letter of Transmittal To: City of La Quinta Attn, Tel No.. Greg Butler Date: 5/ 16/2000 Project: PC 2000-001 (1' check) Wood framed stucco site wall W. 0.. Tract No.: We are fonvarding: By Messenger By Mail X Your Pickup No. of ' Copies 1 1 Comments: Description: Plans Correction list This Material Sent for: Your Files Your Review Checking Other By: John W. Thompson Phone # 760-342-9214 X Per Your Request Approval At the request of. 47-159 Youngs Lane a Indio, CA 92201 • (760) 342-9214 •Bronz Young e L_J L.J Plan Check Corrections Wood framed stuccoed courtyard fence D.G. Cross 78570 Saguaro Rd. La Quinta, California Plan Check No.: 2000-001 (1" check) 1. Design fence structure to resist wind lateral loading of 70 mph, exposure C. Z. Provide calculation for embedded wood post with an applied lateral load. 3. Is 2x6 bottom plate anchor bolted to the footing or curb? 4. Provide footing calculation and detail for embedded post. 5. Specif}, how the embedded wood post are to be preserved. 6. Bottom plate shall be at least 6" above finish grade. 7. Specify all finishes, stucco application, and weep screed, etc... -�OF ATTACHMENT #6 Official order er TO Cease & Desist Pursuant to La Quints Municipal Code Section 1.01.250, any condition caused or permitted to exist or any such threatened violation of City Code shall be deemed a Public Nuisance and may be sum abated y abaas It is hereby ORDERED that the Activity, as described below, be .,.�sToPPEV, VIAIMMETEL Munidpal Code Sedio><(s): �Ff Ol. 08-0 Explanadon of'V1ohedon(s): p e,✓gKt 4- ,,&A ✓ Any person or persons that continue to violate this Cease and Desist Order beyond the Date and 7yme, as indicated, will become subject to all available legal remedies This Cease and Desist order may be accompanied with: a Mike of Violation (Citation) and/or a Citation may be issued to any person(s) in the event that anv violations) are allowed to continue beyond the indicated date and time and/or any calendar day. Issuing Officer: � � � . S�•-,,,ro`-�""'. Ttn 02��y ee: : 3 Date Contad Phone #i: 760-777- / � —P-A—or 760-777-7050 Code Compliance Division Department of Building and Safety r41 ATTACHMENT P.O. Box 1504 1 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO 17 60) -j-17-1227, L A UIN I -A, CALIFORNIA 92253 Q , FINAL NOTICE _OF VIOL—A—T�ION December 27, 2002 Donald Cross Patricia Cross 78570 Saguaro Road La Quinta, California 92253 RE: VIOLATION(S) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE AT 78570 Saguaro Road (646-312-044), LA QUINTA, CA. On October 18, 2002, you were notified by this office that you were in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Our records indicate that you were made aware of the nature of your violation's), the action necessary to correct the violation's), and that you were given ample time to remedy the violation's). Another inspection was made of the subject property on December 19, 2002. That inspection revealed that the necessary corrective action had not been taken. This letter will serve as notice that if the violation is not corrected before January 13, 2003 an administrative citation will be issued or a notice to appear in court or this matter will be scheduled for a nuisance abatement hearing to force compliance. If you have any questions concerning this matter, you should contact the undersigned immediately at (760) 777-7021, Monday - Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sincerely, Jac %Wi uVaes— rr Cod mpliance Officer � 1 ATTACHMENT #8 P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO A n I A QUINT;, CALIFURNIA 9A<A2.53 NOTICE ri 0 -9 A-- - r (760) 777-7000 FAX (760) 77 7 -7 1 0 1 lOTLTISANC'E January 30, 2003 Donald Cross Patricia Cross 78570 Saguaro Road La Ouinta, California 92253 Dear Owner(s): RE: 78570 Saguaro Road Parcel #646-312-044 Case # 7397 & # 7398 Officer: J. Misuraca THIS NOTICE is hereby submitted to you as owner(s) of the above referenced property. ^, recennt inspection of your property revealed conditions in violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code. You are required to correct these violations within 'TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of this notice. Your property will he re -inspected to verify compliance after the twenty-one (21) day time frame has lapsed. 4( r NOTICE OF VIOLATION Case # 7397 & # 7398 — January 30, 2003 Page 2 of 3 AED INSPECTION REPORT FOR VIOLATION CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED. Failure to correct the listed violation(s) within the time framo indicated may result in the City initiating abatement proceedings and/or criminal prosecution to correct the violation(s). If the City is forced to proceed with the abatement proceedings, the owner(s) of record may incur the direct costs of the abatement. above referencedtnal costssall contractor ts assessed due to possible judicial process. In addition abatement costs plus an additional all beco5me the persona obligation f the wnee(s) of will be charged to 'the property ownr(s) s Q lien upon the property and shall record. You are entitled to appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the planning commission. Within ten (10) days from the date of personal service, posting or mailing the notice of public nuisance, the appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk. By acting immediately to correct the Violation(s) referenced, you will avoid these and any future costs. If you have any questions, please contact J. Misuraca at (760) 777-7021. Please provide the complaint number (#7397 & #7398) and the property address. Your assistance in supporting the Code Compliance Department to maintain the safety and appearance of our city is greatly appreciated. You may contact me at the above referenced phone number if you require assistance. A Compliance Officer CC: • NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS PUBLIC NUISANCES CASE NUMBER: 7397 Location: Front yard Garden Wall Code Violation: L.Q.M.C. 8.01.060 Permit Required Violation Text: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming pool, spa, or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service equipment from the Building Official. Correction: Acquire construction permit for front yard garden wall. Reinspection Date: February 20, 2003 PUBLIC NUISANCES CASE NUMBER: 7398 Location: Vehicles parked/stored in driveway Code Violation: L.Q.M.C. 11.80.090 (B) Registration Violation Text: Vehicles located on private property which are in public view that are not registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles will be deemed as being stored. Correction: Remove the vehicles from public view or acquire current registration from the Department of Motor Vehicles (a non -operational permit still means the vehicle is stored). Reinspection Date: February 20, 2003 ..t.: .�� .�` � � ... R ��' 1 j.'�� ii �.: 'i .�. yr y.'�J. / � <Lv: y �. �F FAN...... , PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 11, 2003 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-682 LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 111, AVENUE 47, WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET APPLICANT: DALE FRANK AND ASSOCIATES REQUEST: REVIEW OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT #4, WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) Attached is the applicant's request that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. A:\SA 2003-683 continued.wpd 7 Mar 07 03 O4:16P Bill Sanchez 760-564-3499 P•1 �• Bill Sanchez � ,( fiington �jy-vh Washington Park t�b(/�ts Project Manager 78-365 HWY 111, N351 • La Quinta, CA 92253 760485-5308 Fax 760-564-3499 gsanchez*,,d c. rr.com facsimile trammlttal To; Fred Baker Fax: 760.777.1233 From: Bill Sanchez, Project Manager Date: 3n103 Re: Sign Program Postponement Pages: I JOB: Washington Park - Sign Program 0 Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment i] Please Reply D Please Recycle Fred, Please postpone the Washington Park Sign Program Planning Committee to the next committee in two weeks. Thank you, Bill Sanchez n- CC: Dale Frank _- - P•01 03-07-03 15:14 RECEIVED FROM:760 564 3499 f. N% B 1 #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 11, 2003 REQUEST: REVIEW ZONING ISSUES PERTAINING TO FRONT YARD SETBACKS. LOCATION: CITY-WIDE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA Staff presented a review of side yard setback zoning issues to the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 25th. At that meeting staff was directed to bring back front yard setback issues for discussion at the following meeting and to provide a summary of side yard setback discussion (Attachment 1). There are no recommendation requested by staff at this time. This information is provided for consideration and discussion purposes only. The Planning Commission can provide staff with direction. If changes are recommended to be made to the Zoning Code those changes would be brought back at a public hearing and would ultimately require City Council approval. The balance of this report will: 1. Outline the issues, 2. Present relevant Code requirements, and 3. Identify discussion points. The Planning Commission has expressed concern regarding the various front yard setback requirements, including the setback requirements for bonus rooms and casitas. P/oscar/StfRpt/front setback issue Table 1, below, provides front yard setback requirements for garages based upon the type of garage door. Table 2 provides front yard setback requirements for carports. Garages or carports that have access from the rear of the lot may have a 5 foot rear yard setback. Table 1 : tiara a JeLDacK. Zoning District Pivot Door Roll -Up Door Side Entry RVL 30' 30' 20' All other 25' 20' 15' residential districts 1 Oulu G. %+Gj NviL --- ZONING DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS RVL 30' ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 20' The following is a list of discussion points for the Commission's consideration: 1. Uniform setback requirements (e.g. uniform distance from back of curb); 2. Front yard setback requirements for bonus rooms and casitas, especially those bonus rooms within a garage building envelope. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the issues listed in the report and provide the appropriate direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Summary of side yard setback discussion. 2 P/oscar/StfRpt/front setback issue Attachment 1 .Summary of Side Yard Setbacks Discussion 1. A total ten or 15 feet side yard setback . Accessary structures would be required to comply with the setback requirement. 2. A five foot side yard setback for all structures in the Cove residential area. 3. Mechanical equipment, including pool equipment, may be located adjacent to a block wall located on the side and/or rear yard property line. 4. A minium five foot access way must be permitted within the side yard. 5. A 15 foot total aggregate side yard setback, with a minimum distance of five feet to be provided on at least one side yard. 6. That only one side yard provide access from the front yard to the rear yard, a minimum feet provided. 7. That accessory structures, including garden windows may be permitted within the "dead" side yard. P:/Oscar/StfRpt/side setback summary