Loading...
2003 04 22 PCTit!t 4 4v Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California APRIL 22, 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 2003-018 Beginning Minute Motion 2003-008 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 April 8, 2003. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Item ................. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31172 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-761 Applicant ......... Klein Building and Development, Inc. Location ........... North side of Highway 1 1 1, 331 feet west of Dune Palms Road Request ........... Review of development plans for a seven building commercial complex with 63-550 square feet of floor area and subdivision of six acres into eight commercial parcels for the project. Action ............. Resolution 2003- and Resolution 2003- B. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463, STREET VACATION RW-V-2003-013, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-073 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-755 Applicant ......... St. Francis of Assisi/Father Jack Barker Location ........... 47-225 Washington Street Request ........... Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; consideration of a street vacation of Old Washington Street; a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the expansion of the parking lot, landscaping, retention areas, and an additional entry on approximately 30 acres. Action ............. Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003- and Resolution 2003- C. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-711, TIME EXTENSION #1 Applicant ......... Baden Family Trust Location ........... The southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street Request ........... Consideration of development plans for a supermarket, drug store and bank buildings in a Neighborhood Commercial Center. Action ............. Resolution 2003- D. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-763 Applicant ......... Paul and Bobbie Jean Kouri Location ........... Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 29889 located on the east side of Washington Street, southeast of Avenue 47 Request ........... Consideration of development plans for construction of a 5,250 square foot commercial restaurant building Action ............. Resolution 2003- PC/AGENDA E. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 Applicant ......... Madison Development Location ........... Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1, within Point Happy Commercial Center Request ........... Consideration of development plans for two, two story retail/office/restaurant buildings totaling 34,400 square feet and a two story parking structure. Action ............. Resolution 2003- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of City Council meeting - Chairman Rich Butler X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on May 13, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC NOTICE 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 April 8, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler and Chairman Butler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to excuse Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, and Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, 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 March 25, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item 1, be corrected to read "...that he and the appellant had been....."; Page 6, Item 4, corrected to read, "adopts a resolution exempting themselves from the City's regulations..."; Page 7, Item 14, corrected to read, "Palm Royale Road on both ends will have traffic signals, so there is no parent drop-off on Washington Street." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None A. Continued - Sign Application 2003-682; a request of Jack Tarr for review of a proposed sign program for the Washington Park Commercial Center, bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Adams Street, Washington Street, and Avenue 47. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler clarified that the single logo was on the south end. Staff confirmed this was correct. Commissioner Tyler stated that under the Code they are allowed one monument sign per frontage footage. Staff stated that under a sign adjustment in the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission can make that determination. Commissioner Tyler confirmed that the Code does not differentiate the length of the frontage in regard to the signs. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any standard for what size would be considered a major tenant. Staff stated that every sign program before the Commission has had something different. In order to get a comparison staff looked at major tenants, not including the "big boxes", over 10,000 square feet, within the vicinity and that list is in the staff report. Commissioner Kirk stated that some of those on the list appear to be much larger than some of the major tenants identified in the applicant's sign program. Is this true? Staff stated the applicant has stated that if the building is larger than 10,000 square feet, they are a major tenant. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Commission agreed with deleting the sign in the rear of the building, would that mean the applicant could increase the size of the signs in the front. Staff stated if it was the Commission's discretion. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant could increase the size of the signs at their own discretion. Staff stated not unless they decreased the overall aggregate signage allowed as well. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant's request for 50 square foot aggregate was for the total sign, or per side. Staff stated it was the aggregate; they were requesting more than allowed by the Code. Staff was supporting the request due to the length of the "Washington Park" G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 sign that is not advertising the users of the Center. Commissioner Kirk asked if the linear elevation of the Target building significantly larger/smaller than the Super Wal-Mart building. Staff stated Wal- Mart is larger. Target is comparably the same size as the Retail "B" building at the Super Wal-Mart Center. 4. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission reduces the number of signs as recommended, who will determine who goes on the monument signs. Staff stated the property manager will make that determination. Those business that have signed leases for the Center are in the Monument sign proposal. 5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Hal Hall, Mr. Bill Sanchez, representing the Center, and Mr. David Randolph, representing the Pacific Neon Company, stated they are not proposing to use any exposed neon. They agree with Conditions #1 and 2. Conditions #3 and #4 they have questions. They are not asking to increase the size of the signs on the front of the building. This is a three -sided center. The purpose of the Target sign on the rear is to address traffic direction as people are driving around the Center and parking areas. In regard to the monument sign, the drive aisle is not major, but it does lead to both sides of the Shopping Center. Adams Street is not a major street now, but it will be and there is no signage on the north and east end of the Center. There will be a sign to the north and slightly west of the Target building, and south and west of the Target building. From that site east there is no project identification. Therefore, they thought it was important to put Center identification on that eastern half of the project. In regard to the letter received from nearby residents concerned about lighting issues, the monument signs are designed to be small and will not create any additional light into the adjacent communities. There is no white background illumination. They are all routed aluminum signs so the background is entirely opaque. Only the graphics will be illuminated. In regard to the building signs, they are individual letter signs. The last paragraph of the sign program was incorrectly written. It was intended to state that a large tenant who has a corner, end, or stand alone building, could have a name identifying sign on the side of the building. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 6. Commissioner Tyler stated he had visited the Palm Desert Target and the bulls -eye is separate from the sign letters for Target. The national logo has been rearranged. Mr. Randolph stated this had changed approximately a year ago. Commissioner Tyler stated the pharmacy sign appears to blend right into the building. Mr. Randolph stated the building is actually darker and the pharmacy sign is white. 7. Chairman Butler asked about Monument sign "C" on Avenue 48, has Target well designated so those traveling on Avenue 47 will find it, so why have this and the sign on the back of the building. Mr. Randolph stated the concern is that when you pull into the Center from Avenue 47 it directs people to the store. Chairman Butler asked about Monument sign "B" on Adams Street, the street is very short and the first turn is right into the project. Mr. Hall stated that Adams Street is becoming a major entrance and they would like the visibility. Chairman Butler asked which monument sign they would prefer "B" or "C". Mr. Hall stated they would like both but would be willing to reduce the size. Mr. Sanchez stated that if you enter off Caleo Bay, using the Monument sign on Caleo Bay and Avenue 47, there is no real access to the businesses on the east end of the building. Therefore, it is important to have both Monument signs. The entrance off Adams Street services seven large tenants on the east end of the Center. Both Monument signs will identify Target and two other tenants. 8. Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this issue. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing and opened the discussion to the Commission. 9. Commissioner Abels complemented the applicant on his presentation and agrees with staff's recommendation. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he finds the 12 foot diameter bulls -eye over the main entrance offensive. It is three times the size of the Palm Desert store sign. It needs to be significantly reduced. The monument signs are architecturally pleasing, but 15.5 feet long in too much. He has no problem with the two Monument signs on Highway 1 1 1. On Adams street he would suggest using the same sign as is on Washington Street. In regard to the rear signage, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 there was no access to the rear of Lowe's and it didn't make sense. This is not the same situation and if Target is willing to install a rear door he would be willing to reconsider their request for a sign on the rear. 11. Chairman Butler reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to the Commission's questions. Mr. Randolph stated the rear doors are for delivery and emergency access only. On the front elevation, the logo is much larger, but the lettering is much smaller that the Palm Desert store. If you calculate the overall square footage of the sign area, the typical horizontal signs, such as Palm Desert, is 174 square feet with the logo and wording calculated separately, or 204 calculated as a box. So in this instance, the overall sign is smaller. 12. Commissioner Tyler recommends deleting the last paragraph on Page 8 of the Sign Program. Mr. Randolph suggested leaving the last line. Staff stated the paragraph is still unclear. From what was stated at this meeting, it appears the applicant is asking that the two corner (end) buildings be allowed three signs. They have one sign on each street side and a sign on the interior parking lot side. Commissioner Tyler asked if these buildings would be downgraded from major tenants. Staff stated the applicant would agree to this. Staff would be comfortable with the aggregate 50 square feet and allow the two end buildings to have three signs. Commissioner Tyler asked that a statement be added to Page 10 of the Sign Program stating, "in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance." Also, under "Window Graphics", remove the credit card decal sign. After discussion, Commissioners determined to leave it as written. 13. Chairman Butler closed the public participation of the public hearing. 14. Commissioner Kirk commended staff on the report. It is a nice design on the monument signs as most of the signs are architectural rather than advertising. He would therefore recommend going with the larger than the standard usually approved except for Sign "B". He agrees with Commissioner Tyler, that Monument sign "B" be the same size as sign "D". He does have concerns with the total aggregate size of the Target G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 signage. He would prefer to see more logo and less lettering and he believes the proposed sign is a nice balance. With respect to the rear elevation, if it is not a public entrance, he does not have strong feelings. There is justification for some signage at this location. He is concerned about having a bright light on the back of the building. He would suggest allowing a non -lighted sign. He supports Commissioner Tyler's suggestions in regard to Page 8 and 10 of the Sign Program. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Minute Motion 2003-007, approving Sign Application 2003-682, as amended. a. Monument Sign "B" shall be the same style and size as sign „D„ b. The rear sign of the Target building shall be unlighted. C. Page 8, paragraph 6, shall be rewritten and approved by staff. d. Page 10 of the Sign Program shall have the following added, "in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance." Unanimously approved. B. Tentative Parcel Map 31 172 and Site Development Permit 2003-761; a request of Klein Building and Development, Inc. for review of development plans for a seven building commercial complex with 63-550 square feet of floor area and a subdivision of six acres into eight commercial parcels for the property located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 331 feet west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department and presented a perspective drawing showing one view of the building. 2. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant agreed with the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommendations. Staff stated the ALRC recommended the stone be removed and the applicant wants to retain the stone as they believe it adds dimension to the buildings. They did make the changes to the plant palette. Chairman Butler asked if the ALRC G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 recommendations are normally included in the conditions submitted to the Planning Commission. Staff stated they normally are included. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #1 1 in the Conditions of Approval for both the Tract Map and the Site Development Permit needs to be rewritten for clarity. Also, Condition #40 for both applications does not reflect the shared access for the existing driveway onto Dune Palms Road. On Corporate Center Drive one access is joint, but there is a new access on the northwest corner that should be included in the condition. Page 18 has very little on the lighting; is this covered by the Specific Plan. Staff stated it is conditioned to meet the Specific Plan requirements. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the western boundary would have a block wall. Staff stated the applicant is not proposing a wall. There is a landscape strip with trees and shrubs along the western boundary. Commissioner Kirk asked if the landscape plan on the western boundary appears to be sparse with only palm trees and he questions how much shielding they will provide. Staff stated a detailed landscaping plan will have to be submitted for approval. Commissioner Kirk stated the Radio Active landscaping plan appeared to be more elaborate. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Neil Kleine, owner and developer of the project, gave a presentation on the project. He has no issues with staff's recommendations. His understanding of the ALRC comments was that they were recommendations and not conditions. They will match the Radio Active landscaping plan concept. In regard to the shared access, they are recording easements to be reciprocal between Radio Active and themselves and the Dune Palms Road access. They did submit a complete lighting plan. There are two sides of the project, which will need to have loading areas. They were designed to be screened by placing them backing up to the adjoining businesses loading zones. It is hoped that the project to the west, when it is submitted, will do the same by backing up their loading zone to theirs. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 6. Commissioner Abels asked if they have signed tenants. Mr. Kleine stated two buildings are spoken for and will be leased. The restaurant site is spoken for. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the rear doors were roll ups. Mr. Kleine stated no, they will be double man doors. Commissioner Tyler asked about Buildings 5 and 6. Mr. Kleine stated they could be either a single tenant or two. They are keeping their options open. 8. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. J. Paul, owner of the two buildings across Corporate Center Drive, stated he would like to thank everyone for helping him complete his buildings. He had been informed by his architect, that this project may have areas of concern to him, or his project. First, the visual elevation is fine. His concern is what will be seen on all four sides of the project. The inside of the project has the "Rancho La Quinta" look with tile roofs, but the Highway 1 1 1 side does not. The view from his project is a flat building with no undulation. The relief, or popout portion is only a foot. He also has a concern with the ends of his buildings; there are flat with no softness. Why was the tile not wrapped around to the outside and onto Highway 1 1 1. He would be disappointed if the stone were removed. This building is only 22 feet from the street. He is glad to hear the landscaping will be the same as Radio Active. The side that faces his project should have some tile relief. The same on the ends of the buildings should be softened and the wing -wall needs to be kept consistent with the stone along the entire front of the building. 9. Mr. Kleine responded by stating he appreciates Mr. Paul's comments. In regard to the shed roofs, he was never informed he had to have a "Rancho La Quinta" look and it is not contained in the Specific Plan. The shed roofs were used to create a courtyard effect. In terms of the landscape setback, he has the same as Mr. Paul and Radio Active. In regard to the window glazing, retail customers will want it to the floor for light and exposure. In regard to the restaurant they will have a pony wall. The stone will remain. They were requested to vary the parapet along Highway 1 1 1 building and will do the same along Corporate Center Drive. In regard to the shed roofs, it is not an option when you are trying to have full ceiling heights. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 10. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Highway 111 Design Guidelines had any architectural details. Staff stated there are none. Commissioner Kirk stated he is generally in support of the project as it does appear to be high quality. The applicant does need to live up to the commitment that the landscaping will match the Radio Active site. The most problematic problem may be the back of Building 7. His concern is that the property to the west should of been subject to this Specific Plan. As it is not, it is right that this project is there first and the neighbor should design to be sensitive to this. However, this building will be visible from Highway 1 1 1 and no one knows when or how that property will be developed and, he believes, there needs to be a lot more relief. This could be done by landscaping. Also, Buildings 5 and 6 should have some architectural detail. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated he has the same concerns. The west wall of Building 7 will be visible for a long time and has no character. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the rear of the other buildings. He is also concerned about the buildings all being painted with the earth tones which will make it drab. 13. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with Commissioners Tyler and Kirk and Mr. Paul. There are a lot of things that could be done to enhance it. 14. Chairman Butler asked if the rear of the buildings should be reviewed in light of the buildings opening to a future project that should be buffered. He questioned whether the Commission should be concerned with a neighboring project. Staff stated yes, the Planning Commission can do so. Typically the Commission has reviewed all the elevations of a project. Chairman Butler stated the property across the street does not have the same concerns this tenant will have. If this is approved as it is, he has no objection to the interior elevations, but how do they address the adjoining projects. 15. Commissioner Abels suggested continuing the project and give the applicant time to address the concerns of the Commission. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 16. Commissioner Tyler stated there has been a precedent set by other projects for controlling the rear elevations that butt up to vacant property, such as the buildings on the east side of Dune Palms Road and the east end of the buildings at the Wal-Mart site. 17. The public hearing was reopened. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue Tentative Parcel Map 31 172 and Site Development Permit 2003-761 to April 22, 2003, with the following recommendations to be addressed by the applicant: a. A revised landscaping plan that is similar to the Radio Active site. b. The elevations shall be revised as follows. 1.► Buildings 5 & 6 additional architectural detail shall be added to the rear of the building. 2.) Building 7 additional articulation and/or landscaping shall be added to the rear of the building. 3.) Buildings 1 and 2 shall be resubmitted with a better diagram and additional detail on the Highway 111 elevation. Unanimously approved. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Continued - Appeal of Public Nuisance Cases 7397 and 7398; a request of Donald and Patricia Cross for consideration of an appeal of a Public Nuisance Determination for the property located at 78-570 Saguaro Road. 1. Commissioner Tyler informed the Commission that he and the applicant had been long term friends and he had discussed this case at length with City and therefore he feels he is unable to render an impartial objective opinion on this matter and requested to recuse himself and left the dais. 2. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the appellant would like to address the Commission. Mrs. Cross, the appellant, stated they have tried to obtain a building permit on several occasions, but were unable to. They are asking for a waiver to allow the wall to be built at their own risk. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification as to whether or not it was a permanent wall. Mr. Cross stated it was permanent. Commissioner Kirk asked when the Code requirements changed. Staff stated approximately 1999. Commissioner Kirk asked if the appellant had approached the City prior to this time. Ms. Cross stated they had and were told the wall was exempt. They were told to bring in a drawing, which they did. They have receipts for building materials purchased prior to the new Code interpretation. They should have been given direction to specify what their alternatives were to get this wall approved. Commissioner Kirk stated he would uphold the appellants request as they did start this prior to the Code change. 5. Mr. John Hardcastle, Code Compliance Manager, stated that in December 1999, plans were submitted for the wall. The plans were picked up by the appellant for corrections in December and resubmitted in May, 2000. The Building Code was in place at the time of resubmittal and knowledge was known by the Cross' that the requirement was to obtain a building permit for the wall prior to the construction of the wall. Staff first noticed the wall in November of 2002. Mr. Cross stated construction started on the wall on June 27, 2002. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant knew a permit was needed and an engineered plan required. Mr. Cross stated they have been in constant communication with the City. They were told they would not receive a permit and to tear it down. He believes they should have the opportunity to improve the look of their property. 7. Commissioner Abels asked if the appellant was willing to tear the wall down to the bottom plate. Mr. Cross stated he was willing to expose how it was constructed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 8. Chairman Butler stated the wall was constructed without a permit when they were required to tear it down. He realizes they have tried their best to meet the City's requests and asked if they could obtain an engineer's specifications on the wall. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated his understanding was that this type of construction is not even permitted by the City. Mr. Hardcastle stated this is not a typical wall allowed by the City. If the Cross's can obtain engineered specifications showing the wall to be safe, they will issue a permit. Staff is asking the Commission to uphold the public nuisance and if they are able to obtain the calcs, they will issue a permit. The City is concerned about the liability factor. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Kirk to uphold the appellant's request. The motion died for lack of a second. 11. Mr. Cross noted another wall that was approved at the same time he requested his. If the plans for this could be found, it would set a standard he could build to. 12. Chairman Butler asked if this was appealable to the City Council. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated yes. 13. It was moved and seconded by Chairman Butler/Commissioner Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-008 denying the appeal of Public Nuisance Cases 7397 and 7398, as recommended. The motion carried with Commissioner Kirk voting no and Commissioner Tyler being absent. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2003-074, a request of staff for review of proposed changes to the Lighting Ordinance. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci introduced the City's lighting consultant James Benya who presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Purposes of a Lighting Ordinance: a. Reduce sky glow; b. Reduce light trespass; and C. Improve the appearance and safety of the City at night. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 3. Problems with current regulations: a. Light pollution concepts are outdated; b. Current regulations require relatively high lighting levels; C. Not easily enforced; d. One standard for all parts of the City; e. Need to subdivide the City in four lighting zones; f. Need to increase certain types of lighting to be exempt; g. Change some of the prohibited lighting standards to prevent extremely bright or intense lighting; h. Address foot candles according to the project instead having a set standard; i. Shielding requirements based on wattage and lighting zones using the IES&A designations for the type of cutoff; j. Need to combine wattage limits and shielding; k. Height limits varied according to use; I. Need power limits on how many watts of light can be on a site in accordance with Title 24, 2005 Outdoor Lighting Requirements. M. Need requirements on the measure of light that can trespass using a physically measure to determine the amount of light that can trespass. n. Need to adopt controls (Title 24, 2005 Outdoor Lighting Requirements) curfews in regard to parking lot lights. 4. Establish four Lighting Zones. a. Zone 1 - Natural settings, park areas; b. Zone 2 - Residential and rural areas; C. Zone 3 - Commercial Districts and high density living districts; and d. Zone 4 - Special High Density Commercial District 5. General changes to the Residential Outdoor Lighting standards: a. Modify residential lighting in regard to game court lighting; b. Exempting some types of lighting such as swimming pools, exits signs, individual Christmas tree lighting, etc; C. Shielding requirements for anything over 50 watts; d. Limit on luminar lights to 150 watts; e. Mounting heights modified; f. Sport courts; and g. Landscape lighting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 6. General changes to the Commercial Lighting standards: a. Adding lighting under canopies or covers to clarify. 7. Adding "Purpose" for the standards. 8. Applicability changes to let people know when they have to bring lighting into compliance. 9. Adding Definitions in regard to candle power, cutoff, etc., consistent with IES&A standards. 10. Add Regulations requiring them to comply with other applicable codes. 11. Expanded the Exempt Lighting list. 12. Prohibited Lighting Requirements. 13. Shielding Requirements for each of the different Zones. 14. Adding Lamp Wattage Limits. 15. Height limits for each of the different Zones 16. Setback requirements. 17. Exceptions. 18. Controlled Requirements. 19. Externally illuminated signs. 20. Special lighting systems dealt with on a case by case basis. 21. Enforcements. 22. Alternate methods and materials substitutions. 23. Special residential mitigation. 24. Temporary and Minor Use Permits. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 25. Commissioner comments/questions: a. Commissioner Tyler suggested the curfew times take into consideration daylight savings time. How would the zones be determined. Mr. Benya stated the City Council would set the zones. b. Discussion of the placement of the Zones. C. Commissioner Kirk asked staff what direction the Commission was to take at this point. Staff stated the Commission should provide staff with any specific comments/changes they may have and staff would take those changes and incorporate them into the ordinance to bring back to the Commission at a public hearing for recommendation to the City Council. d. Commissioner Kirk questioned why the City would not be subject to its own lighting standards. Mr. Benya stated this is a common problem. An example is street lighting which is the biggest offender of light pollution and the City needs time to make changes to those standards. Commissioner Kirk asked if everything that is built would be exempt. Mr. Benya stated a gradual transition would take place over time. Commissioner Kirk recommended that as lights in the City are broken they be replaced with the new standards. Also, the difference between a tree light and a commercial center light. Mr. Benya explained the impact of each. Commissioner Kirk asked about the height standards to reduce spillage. Mr. Benya explained our standards are based on how much illumination we have on the surface. The cone of light tends to be four -five times the height. Then you need to address the adjacent conditions. It becomes a combination of pole height, cutoff, and then the mitigated circumstances. Commissioner Kirk suggested the reference to a Coast Guard facility be removed. e. Commissioner Tyler suggested defining high rise and low rise residential. Other suggestions would be given to staff. f. Staff informed the Commission that the next step would be to bring the Zone Map back to the Commission, then set the Lighting Ordinance for a public hearing. Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 15 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Abels gave a report of the City Council meeting of April 1, 2003. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 22, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. on April 22, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 22, 2003 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-761 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31172 APPLICANT: KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A SEVEN BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WITH 63,550 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA AND SUBDIVISION OF SIX ACRES INTO EIGHT COMMERCIAL PARCELS FOR THE PROJECT LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 331 FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99- 383 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1999. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: This request was previously heard by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2003, and continued to this meeting (Attachment 1). The Planning Commission discussed a number of items regarding the project and requested the following items be redesigned: 1. Buildings 5 and 6 - additional architectural detail shall be added to the rear of the building. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2002-761 tpm 31172 pc rpt 4-22.wpd 2. Building 7 - additional articulation and/or landscaping shall be added to the rear of the building. 3. Buildings 1 and 2 - be submitted with better graphics and additional detail on the Highway 111 elevation. 4. Submit a revised landscaping plan that is similar to the Radio Active site. The applicant has submitted revised elevations for the building elevations noted above and a more detailed preliminary landscaping plan (Attachment 2). The rear elevations of Buildings 1 and 2 facing Highway 111, Buildings 5 and 6 facing Corporate Center Drive, and Building 7 facing the west property line have been revised. The following is a summary of the revisions: 2. 9 Buildings 1 and 2 A. Added recessed arches over center windows B. Recessed windows C. Added stone between center windows D. Added paint contrast E. "Conceptual" signs illustrated on elevations soften the facade F. Illustrated the proposed landscaping Buildings 5 and 6 to show how they will A. Redesigned to be similar to Highway 111 buildings B. Added three "towers" C. Increased popout depths D. Added paint contrast E. Illustrated the proposed landscaping Building 7 A. Varied roof height B. Changed fry metal layout C. Provided popout areas D. Increased paint contrast E. Illustrated the proposed landscaping, including additional trees The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan prepared by the Landscape Architect of Radio Active. The same plant pallette, as well as, same design concepts are used. This plan shows specific locations and numbers of trees, plants, boulders and groundcovers. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2002-761 tpm 31 172 pc rpt 4-22.wpd The staff report from the meeting of April 8, 2003, is attached for your information (Attachment 3). PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 28, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. FINDINGS: The Site Development Permit findings as required by Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code can be made as noted in the attached Resolution with the recommended Conditions of Approval. The Tentative Parcel Map findings as required by Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolution with the recommended Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution 2003- ,approving Site Development Permit 2003-761, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 2. Adopt Resolution 2003- ,approving Tentative Parcel Map 31172, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Draft minutes of the April 8, 2003, Planning Commission meeting 2. Revised elevations and landscaping plan and originally submitted plans (large) 3. Planning Commission staff report for the meeting of April 8, 2003 Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2002-761 tpm 31172 pc rpt 4-22.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 63,550 ± SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL COMPLEX CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-761 APPLICANT: KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 8th day of April and 22nd day of April, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings, to consider the request of KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. to approve the development plans for a 63,550± square foot commercial complex in the Regional Commercial Zone, located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 331 feet west of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: APN 649-020-049 and 050 WHEREAS, said Parcel Map request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 99-383 prepared for Specific Plan 99-036, which was certified on September 7, 1999. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review, and; WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on 5th day of March, 2003, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2003-008, recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans for the project, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the commercial designation of the property. 2. The proposed commercial complex is designed to comply with the Zoning Code and Specific Plan requirements including, but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and setbacks. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2003-761 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Kleine Building and Development, Inc. Site Development Permit 2003-761 April 22, 2003 3 The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 99- 383, prepared for Specific Plan 99-036, which was certified on September 7, 1999. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review. 4. The architectural design of the project including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The building is well designed with adequate articulation on the front and rear elevations. The project uses architectural features, colors, and materials that are compatible with the surrounding existing buildings. 5. The site design of the project including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The proposed complex is located on an area that is designated for a commercial development. 6. Project landscaping including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. 7. The building signs are conditioned to be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Specific Plan, and will be in harmony and visually related to the proposed buildings, with the approval of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2003-761 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Kleine Building and Development, Inc. Site Development Permit 2003-761 April 22, 2003 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-761 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of April, 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:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2003-761 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-761 KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC APRIL 22, 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 Parcel Map, or any Parcel Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Parcel Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. PASTANWeine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coa.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ . A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP anad BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. 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). PASTAN`.kleine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coampd 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. 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. 7. Street Right of Way for Highway 1 1 1, Dunes Palms Road, and Corporate Center Drive has been dedicated according to the recorded Grant of Easement, DOC# 2000-267425. No additional right of way is required to comply with General Plan street widths. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial) - 50-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Dune Palms Road (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. C. Corporate Center Drive (Local Street) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. 10. 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 Parcel Map. 11. Direct vehicular access to and from Highway 1 1 1 Corporate Center Drive and Dune Palms Road from lots with frontage along said streets is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative parcel map, or as otherwise conditioned in these Conditions of Approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded parcel map. PASTANWeine commercial\sdp 2003-761 pc coa.wpd 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 12. 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. 13. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. PARCEL MAPS 14. Prior to the City's approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Parcel Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Parcel Map. 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. 15. 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. 16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Site Development Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal PASTANkicine commerciaNdp 2003-761 pc ccampd 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 B. Perimeter Landscape Plan: C. On -Site Storm Drain Plan: Vertical 1 " = 20' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 4' Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "Storm Drain" plans shall normally include all hydrologic and hydraulic analysis including but not necessarily limited to hydraulic grade lines, Pipe flows, and inlet structure sizing. 17. 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. 18. 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. PASTANWeine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coampd 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 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 19. improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 20. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 22. 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. 23. To obtain an approved site development permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A site development 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. PASTANWeine commerciaNdp 2003-761 pc coampd 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 A statement shall appear on the Parcel Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any parcel, the applicant shall provide a pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved site development 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. PASTANWeine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coampd 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 DRAINAGE 28. Storm water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Specific Plan 99-036. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 30. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 32. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 33. The applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, 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 the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative parcel map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. LITUTIES P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2003-761 pc coampd 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 35. 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. 36. 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 37. 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. 38. The applicant shall redesign existing driveway access within the City right of way to comply with current ADA requirements. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 39. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 40. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry - on Highway 1 1 1: Joint access at the existing entrance, right turn out, right turn in. PASTANWeine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coampd 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 B. Secondary Entry - on Corporate Centre Drive - Joint access at the existing entrance, full turn movement is allowed. C. Secondary Entry - on Corporate Centre Drive - access at the entrance west of Building 6, full turn movement is allowed. D. Secondary Entry - on Dune Palms Road - Joint access at the existing entrance, full turn movement is allowed. NOTE: Reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. The developer/owner shall grant cross -access easement(s) to the property to the west as required by the City of La Quinta. 41. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b) (Parking), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 50-foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot. LANDSCAPING 42. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks), 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping) LQMC. This includes providing berming along the perimeter setback and parkways in the street right-of-ways. The developer/owner shall maintain the required public improvements until and if expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 44. 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 a preliminary -level landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. PASTANWeine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coa.wpd 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 45. 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. The trees used throughout the site shall be eight to ten feet in height with a minimum container size of 24" box and a minimum trunk caliper of 1.5 inch per Specific Plan 99-036. Palm trees shall have a minimum 10 foot brown trunk height. Planting along Highway 111 shall comply with adopted Highway 111 design theme. Parking lot surfaces shall be screened from view of the streets with landscaping and/or a short decorative wall to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection by the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements. QUALITY ASSURANCE 46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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 PASTANWeine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coampd 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 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 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 51. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. 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. 53. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program, School mitigation fee program and fringed - toed lizard mitigation fee in effect at the time of issuance of building and/or grading permit(s). 54. 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. LIGHTING 55. Rear elevation wall mounted lights for the building shall use non-adjustable shoebox type down shining light fixtures with recessed or flush mounted lenses. All exterior lighting fixtures shall use metal halide bulbs. All lighting shall be consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code and Specific Plan 99- 036. PASTANAkleine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coa.wpd 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 FIRE DEPARTMENT 56. Water mains shall be capable of providing 4000-GPM at 20-psi residual for a 4- hour duration with the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants to be 2000-GPM at 20-psi residual for a 4-hour duration. 57. Super fire hydrants are to be placed no closer than 25 feet and not more than 165 feet from any portion of the first floor any building following approved travel ways around the exterior of the building. 58. Blue dot retro-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. 59. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all buildings, other than single family, 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. If required, sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. Area separation walls may not be used to reduce the need for sprinklers. 60. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius. 61. All buildings shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 62. The minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height. 63. 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. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 64. 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. 65. Building plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. 66. The applicant shall be responsible for any submissions to the Fire Department. PASTANWeine commerciahsdp 2003-761 pc coampd 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 MISCELLANEOUS 67. Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 99-036. 68. No signs are approved with this permit. A master sign program, in compliance with Code requirements and Specific Plan 99-036 provisions, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for the entire site, prior to approval of individual sign permits for businesses on the site. 69. Security measures as outlined in the Sheriffs Department memo dated March 5, 2003, on file in the Community Development Department, shall be implemented unless determined by the City to be impractical. 70. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened using the roof parapets, in a manner so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures requiring such screening. 71. Provide at least three bicycle storage racks spread out around the site. 72. Minor amendments to the plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Major changes to the overall design of the development shall require Planning Commission review. 73. In the event that the permittee violates or fails to comply with any of the Conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals, certificates of occupancy, etc., shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 74. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in EA 99-383 (City Council Resolution 99-110), including the provision of archaeological monitors during all earth -moving and grading activities. 75. Trash enclosures shall be made of a decorative masonry material and comply with Waste Management of the Desert requirements for construction and size. PASTANWeine commercial\sdp 2003-761 pc coampd 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2003-761 Kleine Building and Development, Inc Adopted: April 22, 2003 76. A bus shelter shall be constructed on Highway 1 1 1, west of the project entry, complying with City Design standards as outlined in the adopted Highway 1 1 1 Design Theme. 77. All driveway entrances shall be a minimum of 28 feet in width. 78. Minor changes to the parking lot to provide additional spaces may be approved by the Community Development Director, provided parking lot development standards are complied with. PASTANWeine commercial\sdp 2003-761 pc coa.wpd 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WHICH CREATES EIGHT PARCELS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31172 APPLICANT: NEIL KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of April, and 22nd day of April, 2003, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of NEIL KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. for approval of a Parcel Map to create eight parcels in the Regional Commercial Zone, located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, approximately 331 feet west of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: APN 649-020-049 and -050 WHEREAS, said Parcel Map request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 99-383 prepared for Specific Plan 99-036, which was certified on September 7, 1999. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review, and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Parcel Map 31 172: 1. The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 99-036 in that its amended lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the amended subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by Map is void of significant wildlife and the fringed -toed lizard mitigation fee will be paid. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\tpm 31 172 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Tentative Parcel Map 31172 - Recommended Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 3. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist. 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 recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 31172 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of April, 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 PASTANWeine commerciaRtpm 31 172 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31172 KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 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 Parcel Map, or any Parcel Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Parcel Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\tpm 31172 pc coa.wpd 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ . A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP anad BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. 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). P:\STAN\kleine commercial\tpm 31172 pc coa.wpd 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. 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. 7. Street Right of Way for Highway 1 1 1, Dunes Palms Road, and Corporate Center Drive has been dedicated according to the recorded Grant of Easement, DOC# 2000-267425. No additional right of way is required to comply with General Plan street widths. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial) - 50-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Dune Palms Road (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. C. Corporate Center Drive (Local Street) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. 10. 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 Parcel Map. 11. Direct vehicular access to and from Highway 1 1 1 Corporate Center Drive and Dune Palms Road from lots with frontage along said streets is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative parcel map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded parcel map. PASTANWeine commerciaktpm 31172 pc coa.wpd 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 12. 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. 13. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. PARCEL MAPS 14. Prior to the City's approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Parcel Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Parcel Map. 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. 15. 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. 16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Site Development Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal C. On -Site Storm Drain Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 4' Vertical P:\STAN\kleine commercial\tpm 31172 pc coampd 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "Storm Drain" plans shall normally include all hydrologic and hydraulic analysis including but not necessarily limited to hydraulic grade lines, Pipe flows, and inlet structure sizing. 17. 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. 18. 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. PASTANWeine commerciaktpm 31172 pc coa.wpd 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 19. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 20. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 22. 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. 23. To obtain an approved site development permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A site development 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 Parcel Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\tpm 31172 pc coampd 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any parcel, the applicant shall provide a pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved site development 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. DRAINAGE 28. Storm water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Specific Plan 99-036. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. P:\STAN\kleine commerciaMpm 31 172 pc coa.wpd 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 30. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 32. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 33. The applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, 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 the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative parcel map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. UTILITIES 34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 35. 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. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\tpm 31172 pc coa.wpd 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 36. 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 37. 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. 38. The applicant shall redesign existing driveway access within the City right of way to comply with current ADA requirements. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 39. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 40. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry - on Highway 1 11: Joint access at the existing entrance, right turn out, right turn in. B. Secondary Entry - on Corporate Centre Drive - Joint access at the existing entrance, full turn movement is allowed. C. Secondary Entry - on Corporate Centre Drive - access at the entrance west of Building 6, full turn movement is allowed. D. Secondary Entry - on Dune Palms Road - Joint access at the existing entrance, full turn movement is allowed PASTANWeine commerciahtpm 31172 pc coampd 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 NOTE: Reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. The developer/owner shall grant cross -access easement(s) to the property to the west as required by the City of La Quinta. 41. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b) (Parking), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 50-foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot. LANDSCAPING 42. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 45. 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. The trees used throughout the site shall be eight to ten feet in height with a minimum container size of 24" box and a minimum trunk caliper of 1.5 inch per Specific Plan 99-036. Palm trees shall have a minimum 10 foot brown trunk height. Planting along Highway 111 shall comply with adopted Highway 111 design theme. P:\STAN\kleine commerciaMpm 31 172 pc coa.wpd 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 Parking lot surfaces shall be screened from view of the streets with landscaping and/or a short decorative wall to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection by the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements. QUALITY ASSURANCE 46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 51. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. PASTANWeine commerciaktpm 31172 pc coampd 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 31172 Kleine Building and Development, Inc. April 22, 2003 FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. 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. 53. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). MISCELLANEOUS 54. Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 99-036. PASTANWeine commerciaktpm 31172 pc coampd 12 ATTACHMENT #1 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 signage. He would prefer to see more logo and less lettering and he believes the proposed sign is a nice balance. With espect to the rear elevation,. if it is not a public entrance, he es not have strong feelings. There is justification for somesignage at this location. He is concerned about having a b6gi' t light on the back of the building. He would suggest allowing'a non -lighted sign. He supports Commissioner Tyler's suggegtions in regard to Page 8 and 10 of the Sign Program. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abeleto adopt Minute Motion 2003-007, approving Sign Application 2003-682, as amended. a. Monument Sign "B" shall be the same style and size as sign „D„ b. The rear sign of the Target building shall be unlighted. C. Page 8, paragraph 6, shall be rewritten and approved by staff. d. Page 10 of the Sign Program shall have the following i added, "in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance." unanimously approved. B. Tentative Parcel Map 31 172 and Site Development Permit 2003-761; a request of Klein Building and Development, Inc. for review of development plans for a seven building commercial complex with 63-550 square feet of floor area and a subdivision of six acres into eight commercial parcels for the property located on the north side of Highway 111, 331 feet west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department and presented a perspective drawing showing one view of the building. 2. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant agreed with the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommendations. Staff stated the ALRC recommended the stone be removed and the applicant wants to retain the stone as they believe it adds dimension to the buildings. They did make the changes to the plant palette. Chairman Butler asked if the ALRC G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 recommendations are normally included in the conditions submitted to the Planning Commission. Staff stated they normally are included. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #1 1 in the Conditions of Approval for both the Tract Map and the Site Development Permit needs to be rewritten for clarity. Also, Condition #40 for both applications does not reflect the shared access for the existing driveway onto Dune Palms Road. On Corporate Center Drive one access is joint, but there is a new access on the northwest corner that should be included in the condition. Page 18 has very little on the lighting; is this covered by the Specific Plan. Staff stated it is conditioned to meet the Specific Plan requirements. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the western boundary would have a block wall. Staff stated the applicant is not proposing a wall. There is a landscape strip with trees and shrubs along the western boundary. Commissioner Kirk asked if the landscape plan on the western boundary appears to be sparse with only palm trees and he questions how much shielding they will provide. Staff stated a detailed landscaping plan will have to be submitted for approval. Commissioner Kirk stated the Radio Active landscaping plan appeared to be more elaborate. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Neil Kleine, owner and developer of the project, gave a presentation on the project. He has no issues with staff's recommendations. His understanding of the ALRC comments was that they were recommendations and not conditions. They will match the Radio Active landscaping plan concept. In regard to the shared access, they are recording easements to be reciprocal between Radio Active and themselves and the Dune Palms Road access. They did submit a complete lighting plan. There are two sides of the project, which will need to have loading areas. They were designed to be screened by placing them backing up to the adjoining businesses loading zones. It is hoped that the project to the west, when it is submitted, will do the same by backing up their loading zone to theirs. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 6. Commissioner Abels asked if they have signed tenants. Mr. Kleine stated two buildings -are spoken for and will be leased. The restaurant site is spoken for. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the rear doors were roll ups. Mr. Kleine stated no, they will be double man doors. Commissioner Tyler asked about Buildings 5 and 6. Mr. Kleine stated they could be either a single tenant or two. They are keeping their options open. 8. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. J. Paul, owner of the two buildings across Corporate Center Drive, stated he would like to thank everyone for helping him complete his buildings. He had been informed by his architect, that this project may have areas of concern to him, or his project. First, the visual elevation is fine. His concern is what will be seen on all four sides of the project. The inside of the project has the "Rancho La Quinta" look with tile roofs, but the Highway 1 1 1 side does not. The view from his project is a flat building with no undulation. The relief, or popout portion is only a foot. He also has a concern with the ends of his buildings; there are flat with no softness. Why was the tile not wrapped around to the outside and onto Highway 111. He would be disappointed if the stone were removed. This building is only 22 feet from the street. He is glad to hear the landscaping will be the same as Radio Active. The side that faces his project should have some tile relief. The same on the ends of, the buildings should be softened and the wing -wall needs to be kept consistent with the stone along the entire front of the building. 9. Mr. Kleine responded by stating he appreciates Mr. Paul's comments. In regard to the shed roofs, he was never informed he had to have a "Rancho La Quinta" look and it is not contained in the Specific Plan. The shed roofs were used to create a courtyard effect. In terms of the landscape setback, he has the same as Mr. Paul and Radio Active. In regard to the window glazing, retail customers will want it to the floor for light and exposure. In regard to the restaurant they will have a pony wall. The stone will remain. They were requested to vary the parapet along Highway 1 1 1 building and will do the same along Corporate Center Drive. In regard to the shed roofs, it is not an option when you are trying to have full ceiling heights. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 10. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Highway 1 1 1 Design Guidelines had any architectural details. Staff stated there are none. Commissioner Kirk stated he is generally in support of the project as it does appear to be high quality. The applicant does need to live up to the commitment that the landscaping will match the Radio Active site. The most problematic problem may be the back of Building 7. His concern is that the property to the west should of been subject to this Specific Plan. As it is not, it is right that this project is there first and the neighbor should design to be sensitive to this. However, this building will be visible from Highway 111 and no one knows when or how that property will be developed and, he believes, there needs to be a lot more relief. This could be done by landscaping. Also, Buildings 5 and 6 should have some architectural detail. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated he has the same concerns. The west wall of Building 7 will be visible for a long time and has no character. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the rear of the other buildings. He is also concerned about the buildings all being painted with the earth tones which will make it drab. 13. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with Commissioners Tyler and Kirk and Mr. Paul. There are a lot of things that could be done to enhance it. 14. Chairman Butler asked if the rear of the buildings should be reviewed in light of the buildings opening to a future project that should be buffered. He questioned whether the Commission should be concerned with a neighboring project. Staff stated yes, the Planning Commission can do so. Typically the Commission has reviewed all the elevations of a project. Chairman Butler stated the property across the street does not have the same concerns this tenant will have. If this is approved as it is, he has no objection to the interior elevations, but how do they address the adjoining projects. 15. Commissioner Abels suggested continuing the project and give the applicant time to address the concerns of the Commission. 9 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 16. Commissioner Tyler stated there has been a precedent set by other projects for controlling the rear elevations that butt up to vacant property, such as the buildings on the east side of Dune Palms Road and the east end of the buildings at the Wal-Mart site. 17. The public hearing was reopened. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue Tentative Parcel Map 31 172 and Site Development Permit 2003-761 to April 22, 2003, with the following recommendations to be addressed by the applicant: a. A revised landscaping plan that is similar to the Radio Active site. b. The elevations shall be revised as follows. 1.) Buildings 5 & 6 additional architectural detail shall be added to the rear of the building. 2.) Building 7 additional articulation and/or landscaping shall be added to the rear of the building. 3.) Buildings 1 and 2 shall be resubmitted with a better diagram and additional detail on the Highway 111 elevation. Unanimously approved. VII. BUSINESS TEMS: A. Continued�ppeal of Public Nuisance Cases 7397 and 7398; a request of Donald d Patricia Cross for consideration of an appeal of a Public Nuisance Determination for the property located at 78-570 Saguaro Road. 1. Commissionee'-Jyler informed the Commission that he and the applicant had babn long term friends and he had discussed this case at length witk City and therefore he feels he is unable to render an impartial obive opinion on this matter and requested to recuse himself and left"'the dais. 2. Chairman Butler asked for the gaff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the inform- -io contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the '13mmunity Development Department. y G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 10 ATTACHMENT #; PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 8, 2003 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-761 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31172 APPLICANT: KLEINE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A SEVEN BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WITH 63,550 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA AND SUBDIVISION OF SIX ACRES INTO EIGHT COMMERCIAL PARCELS FOR THE PROJECT LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 331 FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99- 383 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1999. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. BACKGROUND: The project site is located west of USA Gasoline which is on the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road (Attachment 1). The site is within the La Quinta Corporate Center Specific Plan area. The recently approved Radio Active site is to the east of the subject property. Across Corporate Center Drive to the north is the J. Paul commercial complex. To the west is vacant land not within this specific plan area or approved for any project. P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2002-761 tpm 31172 pc rpt.wpd PROJECT PROPOSAL: Site Development Permit: The applicants are proposing a seven building commercial complex and a Tentative Parcel Map to create parcels for the buildings and one common area parcel for the parking lot, landscape areas and setbacks (Attachment 2). The buildings are placed around the perimeter of the six acre site with two buildings along Highway 111 and one structure (two buildings ) fronting on Corporate Center Drive. One vehicular access driveway is provided on the existing Highway 111 driveway and will be shared with the USA gas station. The existing Dune Palms Road driveway will be shared by the gas station, Radio Active and this project. Two driveways are provided to Corporate Center Drive, with the easterly drive shared with Radio Active. Two future accessways are provided to the west for future vehicular connections to the adjacent property, which at present is not approved for development. At the northwest corner of the site the plan shows existing Corporate Center Drive cul-da-sac encroaching into the parking lot. The future plan is for this street to extend west and connect to the westerly portion of the street which presently exists from Adams Street east. The property between these portions of street is not a part of the La Quinta Corporate Center Specific Plan, but will be required to provide the connecting street and connect internally within the parking lots. Trash area enclosures are spread out around the site near each building. The seven buildings will appear to be six because the two buildings along Corporate Center Drive will share a zero setback and appear to be one building. 254 parking spaces have been provided at a ratio of one space per 250 square feet of floor space. This is permitted for retail uses when over 50,000 square feet of floor space is provided. With this requirement, other commercial uses which require less parking are permitted. Additionally, under these provisions up to 20% of the floor space may be utilized for restaurant uses without providing additional parking. The design of the project incorporates a flat roof with a parapet at a height of 22 feet. An arched arcade with a mansard style clay "s" the roof inserts is provided on the entry (front) sides of each building. A "stacked stone" wainscot treatment is provided around at least three sides of each building. The forth side generally has a small amount at the corners. The "stacked stone" treatment is also provided on the columns of the arcade on the front of the buildings. The stone columns are popouts of less than one foot on most of the remaining non -front sides of the buildings. A decorative cornice treatment is provided at the top of all parapets. In response to concerns of the Architecture and Landscaping Committee, the applicant has revised the roof line of the two buildings facing Highway 111 (building 1 and 2), by lowering P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2002-761 tpm 31172 pc rpt.wpd the parapet in the middle section of each building 18" and "popping" out the end section of the building to vary the appearance. The roof tile will be a carmel blend color. Tan and "coffee" color exterior plaster will be used on the building walls. The stone color will use a brown blend of colors. Window and door frames will be a black anodized color. A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted tree species, their sizes and locations. A pallette lists shrub and groundcover to be used. Sign information is limited to noting a 25 square foot sign on the front and rear of each building. Tentative Parcel Map: The Tentative Parcel Map creates a parcel for each building and one common area parcel for the parking lot, landscape areas and setbacks. Parcels one through seven coincide with the building footprint. Parcel 8 is a common area parcel for the balance of the 6.01 acre site. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE IALRQ: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 5, 2003, and recommended approval of the project by adoption of Minute Motion 2003-008, subject to conditions pertaining to consideration if the stone should be used on the front of the buildings and palm tree use next to Radio Active (Attachment 3). There was discussion on the design of the buildings with the consensus being that the building design as submitted was acceptable. PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 28, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. FINDINGS: The Site Development Permit findings as required by Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolution with the recommended conditions of approval. P:\STAN\kleine commerciaRAp 2002-761 tpm 31172 pc rpt.wpd The Tentative Parcel Map findings as required by Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolution with the recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution 2003- ,approving Site Development permit 2003-761, subject to the attached conditions of approval. 2. Adopt Resolution 2003- ,approving Tentative Parcel Map 31172, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits, including revised south elevation - Buildings 1 and 2 3. Draft minutes of the March 5, 2003, Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner P:\STAN\kleine commercial\sdp 2002-761 tpm 31172 pc rpt.wpd ATTACHMENT Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 5, 2003 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 111, 310 feet west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa gave an overview of the project and introduced Bob Kleine, representing the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated he has no issue with the renderings. The south elevation of Buildings 1 and 2, being set back, and with the use of the stone and landscaping, it will soften 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, as well as the south elevation on Buildings 1 and 2. Mr. Kleine stated that on the north side of Buildings 5 and 6, they will be selling to an ownerloccupant. They probably have single clients on the north building. Therefore, the architectural glazing will continue across the entire wall. Committee Member Cunningham stated that wherever there is a blank wall there needs to be enhanced landscaped, or some architectural detail added. 3. Committee Member Thoms questioned the use of the stone. It appears to be added for mitigation measure and is overdone. His biggest concern is that the roof tine has no relief due to the single height of all the buildings. Mr. Kleine 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 to the front of the building. 5. Committee Member Thoms stated he questions the use of stone on these elevations. Mr. Kleine stated he wanted a similar but enhanced project to the buildings on Cook Street and Highway 111. Committee Member Thoms 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. Kleine stated you tend to get a lot of maintenance problems along the lower portion of the building wall which is another reason for using the stone. G:\WPDOCS\fARLW-5-03.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 5, 2003 6. Committee Member Cunningham remarked how the use of stone on the Desert European Cars building is similar in appearance to the mountains. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the stone. He would prefer to see some relief on the roof line. On the landscaping, he asked what was on the exposed sides where there is a zero lot line. Mr. Kleine stated these were the loading and unloading areas and nothing was proposed. Planning Manager Oscar Orci explained the problem they had in designing the buildings to hide the loading areas. Mr. Kleine stated they will be following through with what was proposed for the Radio Active project to the east. 8. Committee Member Thorns asked if the roof lines could'be raised in some areas to give some relief. Mr. Kleine stated they would raise the parapet walls rather than doing a hip roof. Discussion followed about the south elevations. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if something could be done on Buildings 1 and 2, he would prefer it. 10. Committee Member Thorns stated more relief is needed in the roof line or elevation face itself for Buildings 1 and 2 facing Highway 111. In addition, a consideration should be given to the use of the stone material should be taken. In the landscape plan, the California Fan Palm should be mixed with the Mexican Palm to blend with the Radio Active building. 11. Committee Member Cunningham stated that due to the 65 foot setback for Buildings 1 and 2 from Highway 111, and that the buildings are different sizes, and separated, he believes by adding any architectural changes to the building it will not benefit the building or project. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2003-008, approving Site Development Permit 2003-761, as amended: a. Consideration shall be given to the use of stone on the front elevations. b. The California Fan Palm should be mixed with the Mexican Palm to blend with the Radio Active building. Unanimously approved. r.-\wPnors\ARLC\3-5-03.wnd 4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 22, 2003 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463 STREET CLOSURE RW-C2003-003 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI/ FATHER JACK BARKER REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; CONSIDERATION OF A STREET CLOSURE OF OLD WASHINGTON STREET FRONTAGE ROAD; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING, RETENTION AREAS, AND AN ADDITIONAL ENTRY ON APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES. LOCATION: 47-225 WASHINGTON STREET ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-463/RW-V2003-013/CUP 2002-073/SDP 02-755 APRIL 22, 2003 BACKGROUND: The existing church complex is located just south of the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive. The complex includes a parish hall, a pastoral center, chapel, and associated offices. With the increase of attendance at masses, the applicant proposes to expand their parking lot facilities to meet the demand (Attachment 1). PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development permit to expand the parking lot south of the parish hall. Landscaping and retention basins are also proposed as well as a new project entrance. The existing entrance is proposed to remain and the existing grass parking lot will be removed. In order to accommodate the retention basins, a street closure for Washington Street frontage road is requested. The proposed closure of the Washington Street frontage road from Highland Palms Drive south to the current Washington Street alignment is a proposal of both the City and St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis of Assisi has proposed an expansion of their parking lot south of the existing church and has submitted a conceptual site plan along with a conditional use permit appiication. During this application process church representatives met with City staff on multiple occasions to discuss traffic circulation and drainage problems relating to the development of approximately 29 acres bounded to the north by the existing church, and to the south by the exiting La Quinta Arts Foundation(LQAF) Site. As a result of these discussions City staff and Church representatives concur that this street closure would provide opportunity for stormwater retention and a traffic signal, which would resolve the drainage problems in this area and improve traffic circulation. Access/Circulation: As part of the Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan (approved 3/21 /89) Washington Street was realigned south of Highway 111 in order to eliminate conflicts with the existing single family residential frontage between Singing Palms Drive and Highland Palms Drive. This realignment created a 32-foot wide frontage road, southbound right turn egress only at Singing Palms Drive, five phase signal at Highland Palms Drive, and a median divider along the St. Francis of Assisi Frontage. Since these improvements were completed the following traffic circulation problems have been observed. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-463/RW-V2003-013/CUP 2002-073/SDP 02-755 APRIL 22, 2003 A. Some vehicles traveling southbound on Washington Street during commute hours exit at Singing Palms Drive, and use the frontage road to bypass congestion on Washington Street. These vehicles travel south through the Highland Palms Drive intersection passing St. Francis of Assisi and merge onto Washington Street again. This circulation pattern introduces unwanted vehicular traffic on the Washington Street frontage road and increases congestion at the Highland Palms Drive intersection. B. Highland Palms Drive is the only signalized intersection serving as an inlet for St. Francis of Assisi and as an outlet for the Highland Palms neighborhood. When St. Francis of Assisi holds services on weekends, holidays or during special events the intersection is congested with traffic trying to get in and out. Vehicles traveling to St. Francis of Assisi must travel through the intersection and then make an immediate left turn onto the frontage road. This turning movement does not provide for stacking of cars waiting to turn south onto the frontage road and often leaves vehicles waiting in the intersection after the signal has cycled to the next phase. C. In 2002 the La Quinta Arts Foundation completed construction on their festival grounds. The Arts Foundation site is located on the west side of Washington Street immediately north of Avenue 48. This site has two entry drives along the west side of Washington Street, providing right in and right out access. Vehicles traveling north on Washington Street wishing to enter the festival site must continue north to Highland Palms Drive and make a U- Turn. Likewise, vehicles leaving the festival site who wish to turn left must travel south to the Avenue 48 intersection and make a U-Turn. This circulation pattern increases congestion at both Highland Palms Drive and Avenue 48 intersections. D. At the intersection of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive a median opening was approved and recently constructed. This opening was installed to serve the future signalization planned for this intersection. A signalized intersection at this location would provide for left turn movements into Lake La Quinta and into the property to the west including the 29 Acre church property and the Arts Foundation festival site. However, this improvement cannot be completed with the current alignment of the frontage road merging with Washington Street immediately north of this intersection. Area Drainage: The Highland Palms neighborhood (Tract No. 2117 & 2043, recorded in 1960) was designed without any facilities to mitigate stormwater or nuisance water flows PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-463/RW-V2003-013/CUP 2002-073/SDP 02-755 APRIL 22, 2003 entering or leaving the area. As a result these flows are collected within the interior streets and conveyed south to a confluence point at the intersection of Highland Palms Drive and the Washington Street frontage road, where they continue south along the frontage road and outlet into a natural low area located in the southeast portion of the 29 acre church site. During the 100-year 24-hour storm event the Highland Palms area generates approximately 7.5 acre feet of stormwater runoff. This runoff is deposited and retained on the 29 acre church site as described above. In addition to the stormwater runoff, during the average surge period the church site receives nuisance water at a rate of 45 cubic feet per hour. In order for the City to approve the proposed street closure it is necessary for the Planning Commission and the City Council to make a finding that the street is no longer needed for motorized vehicular traffic. Other than light usage by vehicles traveling south out of the Highland Palms neighborhood, the frontage road mainly serves the existing St. Francis of Assisi church. Closure of the frontage road will divert that light southbound traffic from Highland Palms through the signalized intersection at Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic will continue to be accommodated through the closure area, and the church will be adequately served by the two proposed entry drives. The proposed entry drive opposite Lake La Quinta Drive is located approximately 150-feet north of the Arts Foundation's secondary driveway. Therefore, the proposed road closure and installation of a signalized intersection at this location is subject to the closing of the Arts Foundation's secondary driveway and the following condition: "The applicant (St. Francis of Assisi) shall dedicate the necessary right of way to the City to insure that access is provided to the La Quinta Arts Foundation property through the proposed signalized intersection." Grading: The proposed project would result in the movement of earthwork of approximately 66,400 cubic yards (Attachment 2). The proposed grading on the site is anticipated to be balanced. The area west of the parking lot will have a 3' high retaining wall with ditches just inside the wall to help runoff drain into the infrastructure which lead into the retention basins. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to mitigate impacts regarding dust as a result of grading. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-463/RW-V2003-013/CUP 2002-073/SDP 02-755 APRIL 22, 2003 Parking: The Zoning Code requires one space per three seats within the main auditorium and one space per 25 square feet of gross floor area within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats, plus required parking for other uses on the site. Total required parking for the church is 300 spaces. Currently, 178 parking spaces are provided on the north, west, and south sides of the existing church. These parking spaces will remain. The new parking lot will add an additional 469 spaces. While this parking is more than adequate, it is anticipated that it will accommodate future possible land uses such as a new church, rectory, education center, and youth center. When plans for these proposed uses are submitted for review, they will be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration. Parking Lot Lighting: The proposed parking lot lighting consists of a durable corrosion resistant cast aluminum fixture mounted on a 4 inch square metal pole, and is not to exceed twelve (12) feet in height, similar to the lighting at the La Quinta Arts Foundation site. The applicant will be required to meet the City's "Dark Sky" Ordinance, so that lighting will be prevented from shedding glare onto adjacent properties. Landscaping: The conceptual landscape plan for the site consists of a wide variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers that will provide an overall design that is prevalent throughout the City. The retention basins will be landscaped to provide visual relief and act as a buffer between the street and the parking lot. Landscaping and a meandering sidewalk will be installed within the vacated street area adjacent to Washington Street. Landscaped planters will be provided to visually enhance the parking lot (Attachment 3). Signage: There is no proposal for new signs at this time. The existing signage at the northern most entrance will remain. Any additional signage will require an application and City approval. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-463/RW-V2003-013/CUP 2002-073/SDP 02-755 APRIL 22, 2003 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee: This project was presented to the Architecture & Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) at their March 4, 2003 meeting, and they recommended approval of the project as presented. The minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachment 4). Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 10, 2003, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, one letter has been received and is attached (Attachment 5). Any additional written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve the street closure per Vehicle Code §21 101(a)(1), and the La Quinta City Council Resolution 2000-99,which establishes policies for closure of streets to vehicular traffic, and findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit, per §9.210.020 and §9.210.010, respectively, of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2002-463) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of the Street Closure RW-V2003-013, subject to findings and conditions; 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of CUP 2002-073, subject to findings and conditions; 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council approval of SDP 2002-755, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Conceptual Site Plan PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-463/RW-V2003-013/CUP 2002-073/SDP 02-755 APRIL 22, 2003 2. Conceptual Grading Plan 3. Conceptual Landscape Plans 4 March 5, 2003, Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Meeting Minutes 5 Letter from Stephen E. Hill, dated April 15, 2003 Prepared by: i Martin Magana Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463 APPLICANT: ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22"d day of April, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-463 for Conditional Use Permit 2002- 073 and Site Development Permit 2002-755 to allow a street closure of the Washington Street frontage road, the expansion of the parking lot, landscaping and lighting, retention areas, and an additional entry on approximately 30 acres, generally located t 600 feet south of the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 643-090-026, WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-463) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002- 463. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463 APRIL 22, 2003 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 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 have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2002- 463 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463 APRIL 22, 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 Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of La Quinta, certification of Environmental Assessment 2002-463 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-463 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22"d day of April, 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 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Street Closure, Frontage Road, and Conditional Use Permit 2002-073, Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Martin Magaria, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: West side of Washington Street, approximately 600 feet south of Highland Palms Drive. APN: 643-090-026 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino 1201 East Highland Avenue San Bernardino, CA 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The street closure is proposed to eliminate the existing frontage road east of the Saint Francis of Assisi church property, as part of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit applications discussed below. The street closure will extend only from Highland Palms Drive southerly to the existing Washington Street. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit is required to allow the construction of additional parking, retention basins, landscaping and lighting, and an additional site entry for the existing Saint Francis of Assisi church, as a first phase of expansion of the church property. Future plans P:\Martin\EA 02-463 St Franc is\EA463Checklist. wpd 1 may include the construction of a meeting hall, a rectory, new church, conversion of the existing church into a meeting hall, youth center, play field, education center and ancillary facilities including a new project entry and landscaping areas. These land uses will be reviewed separately in the future, and are not included in this analysis. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Existing church, single family residential South: La Quinta Arts Foundation property, partially developed West: Santa Rosa mountains East: Washington Street, Vacant Community Commercial lands 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District PAMartin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Checklist.wpd 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared Is 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. OR I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 01 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. �;'�� �,G.�,r.� " � _ ,�_ mod' ;�: ,.,,�_ ❑ Signature Date P:\Martin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses 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: a1 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. PAMartin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 4 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. 111-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. land in proximity to project site) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Qjality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 9 X X M X n� X X KI P:\Martin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 5 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) 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? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion... Biological Survey," AMEC, February 2003) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion... Biological Survey," AMEC, February 2003) 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? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion... Biological Survey," AMEC, February 2003) 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? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion.... Biological Survey," AMEC, February 2003) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion... Biological Survey," AMEC, February 2003) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report," CRM Tech, August 1999) X X X X X X X X X ':\IVlartin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 6 VI iLM b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? ("Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report," CRM Tech, August 1999) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report," CRM Tech, August 1999) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) 9 X X X X X X X X X ':\Marlin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 7 b1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan) X X X X X X X X X X ':\]Martin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 8 f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan p. 95) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Parking lot-- no ground borne vibration) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. III-144 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map) X X M X FQq X 194 X K9 1I P:\N1artin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 9 XI1. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) XIIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) X X X X X X X X KI ':\Wlartin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 10 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 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? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project Site Plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project Description) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, P. 58 ff.) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X X X X X X X X X X X X X ':\Martin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 11 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 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. None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. 3eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. 3eneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. City of La Quinta Municipal Code "Saint Francis of Assisi Expansion Project Biological Survey," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, February, 2003. "Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report Parking Lot at St. Francis of Assisi Church," prepared by CRM Tech, August, 1999. P:',Martin\EA 02-463 St Francis\EA463Check1ist.wpd 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-463 I. a), b) & c) The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit is for the construction of a parking lot only. The parking lot will consist of paving, landscaping and lights. No structures are proposed. There will be no impact on a scenic vista. I. d) The project will generate light from parking lot lighting. The City's dark sky ordinance will be applied to all lighting plans submitted for the proposed project site. These requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties, which will mitigate the potential impacts associated with the project. The potential impacts associated with light and glare are not expected to be significant. II. a)-c) The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to Williamson Act contracts. III. a), b) The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit will allow the construction of parking spaces in an area currently used as a temporary parking lot. No new structures are planned, therefore the number of trips will not increase at the site, since the capacity of the existing church building will not change. Ill.c) & d) The construction of the proposed parking lot will generate dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe non - attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 5.51 acres of land. Cut and fill is expected to be balanced. This has the potential to generate 145.46 pounds per day in fugitive dust during the grading of the site. The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM 10. These include the following control measures. CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control PAMartin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Landscaping of the Washington Street parkway and the retention basins shall be completed immediately upon completion of precise grading of the site. 8. The areas identified as Phase II or greater on the site plan shall be landscaped and irrigated with either sod or hydroseed, or desert wildflower mix prior to completion of the parking lot. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd IV) a) 11. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards included in the 2002 SIP for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley. The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable odors. A biological resource survey was completed for the proposed project'. The biological resource survey identified three species of concern which could be affected by the proposed project: the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, the round -tailed Ground Squirrel and Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The impacts associated with the Fringe -toed Lizard shall be mitigated through implementation of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and the required payment of $600 per acre for the 14.66 acres of habitat to be disturbed. The site is also likely habitat for the Round - tailed Ground Squirrel, which is one of the species included in the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, impacts to the squirrel will require mitigation. Finally, the toe of slope at the western boundary of the project site is the edge of critical habitat for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, a federally listed endangered species. Although no lambing areas are known to occur above and west of the project site, construction activities at the site could have an impact on such a lambing area, should development of the site not occur immediately. Mitigation measures will be required to ensure that there are no impacts to bighorn sheep resulting from implementation of the proposed project, or subsequent phases of the project. Mitigation measures for all species are listed below: 1. To mitigate for the potential impacts to Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard habitat, the project proponent shall pay the $600 per acre mitigation fee for the 14.66 acres of land being disturbed for the parking lot prior to the issuance of grading permits. Subsequent phases of development may also be required to pay the fee, should the HCP be in effect at the time of development. 2. In order to mitigate for potential impacts to Round -tailed Ground Squirrel, the project proponent shall contribute a fee of $600 per acre for the 9.45 acres of currently undisturbed desert lands on the site, prior to the issuance of grading permits. Subsequent phases of development will be required to either contribute similar amounts for "Saint Francis of Assisi Expansion Project Biological Survey," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, February, 2003. PAMartin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd the area of vacant desert land being disturbed, or to contribute the fee imposed by the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan, when adopted. 3. The construction area shall be clearly delineated to keep project impacts off of adjacent native habitat. The project proponent shall cause the project boundaries to be staked and roped off or fenced at the edge of the 14.66 acre project area. 4. Vegetation removal shall be limited to the area within the boundary of the 14.66 acre construction site. 5. Wherever possible, existing roads and access routes should be utilized to access the site during construction, rather than constructing new ones. 6. Vehicle and equipment staging shall be limited to existing disturbed areas and cleared areas. 7. Non-native plant species (especially Oleander), shall not be used on the project landscaping. The project landscaping plan shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist and approved prior to the installation of any landscaping on the site. 8. Domestic pets shall be prohibited on -site during construction. 9. Should the project proponent wish to begin construction between January 1 and June 30 of any given year, the project proponent shall confer with the California Department of Fish and Game prior to any ground disturbing activity, to determine whether a lambing area occurs immediately above the project site. Should a lambing area be identified, the project proponent shall implement mitigation measures, as required by CDFG. Should the initiation of construction occur between July 1 and December 31 of any given year, no contact with CDFG shall be required. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts of the proposed project will be less than significant. PAMartin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd V. a)-d) A cultural resources survey was conducted on the project site'. The cultural resource report identified and recorded two potentially significant sites within the 29 acre site. RIV-6135 was fully excavated, and found not to be significant under the requirements of CEQA. RIV-6134, however, has been recorded but not investigated. In order to assure that there are no significant impacts to cultural resources, therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 1. A Phase II cultural resource analysis shall be required for site RIV-6134 prior to any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of that site location. 2. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. VI. a) i►-iv) The proposed project lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The site is in an area subject to landslides, due to the adjacent mountain slopes. The parking lot construction will not result in any structures, so the potential impacts from rockfall are not expected to be significant. VI. b) The site is located in a severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be required to implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant level. "Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report Parking Lot at St. Francis of Assisi Church," prepared by CRM Tech, August 1999. P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd VI. c1-e) The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The project proponent will be required to submit a site -specific geotechnical study at the time of building permit issuance. These standards will lower the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Vlll. a), c),d) & e) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows. The City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on -site. The proposed project will be required to conform to this standard, which is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. Vill. b) The proposed project will result in the construction of parking lot, and no immediate expansion of church facilities. There is therefore no impact to groundwater from this phase of the project. Future phases will be reviewed individually, and if they include structures, will be analysed for their impacts to groundwater resources. IX. a)-c) The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site, with approval of a and Site Development Permit Use Permit. The project will not divide an existing community, or conflict with a land use plan or with a habitat or natural community conservation plan. X.a) & b) The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain resources. XI. a) & b) The construction of a parking lot will not expose people to either high noise levels or groundborne vibration, since they will not remain in the area, and since no equipment which might cause vibration will be constructed. XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the north and south of the site at some distance. The construction will be a sufficient distance away that noise levels at the residential property lines should be well below City maximum permitted standards. XI. d) & e) The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd XII. a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of a parking lot to serve the existing church. No impacts to population and housing are expected. XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. XIV. a) & b) The construction of a parking lot to serve the existing church will not impact recreational services. XV. a) & b) The proposed parking lot will not generate additional trips on Washington Street, since no additional structures will be constructed at this time. Future development of structures on the site will be analysed as those projects are proposed. The parking lot will be required to meet City standards for such facilities. No impact to circulation is expected at this time. XV. c)-g) The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create any hazardous design features. The site plan includes parking requirements generally in conformance to the City's standards. The site plan provides for emergency access points. Alternative transportation in the form of bus stops will be implemented throughout the area based on General Plan policies and programs. XVI. a)-f) Utilities are available at the project site. The parking lot will require a small amount of electric service to power parking lot lighting. No significant impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project. XVII. a) The proposed project has the potential to impact the habitat of sensitive species without mitigation. The mitigation provided in Section IV), above, reduces these potential impacts to a less than significant level. XVII. d► The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality impacts during the construction process. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, which can cause negative health P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd effects, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to a less than significant level. P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.wpd ao w o O q w U H o a E+ o O �Q W U N A �a U a UK, U •: a O VWZ It How max o a Q � o° �z a0 H z0 � N U O O cn UD N Q � � a o a H a w H d Ca U U W OV b � � cqs w F W 'v U° � Via. a uo� Q UowQ y a? vn '�,' cn o N a CAa a E-+ to bD Cd o to C7 O O V U O ° zi O colI. F Cd p o Vi y O O bD NCj HO 0 o� 0 on o to t to Cd w w brl b b U U U CQ U Q m GQ N d �° •a �i � rA o 0 N r a ti N d V� to O ai U bD "o r-+ O ey0 O v V b Cd r o aH a a O a s -o a 3 Y c O rn w m CJ F LL V) rl 0 N O n W [W. Q Q A A U pq A a� a U U W O U U U O 0 Cd 0 ., O O w b CA 0 U o U U GL rh W p U U °�' Y °� Y o b %. U cd a� U� a C CF•1 b Cd Cd Li Cd �' Cd Cd tb Cd tb Cd 0 � j cod O O O O to 0 0 a o 0 O Cd a a c4 44 W a o 0 zz A a A o R A A ..,, ..,, o ';j U A pq O U A pq pq pq pq 0 C4 o b a: o Cd pi d �y\I�\j W s, cd `fl •� . �.y van rA �T�0 (d �O z Q� Cd U O co O � O • � Nwl� O O U ^ N 40, w i+ Cd b \ J N H p4 cu 1�•'i O Q� V`u (d En �F•Y.�1 O b4 bA .5!Cd > Fr M o) y O a�i .b O 44.1 o U W U O � � a a C/) a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CLOSURE OF A 1,290-FOOT LONG SEGMENT OF THE WASHINGTON STREET FRONTAGE ROAD TO MOTORIZED VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SOUTH OF HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE CASE NO.: RW-C 2003-003 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA & SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22th day of April, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the City of La Quinta to review the proposed street closure of a 1,290-foot long segment of the Washington Street Frontage Road to motorized vehicular traffic south of Highland Palms Drive; and WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta desires to close the 1,290-foot long segment of the Washington Street Frontage Road to motorized vehicular traffic south of Highland Palms Drive, which is delineated on Exhibits A and B attached hereto, but continue to accommodate pedestrians and bicycle traffic through the closure area; and WHEREAS, proposed closure to motorized vehicular traffic is permissible under Vehicle Code §21101(a)(1) and La Quinta City Council Resolution 2000-99; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending closure of the proposed street segment: 1. The 1,290-foot long segment of the Washington Street Frontage Road between Highland Palms Drive and the realigned portion of Washington Street where it transitions back onto the half -section line of Section 30 near Lake La Quinta Drive is no longer needed for motorized vehicular traffic. 2. Closure of the 1,290-foot long segment of the Washington Street Frontage Road is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Circulation System Policy Diagram contained therein. Planning Commission Resolution 2003- RW-C 2003-0031 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: Section 1. The area proposed for closure to motorized vehicular traffic is more particularly described as being that part of the old Washington Street alignment roughly centered on the half -section line of Section 30 (now commonly called the Washington Street Frontage Road) located south of the Highland Palms Drive south right of way line, where said southerly line projects across the proposed closure area; and located north of the westerly right of way line of the realigned portion of Washington Street where it transitions back to its alignment centered on the Section 30 half -section line; the westerly right of way line of the realigned Washington Street is uniformly offset westerly of the centerline by sixty feet. The area of closure varies in width from seventy-four feet wide at the north end, east to west, to eighty-five feet wide near the south end before it transitions to a point approximately one thousand two -hundred ninety feet south of Highland Palms, and contains approximately 103,000 square feet. Section 2. The closure area is no longer needed for motorized vehicular traffic and there are sufficient alternative routes in the immediate area to complete access needs of motorists to properties in the area with inconsequential impact. Section 3. Closure of the 1,290-foot long segment of Washington Street Frontage Road is consistent with the General Plan. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 22th day of April, 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 EXMBIT A EXHIBIT F 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING, RETENTION AREAS, AND AN ADDITIONAL ENTRY ON AN APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRE SITE. CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 APPLICANT: ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22"6 day of April, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by St. Francis of Assisi, for approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-073, to allow the expansion of the parking lot, landscaping and lighting, retention areas, and an additional entry on approximately 30 acres, generally located ± 600 feet south of the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 643-090-026, WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-463), and determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified; 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 make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design and scale of the project is compatible with the Low Density Residential Land Use designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Low Density Residential Zoning District, including but not limited to, setbacks, parking, landscape design, and exterior lighting. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 APRIL 22, 2003 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2002-463 was prepared for this project for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity in that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing development. 5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible with the existing site development and quality of design prevalent in the City in that the project meets the development standards imposed by the City's Zoning Code. 6. Landscape Design: As conditioned, the landscaping of the proposed project, including but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the site, visually emphasize prominent design elements, provide a harmonious transition between the parking lot and the church, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of the plant palette, placement of shade trees and decorative plants, provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Conditional Use Permit; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of La Quinta, approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-073 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 APRIL 22, 2003 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22"d day of April, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2003 GENERAL 1. The Conditions of Approval for this Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-073) are binding with the Conditions of Approval of Site Development Permit (SDP 2002-755) for the same project. 2. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to compliance with Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code, as applicable. 4. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 (D). 5. 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 Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 6. Development of this site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits approved and contained in the files for Conditional Use Permit 2002-073 and Site Development Permit 2002-755. 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 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING, RETENTION AREAS, AND AN ADDITIONAL ENTRY ON AN APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRE SITE. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 APPLICANT: ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22"d day of April, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by St. Francis of Assisi, for approval of Site Development Permit 2002-755, to allow the expansion of the parking lot, landscaping and lighting, retention areas, and an additional entry on approximately 30 acres, generally located ± 600 feet south of the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 643-090-026, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-463), and determined that the proposed Site Development Permit 2002-755 will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified; 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 make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify recommending to the City Council of the City of La Quinta, approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design and scale of the project is compatible with the Low Density Residential Land Use designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Low Density Residential Zoning District, including but not limited to, setbacks, parking, landscape design, and exterior lighting. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 APRIL 22, 2003 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2002-463 was prepared for this project with certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Site Development Permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity in that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and proposed development. 5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City in that the project meets the development standards imposed by the City's Zoning Code. 6. Landscape Design: As conditioned, the landscaping of the proposed project, including but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the site, visually emphasize prominent design elements, provide a harmonious transition between the parking lot and the church, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of the plant palette, placement of shade trees and decorative plants, provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of La Quinta, approval of Site Development Permit 2002-755, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 APRIL 22, 2003 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22"d day of April, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 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). PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 5. Unless the ultimate developed right-of-way can be documented, the public street right- of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street - Additional right-of-way shall be acquired and dedicated as follows: a. If the pending General Plan Amendment that proposes to change the street classification of Washington Street from an Augmented Arterial to a Major Arterial is approved by the City Council, the right of way dedication shall consist of providing additional right of way to accommodate a deceleration/right turn only lane at the Washington Street/Lake La Quinta Drive intersection. The right of way dedication shall be 12 feet wide and length to be determined pursuant to a traffic study prepared during the design phase of the street improvements. b. If the pending General Plan Amendment is not approved, the right of way dedication shall be 6 feet wide across the entire frontage of the subject development site from the south limit of the property approximately 450-feet north to the south end of the frontage road divider island. C. The right of way dedication for the west leg of the Washington Street/lake La Quinta Drive intersection shall extend approximately 230-feet west and 200-feet south to the north property line of the La Quinta Arts Foundation property. The dedication width shall be 6-feet wider than the proposed drive width. Reasonable adjustments to the alignment will be allowed to accommodate onsite grading and improvement layout proposed by the applicant. 6. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 7. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows: 1. Washington Street - 20-Foot from the R/W-P/L The setback requirement applies to all frontage 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 dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 8. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, and common areas. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 9. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street is restricted. Except for those access points identified on the Conceptual Site Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 10. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for the adjoining parcel(s) to construct and use the shared entry drive on Washington Street. 11. If the approved access drives are located in whole or in part on the adjoining parcel(s), the applicant shall furnish proof of easements for construction and use of drives on those parcels, including the recordation of a reciprocal access agreement. 12. 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. 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. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. 1. Off -Site Street Plan: 1" = 40' Horizontal, 1" = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. 2. Landscape Plan: 1" = 20' Horizontal 3. Storm Drain Plan: 1" = 40' Horizontal, 1"= 4' Vertical 4. Site Development 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. Site Development plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements to include ADA requirements for parking stalls, access to the building and access to public transportation. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. Storm Drain plans shall normally include all hydrologic and hydraulic analysis including but not necessarily limited to hydraulic grade lines, Pipe flows, and inlet structure sizing. 15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster - image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENT 17. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 GRADING 18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 19. 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. 20. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: 1. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, 2. A preliminary geotechnical (Soils) report prepared by a qualified engineer, and 3. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. 4. 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 Site Development plan 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. 21. 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. 22. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the back slope (ie the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 23. 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 Site Development plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 24. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 25. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable 26. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 27. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 28. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 29. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum depth of retention basin (at overflow weir location) shall be six feet for common basins 30. Nuisance water shall be retained on or disposed of in an approved method. UTILITIES 31. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 32. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APR122, 2002 33. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 34. 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. 35. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street — The west half (60-feet) of a 120-foot street improvement. Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the property from the frontage road divider island to the south limits of the 29 acre site — approximately 450-feet. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include: (a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk along the entire frontage of the 29 acre site — approximately 760-feet. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curbline 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) Deceleration/stacking lane at both entrances. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 The length of each deceleration/stacking lane shall be determined pursuant to a traffic study prepared during the design phase of the street improvements. B. PARKING LOTS 2) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 C. TRAFFIC SIGNAL The Applicant shall install the traffic signal at the project's main Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 25% of cost to design and install traffic signal. D. STREET CLOSURE AREA The site layout proposed by the applicant can not be implemented, unless the City Council approves the proposed street closure application. If the street closure is approved, the applicant shall design and install additional improvements (to be identified by City staff) in the street closure area at City expense subject to a reimbursement agreement. This reimbursement agreement will be drafted and approved by the City Council at a future date, but before the applicant can commence onsite construction. 36. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: 1. Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive - One 60-foot wide shared entry approximately 110-feet north of the La Quinta Arts Foundation's festival site. Aligned with Lake La Quinta Drive — Signalized intersection, full turning movements allowed. 2. Washington Street — One 64-foot wide entry drive approximately 600-feet south of Highland Palms Drive — deceleration lane right in only and right out only. 37. 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. 38. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the site boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. (E.g., grading, traffic control devices, alignment transitions, elevations or dimensions of streets and sidewalks.) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 39. 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. 40. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1/8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 41. 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: Washington Street, per Caltrans requirements 42. 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. LANDSCAPING 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 45. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 PUBLIC SERVICES 46. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer QUALITY ASSURANCE 47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. 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. MAINTENANCE 51. 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 53. The conditions of approval for this Site Development Permit (SDP 2002-755) are binding with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-073) for the same project Page 10 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 54. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 55. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to compliance with Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code, as applicable. 56. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 (D). 57. 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 Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 58. Development of this site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits approved and contained in the files for Site Development Permit 2002-755 and Conditional Use Permit 2002-073. 59. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures listed in the Environmental Assessment to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 60. Grading, landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Water District for review to ensure efficient water management techniques. 61. Appropriate fees, if any, shall be paid to the Coachella Valley Water District in accordance with their current regulations for service to the site. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 62. Approved super fire hydrants shall be spaced 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. 63. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is located, so as to identify fire hydrant locations during an emergency. Page 11 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED APRIL 22, 2002 64. Fire Department connections shall be not less than 15 feet, nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the street side of the buildings. 65. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4500 gpm and actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2250 gpm for a 4-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. 66. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 67. 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. LIGHTING 68. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permit. Said plan shall show the type of standard, manufacturer's specifications and locations on the site. Low sodium pressure lighting shall be utilized throughout the parking lot so as to reduce glare to the surrounding area. In no case shall lighting standards for the parking lot be taller than 12 feet. SIGNS 69. A sign application shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. All signs shall be in compliance with Section 9.160 of the Zoning Code. Page 12 of 3 ATTACHMENT # Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 5, 2003 C. Site Development Permit 2002-755; a request of St. Francis of Assisi for review of landscaping plans for a parking lot for the property located at 47-225 Washington Street 1. Associate Planner Martin Magana gave an overview of the project and introduced Father Barker, Randy Purnel, and Vince Starace, who were available to answer questions on the project. 2. Committee Member Thoms asked if the intersection would be signalized. Staff stated it would be with turn pockets to make full turn movements. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated that with the added development of the church and the perimeter landscaping, it brings the church back into a comprehensive development of the entire area. He likes the layout of the area now. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked who did the layout. Father Barker stated RBF Engineering started the process and now Warner Engineering is finishing it as they did the La Quinta Arts Foundation. 5. Committee Member Thoms complemented them on the layout and asked that there be some variation in the retention basin to reach a more natural look. That the parking lot include the Washingtonia Palms at one of the entrances, and they need to blend use of the different palm trees on both projects. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the use of the Oak trees and commended the applicant on the size of the islands as they are sizeable at 15 feet and will allow the plant material to thrive. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2003-009, approving Site Development Permit 2002-755, as amended. a. The plant pallette shall include Washingtonia Robusta to complement the parking lot to south. b. The Evergreen Pear tree shall be changed to a different variety. Unanimously approved. G:\WPD©CS\WRLC\3-5-03.wpd 5 ATTACH M EN1 Stephen E. Hill 46-965 Highland Palms Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 April 15, 2003 Mr. Anthony Moreno, Code Compliance Officer City of La Quinta PO Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Site Development Permit 2002 — 755 Conditional Use Permit 2002 — 073 Enviromental Assessment 2002 - 463 Dear Mr. Moreno, Thank you for your prompt reply of February 19, 2003 to my letter regarding an on -going condition that exists between residents along Highland Palms Drive and St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church. The information you provided did indeed answer the questions I had at the time, however, after further research the residents along Highland Palms and I have concerns about the impending expansion of the Church. Specifically, according to documents retrieved from public records, the Church did not comply with approvals given by the City of La Quinta for landscaping along the property lines that the Church and the residents along Highland Palms Drive share. A letter from Lawrence Stevens, Planning Director City of La Quinta, dated March 30, 1984 to Robert Ricciardi of AIA & Associates, the architects for the project, indicates in item 4 that the City had not approved the landscaping plan and recommended the planting of 15 gallon Japanese Oleanders. Within the letter, Mr. Stevens indicated that portions of the unapproved plans would affect the residents along Highland Palms Drive in item 3; "Those lights will, however, be required, at minimum, to be shielded from adjacent residences along the north property line". Though this section references the parking lot lighting, it is clear that the City was concerned about the impact of the Church on its' neighbors. The parking lot lighting, to us, currently is not as much as an issue as the car lights cast into our homes each time there is an event in the evening at the Church. A letter dated April 3, 1984 to the City Council from Alice Whytock, a resident at 46-945 Highland Palms Drive at the time, expressed concerns about, among other things, her feeling of an "invasion of privacy" after the Church had informed her that no privacy fence would be constructed. In his response to this letter, Mr. Frank Usher, City Manager at the time referenced the fact that; "oleanders will be planted at the top of the wall to screen both the parking area and other light'. Landscaping drawings in the City's file with a stamp of approval signed by Larry Stevens dated April 23, 1984, clearly indicate that the referenced oleanders would be installed and maintained. Instead of the referenced oleanders, trees that now tower over our properties were installed and are not maintained. Clearly, at the time of construction, the City was concerned about the impact of the Church on its' neighbors when it recommended the oleanders as they would provide a thick low-lying screening from the parking lot to the neighborhood. With the elevation of the church property being +/- four feet higher o Page 2 April 15, 2003 than our properties, 6 or 8 foot fences on our property offer little relief for us from the sight lines of the parishioners nor the headlights of their cars. To assume what growth projections the City foresaw at the time is unreasonable, however, we believe that the growth and success of the community of St. Francis of Assisi is, perhaps, to a point where the impact of its' operation on the neighborhood is beyond original expectations. Over the past years, the Church has been contacted regarding the trees along our shared property lines that are a public nuisance. Key issues include but are not limited to: • The heights of the trees are such that our backyards are all but completely shaded year-round. • Those with children along this section of Highland Palms Drive must go to their front yards to play during the cooler months and risk small children playing along what is, especially during a Church event, a busy street. • The shade imposed by the Church property that renders our pools too cool to swim in and little sunlight for sunbathing. • The invasion of privacy along our street as parishioners pass through the existing parking lot and our neighborhood. • The garbage that blows into our homes from the parking lot of the Church consisting of everything from discarded items from the multitude of vehicles to the branches and dead leaves from the trees that were installed. • This accumulation of debris between the Church retaining wall and our fences poses a significant fire hazard to our properties as well as the vehicles parked at the Church. In their response to our concerns, Vince Starace who is the Director of Parish Life Ministries for St. Francis said in part; "One, will you agree to invest the necessary funds to pay for the construction of the wall in a contract with the wall contractor and second, you need to understand that the current trees are set back 5 feet from our property line". We have no dispute with the set back, but are offended by the tone of his response and recommendation that we pay for Church property. In short, we the neighbors of the applicant, respectfully request that the original approvals for the expansion of the subject project be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council to confirm compliance with the City codes and conditions as awarded prior to the extension of any approval for additional construction that may further affect the quiet enjoyment of its' neighbors. Should any variations be discovered, our plea is that these be remedied with the current situation in mind. Sincerely, The Residents of the City of La Quinta Along its' Highland Palms Drive STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 22, 2003 CASE NO.: SATE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) 2001-711, TIME EXTENSION NO. 1 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A SUPERMARKET, DRUG STORE AND BANK BUILDINGS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET APPLICANT: BADEN FAMILY TRUST GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) ZONING: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-433 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-082, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-066, AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711. 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: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/GOLF COURSE EAST: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: GOLF COURSE AAPC staff rpt. SDP 2001-711,Time Ex NO. 1 .wpd This Site Development Permit was recommended for approval on December 11, 2001 by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council on February 19, 2002. in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment 01-082, Conditional Use Permit 01- 066, and Specific Plan 2001-054. Pff MW-f-TOLTOR411WIF1 The project site is located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. The project site is vacant, and is bordered by the All American Canal on the south, Jefferson Street on the west, Avenue 52 on the north, and vacant land on the east (Attachment 1). The site is designated for Neighborhood Commercial on both the General Plan and Zoning Maps. Project Description The Neighborhood Commercial Center would allow up to 120,700 square feet of retail commercial development on the project site. The proposed uses for the project include a supermarket, attached small retail stores, a drugstore with drive -through, bank building with drive -through, gas station and car wash, two fast food restaurant pads with drive-throughs, a coffee store pad with drive -through, and three miscellaneous retail sites (pads B, C and F). The architectural style of the proposed project is generally "Southwestern." The buildings are proposed to be stucco, with flat roofs and large pillars supporting a shaded walkway area. The landscape plan is limited to Palo Verde, Mesquite and Acacia for trees, and a mix of drought tolerant shrubs and succulents for ground cover. Little turf appears to be proposed. The attached plans and elevations are copies from the original submittal. At the time of the original approval by City Council, six Conditions of Approval (No.'s 79-84 ) were added to the Site Development Permit in respect to the plans and elevations. These plans and elevations will need to modified at the time the applicant submits Construction Documents for the buildings and landscaping, and prior to issuance of a grading permit. In addition, a Condition of Approval has been added (No. 85) which allows a two year time extension for this Site Development Permit. Applicant is requesting a two year time extension for the Site Development Permit for the supermarket (55,164 square feet), drug store (16,784 square feet) and bank (Pad D) building (4,350 square feet) (Attachment 2). A:\PC staff rpt. SDP 2001-711,Time Ex NO. 1 .wpd Separate Site Development Permits will be required for the service station, coffee building, and pads A, B, C, E and F. The Site Development Permit details the architectural style of the supermarket, drug store and bank buildings, and the types of materials which will be utilized. PUBLIC NOTICE: This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 9, 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. ILI All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit Time Extension can be made, as noted in the attached resolution. 1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1, subject to the findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan and Elevations (Commission only) Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner A:\PC staff rpt. SDP 2001-711,Time Ex NO. 1 .wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A SUPERMARKET, BANK AND DRUG STORE ON A PORTION OF A 15 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711, TIME EXTENSION NO. 1 APPLICANT: BADEN FAMILY TRUST WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of April, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the Baden Family Trust to review a time extension request for the development plans for a supermarket, bank and drugstore on a portion of a 15 acre shopping center at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APN's 772-410-021 AND 772-410-022 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and programs relating to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, and supports the development of a variety of retail uses within a Specific Plan. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with Specific Plan 2001-054, as conditioned, which establishes development standards for the project. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 4. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, complies with the architectural design standards for Specific Plan 2001-054, and implements the standards and guidelines included in that document. Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 5. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the landscaping standards in Specific Plan 2001-054 and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-71 1, Time Extension No. 1, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto. 3. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22"d day of April, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ASSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711, TIME EXTENSION NO. 1 BADEN FAMILY TRUST APRIL 22, 2003 1. The developer agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. & 13.24.170, La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Quality Resources Control Board's ("SWQRCB") Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC): 1. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2. Temporary Sediment Control. 3. Wind Erosion Control. 4. Tracking Control. 5. Non -Storm Water Management. 6. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 7. Unless the ultimate developed right-of-way can be documented, the public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 120-foot ultimate developed right-of-way. 2. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 1 10-foot ultimate developed right- of-way. 8. Right-of-way geometry for property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the ROW-P/L. B. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the ROW-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Parcel Map. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas shown on the Site Development Plan. A:\PC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 12. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access points shown on the Site Development Plan. 13. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur. 14. Before the applicant may be permitted to vacate, or abandonment, any existing right-of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall submit a proposed alternate right-of-way or access easement to those properties, or shall submit notarized letters of consent from all affected property owners; the final approval of which rests with the City. 15. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Site Development Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site improvements for this Site Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' D. On -Site Site Development Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal F. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal G. On -Site Lighting Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements; and show the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of Jefferson Street & Avenue 52. "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. "Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040, LQMC. 18. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. A:\PC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 19. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. 20. Prior to the conditional approval of this Site Development Plan, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 21. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Site Development Permit, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28, LQMC. 22. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments. 23. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any permits being issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the same time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for the security determination of the SIA, the applicant shall also submit one copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Parcel Map, along with one copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates for its own on and off -site improvements. Cost estimates for the security of telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements will not be required. Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by the City Council until the City has received confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service to all proposed buildings shown on the Site Development Plan. 24. When improvements are phased through an administrative approval (e.g., Phasing Plan, Site Development Permits, etc.), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of any permanent buildings in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The same submittal criteria shall apply to all subsequent phases as required for the first phase submittal. (E.g. detailed cost estimates, 8-1 /2" x 11 " reductions, etc.) 25. In the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, or other phasing method, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon A:\PC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 27. 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. 28. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on any final map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 29. 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. 30. The applicant shall minimize differences in elevation between the adjoining properties. DRAINAGE 31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 32. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water may be disposed of AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 GP/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 g.p.d./1,000 sq. ft. Or nuisance water may be diverted to the landscaped areas. 33. 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. 34. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 35. Pursuant to Section 13.24.120 (D), LQMC, the On -Site retention basin shall be sized to not only accommodate the on -site storm runoff, but also the tributary runoff from the adjacent streets. UTILITIES 36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Off -Site Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access for Properties), LQMC. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (T.M.) Plan in accordance with the City's T.M. Ordinance, Chapter 9.180, LQMC. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements found necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts of this development. 42. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 90- foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot, or alternatively provide a combination of a dedicated right turn deceleration lane and the drive throat that will equal a total of 90 feet. 43. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 44. Standard corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 45. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. 46. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial; 110' R/W option): Widen south side of street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1 .wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include: (a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk (b) 18-foot wide landscaped median from the roundabout to the east boundary of the Specific Plan The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction, and landscape median improvements, are eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. 2) Jefferson Street a) Applicant shall construct median openings and turn pockets to accommodate the turning movements authorized by these Conditions of Approval. b) Applicant shall install a traffic signal at the project's main entry, located 1130±feet south of Avenue 52 centerline, when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 50% of cost to design and install traffic signal if complementing cost share from development on other side of street is available at time signal is required. Applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement and post security for 50% of the cost to design and construct the traffic signal prior to issuance of an onsite grading permit; the security shall remain in effect until the signal is constructed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject intersection, Applicant shall pay 100% of cost to design and install a signal at the resulting "T" intersection. If, however, the Applicant's development trails the progress of the development on the other side of the street and the other development is connecting to the subject intersection, the Applicant is responsible for 50% of the cost as previously stated in this condition. AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 47. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" A.C./4.50" A.B. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5 "/6.00" 5.5"/6.50" or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. PARKING LOTS 1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 48. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Jefferson Street, 1130±feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Full turn access. B. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Street, 810±feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out. C. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Street, 490±feet S. of the C/L Intersection with Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out, Left turn in. D. Primary Entry (Avenue 52, 375±feet E. of the C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Left & Right turn in, Right turn out. E. Secondary Entry (Avenue 52, 635±feet E. of the C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out. AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 F. This Secondary Entry shall be a shared access drive/road with the adjacent landowner and be centered on the easterly property line. The shared access drive/road layout shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In the event the adjacent landowner desires a security gate serving its property, the gate shall be located away from the property line sufficient distance with the following access road design features occurring on the adjacent landowners property: adequate stacking, a rejection turnaround feature, and a separate lane for guests. In the event the adjacent landowner does not reasonably cooperate with the applicant in assisting with the shared access drive/road requirement, the City may allow the applicant to implement an alternative design concept satisfactory to the City Engineer, including but not limited to, elimination of the shared access requirement. Nothing in this condition requires the adjacent landowner to pay for sufficient improvements to implement the shared access requirement in a manner that serves the development proposed by Site Development Permit 01 -711. However, reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 52. 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 A:\PC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 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. 53. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential tracts are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 54. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscape Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 55. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 56. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit 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. 57. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs long public streets. 58. Only incidental stormwater will be permitted to be retained in landscape areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right of way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. A:\PC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 PUBLIC SERVICES 59. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 61. 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. 62. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. After tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized where retention basins have been constructed, testing shall include sand filter percolation tests, as approved by the City Engineer. 63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 64. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 65. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 FEES AND DEPOSITS 66. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. I M&II4111111 67. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's Department regarding vehicle code requirements, defensible space, and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff Department should be directed to the Senior Deputy at (760) 863-8950. 68. Water mains shall be capable of providing 6250-GPM at 20-psi residual for a 4-hour duration with the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants to be 3125-GPM at 20-psi residual for a 4-hour duration. 69. Super fire hydrants are to be placed no closer than 25 feet and not more than 165 feet from any portion of the first floor any building following approved travel ways around the exterior of the building. 70. Blue dot retro-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. 71. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all buildings, other than single family, 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. If required, sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. Area separation walls may not be used to reduce the need for sprinklers. 72. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius. 73. All buildings shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 74. The minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height. 75. 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. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 76. 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. 77. Building plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. 78. The applicant shall be responsible for any submissions to the fire department. MISCELLANEOUS 79. No signage is approved as part of this approval. The project proponent shall submit a master signage program for Planning Commission approval. 80. Proposed buildings for the gas station site, or Pads A, B, C, D, E or F shall be required to submit separate Site Development Permits. 81. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all buildings on the site, and particularly the drug store building, shall be designed to include the covered walkways and heavy pillars proposed for the supermarket building. The design of the entire site shall demonstrate a consistent level of architectural detailing with specific attention to rear elevations. 82. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the entry of the drug store building design shall be squared on the corner, and consistent with the supermarket building design. 83. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the retention basin landscaping shall be redesigned to include landscaping on the slopes and bottom and of sufficient size and density to stabilize soils. 84. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project site plan (and all exhibits which use the site plan as a base map) shall be redesigned to provide trash enclosures adjacent to the building which they serve. The new site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to submittal of the final document after City Council approval. 85. Plans and elevation for this Site Development Permit (SDP 2001-71 1, Time Extension No. 1) shall be effective for two years from date of approval. 86. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative A:\PC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2001-711, Time Extension No. 1 Baden Family Trust Adopted: April 22, 2003 map amendment or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. AAPC COA SDP 2001-711 Ex No. 1.wpd ATTACHMENT # 1 5 1 4 AVENUE 52. N PROJECT LOCATION MAP STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 22, 2003 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-763 APPLICANT: PAUL AND BOBBIE JEAN KOURI (MITCHELL GARDNER, ARCHITECT) PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL AND BOBBIE JEAN KOURI REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ±5,250 S.F. COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATION: PARCEL 11 OF PM 29889 - EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, ±300 FEET SOUTHEAST OF AVENUE 47 (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (INFILL DEVELOPMENT) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site Background The 4.9 acre La Quinta Professional Plaza project site was approved for a 53,500 square -foot commercial office complex in April, 2001. That approval included a Specific Plan for the entire site, a Site Development Permit for the existing temporary Palm Desert National Bank and the permanent facility currently under construction. All additional structures for the site must be in compliance with the approved Specific Plan (SP 2000-049), and must be reviewed via the Site Development Permit process. To date, four other buildings have been approved for this complex. Project Background The applicant proposes a ±5,250 gross square foot commercial restaurant building on Parcel 11 of PM 29889, along the south edge of the main complex, east of the existing temporary structure for the Palm Desert National Bank (Attachment 2). This building space will house two restaurants; Louise's Pantry and Bobbi J's, a barbeque restaurant. ALRC Action On April 2, 2003, the ALRC reviewed the project landscaping and building architecture for the project (Attachment #3, ALRC minutes). No significant issues were raised by the Committee, which unanimously recommended approval of the Site Development Permit as recommended by staff, with inclusion of the following provisions: 1. Planters adjacent to the building shall be re -shaped to be angled appropriately with the building's orientation. 2. One additional handicap space shall be provided on the west side of the building. The ALRC comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. Building Design/Landscaoina The building is a contemporary architectural style, using varied roof lines and elements such as stone ledger, exposed rafters and roof turrets to break up any appearance of elongation. The design incorporates some variation from the approved specific plan architecture without compromising the integrity of the overall design throughout the complex. The building will be finished in light to moderate earth tones, compatible with those approved for other buildings in the complex. Landscaping consists only of planter areas around the building and islands around the new parking stalls to the west, as the project landscaping was mostly installed with the Phase I improvements for the entire complex. The Specific Plan allows for building heights up to 35 feet (tower features may extend up to 40 feet). The CR district allows building heights of four stories, up to 50 feet, but limits building height to 22 feet for structures within 150 feet of any Primary Image Corridor and Major and Primary Arterial, as designated in the General Plan. The proposed structure is not within 150 feet of any such roadways. The proposed building is single story, showing a peak roof height of 28.5 feet at the tallest tower element. The main roof lines are at 19 feet for the flat roof portions and 24 feet at the shed roof overhangs. Parkin The proposed pad site was originally approved for a restaurant of about 3,600 square feet. As permitted under the conditions of approval to the specific plan, the Community Development Director subsequently approved a modification to allow a 5,250 square foot space, with additional parking. The proposal adds 12 new spaces above the original specific plan's spaces, which are located along the west elevation of the building. These spaces were determined to be adequate to allow the additional building area. Building Arrangement This building is located on the south edge of the complex site. It is adjacent to the Tenet Health Care site to the south; that building is situated in the southerly portion of the site, so the two building will not be close to each other. The proposed building will back up to the parking area for the Tenet Health Care site. Lighting The developer has installed all pole light fixtures at a height of 18 feet. This is in compliance with the applicable Zoning Code sections on lighting of parking lots, as well as the Specific Plan. The lighting has been accepted by the City as installed. Any additional exterior lighting for this building will be reviewed with the general lighting plans as submitted for plan checking. Signs The developer does not propose any signs with this application. The master developer is currently working on a sign program for the entire complex, which will be subject to Planning Commission review. As such, no signs are being proposed or approved with this application; those shown on the elevations are representative only. Public Notice This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 12, 2003. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required. No negative comments have been received. Any correspondence received before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible and concerned public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this proposal can be found in the attached Resolution to be adopted for this case. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003 - , confirming the environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and granting approval of Site Development Permit 2002-763, subject to conditions as recommended by staff and the ALRC. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. On -site building location 3. ALRC minutes of 04/02/03 (2 pgs.) perptsdp763.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A ± 5,250 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-763 PAUL AND BOBBIE JEAN KOURI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of April, 2003, consider a Site Development Permit application for a ±5,250 square -foot commercial restaurant building, located near the southeast corner of Avenue 47 and Washington Street and more particularly described as: PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP 29889 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development); and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it will be developed in a manner consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial and other current City standards when considering the conditions to be imposed. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code and Specific Plan 2000-049, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially equivalent to those permitted under existing Regional Commercial zoning, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan and approved under Specific Plan 2000-049. Specifically, development of existing CR land is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that the C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SdpO3763\peresosdp763.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2002-763 April 22, 2003 Site Development Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development), and that a Notice of Exemption should be filed. 4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract, the approved Specific Plan 2000-049, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract, the approved Specific Plan 2000-049 and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed project with the surrounding development, and is consistent with the landscape concept approved for Specific Plan 2000-049. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-757 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 22"d day of April, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SdpO3763\peresosdp763.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2002-763 April 22, 2003 RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SdpO3763\peresosdp763.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- EXHIBIT „A„ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-763 PAUL AND BOBBIE JEAN KOURI APRIL 22, 2003 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Site Development Permit 2002-763 (SDP 2002-763) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SDP 2002-763 the conditions shall take precedence. 2. SDP 2002-763 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2000-405 • Specific Plan 2000-049 • Tentative Parcel Map 29889 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 3. This approval shall expire two years after it's effective date, as determined pursuant to Section 9.200.060.0 of the Zoning Code, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.200.080. 4. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Building and Safety Department • La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading/ Improvement/Encroachment Permits) CAW rkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-763 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED April 22, 2003 • La Quinta Community Development Department a Riverside County Environmental Health Department 0 Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Southern California Gas Company Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) Waste Management of the Desert 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. 6. Handicap access and facilities shall be provided in accordance with Federal (ADA), State and local requirements. Handicap accessible parking shall generally conform with the approved exhibits for SDP 2003-763. Applicant shall prepare a precise grading plan to show that transitional improvements between the building and parking areas comply with ADA requirements and City standards. One additional handicap space shall be provided on the west side of the building. 7. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases, operations, etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program and Negative Declaration (EA 2000-405), as certified by the La Quinta City Council on April 17, 2001. 8. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-763 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED April 22, 2003 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. 9. 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 Development Plan: 1" = 40' Horizontal B. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1" = 20' 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. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. 10. 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 purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 1 1 . 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 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-763 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED April 22, 2003 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. FIRE PROTECTION 12. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Fire Marshal: A. Approved super fire hydrants be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. B. 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. C. Fire Department connections shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the street side of the buildings. D. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. E. 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. F. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled (NFPA 13 Standard). Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. G. 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. H. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1" floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Any commercial operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection. Hood/duct fire system plans will need to be submitted. J. Install a KNOX key box on the building. Contact the fire department for an application. K. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-763 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED April 22, 2003 GRADING 13. 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. 14. 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. 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 approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 15. 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. 16. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. 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. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 18. 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. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. 19. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of paving and sidewalks). C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-763 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED April 22, 2003 20. 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. 21. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Lake La Quinta. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. LANDSCAPING 22. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 23. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 24. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Planters adjacent to the building shall be re- shaped to be angled appropriately with the building's orientation. 25. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 26. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 27. 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. CONSTRUCTION C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-763 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED April 22, 2003 28. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The final asphalt lift and parking lot signing and striping shall be completed prior to final inspections of habitable buildings. QUALITY ASSURANCE 29. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 30. The applicant shall employ or otherwise retain qualified civil 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. 31. 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. 32. 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 revise all CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 33. The applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 34. 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-763 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED April 22, 2003 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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). MISCELLANEOUS 38. The applicant shall submit a detailed building lighting plan to include exterior fixture details. The lighting plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit. 39. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed as part of the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures requiring such screening. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp03763\coapcsdp763.wpd ATTACHMENTS W A S H! N C T O N S T R E E T r o i 0 0 0 0 0 a\ s O tq All rA DD C A L E O 20 m 0 0 z m / r C D_ a D O 2 ° ATTACHMENT 1 am Duo= cur �asrt awISCAT o .... MMti1M erG d 04w iTf7 <M LA a1wTA G err+ 1�7ArY 12313 .m�7 � Z� � T1 l ►VE-NVU-_ _ N08-37-006 R • 68e ATTACHMENT 2 z MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 2, 2003 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:09 a.m. by Planning Manager Oscar Orci who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and David Thoms. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to excuse Committee Member Cunningham. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to reorganize the agenda to take Business Item "D" as Item"B" and Item "B" as Item "D". Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 5, 2003. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thom to approve the Minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2002-763; a request of Paul and Bobbie Jean Kouri for review of architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for a 5,250 square foot one story restaurant building in the La Quinta Professional Plaza on the east side of Washington Street, southeast of Avenue 47 . ATTACHMENT 3 (2 PGS.) G:\WPD0CSWRLC\4-2-03.wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 2, 2003 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit gave an overview of the project and introduced Mr. Mitchell Gardner, architect for the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns complimented the architect on the design and concept of the plan. Placing the restaurants back to back is an excellent idea. He recommended the planter areas adjacent to the building, at the southeast corner, rectangular in shape, have the corners clipped to a 45 degree which would be more appropriate. In addition, add a handicapped space on the west side of the building. On the northeast elevation, there are some tiles on the parapet roof. Mr. Gardner stated it is not a parapet, but a shed roof. Committee Member Thorns stated this was a better design and asked if this treatment could be added at other locations on the roof. Mr. Gardner stated that due to the need for a lot of air handlers he will not have the space to do this. The air handlers require a lot of flat roof and this design would take away from the area needed for the air handlers. Committee Member Thoms stated he is not in favor of the vertical signage. Mr. Gardner stated the signage had not yet been determined. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he too liked the building. The plant palette is fine, but on the southwest corner there is a planter bed next to the last parking space, where the plant material needs to take into consideration that there will be pedestrian traffic. He would suggest moving the plant material south and adding the stepping stones to accommodate the pedestrian traffic. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2003-012, approving Site Development Permit 2002-763, as amended: a. The planter places adjacent to the building at the southeast corner, rectangular in shape, have the corners clipped to a 45 degree. b. Add a handicapped space on the west side of the building. Unanimously approved. GAWPD0CS\ARLC\4-2-03.wpd 2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 22, 2003 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO, TWO STORY RETAIL/OFFICE/RESTAURANT BUILDINGS TOTALING 34,400 SQUARE FEET WITH A TWO STORY PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 1 1 1, WITHIN POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MADISON DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN VUKSIC, PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS 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 (RC) RESORT COMMERCIAL SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) WEST: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) P:\FRED\Point Happy\SDP PC StfRpt.wpd BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Project Description The currently vacant project site, located in the Point Happy Commercial Center, at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, consists of four parcels totaling 3.24 acres in size (Attachment 1). The project site is governed by the Point Happy Specific Plan (2000-043), adopted by the 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 architecture and landscaping guidelines that complement and accent the project. Application Under Consideration The request is for approval of development plans for two, two-story retail/office/ restaurant buildings totaling 34,400 square feet with an attached two story parking structure (Attachment 2) within the Point Happy Commercial Center Specific Plan. Site Plan The site is located on the north edge of the Center taking access to the Center from signalized driveways on Washington Street and Highway 111 with a driveway access located at the midway point on Highway 111. Parking will be provided with the addition of a 130 space two-story parking structure and 30 spaces directly in the front of the buildings. Architectural Design The structures are basically rectangular in shape and use a variety of interlocking roof types with varying roof heights up to 36 feet. Tower elements will be highlighted with a stone tile veneer at the base. The south elevation proposes lower level store front entrances with canopies and proposed canopy covered windows on the upper level. The north elevation proposes archway openings to the lower level parking structure with the upper level parking structure supported by columns with cornice trim and stone tile veneer at the base. The upper level is provided with carports covered with trellises and the roofs. The proposed east and west elevations demonstrate the variety of roof types of the main buildings. The covered parking and the parking structure ramp and lower level entrance are enhances with stepped planters with a rustic concrete and stone veneer treatment. Wall materials consist of exterior cement plaster with a light sand finish in four shades of brown with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around each elevation. Proposed windows will be sectional pane glass with anodized frames. P:\FRED\Point Happy\SDP PC StfRpt.wpd 2 Li htin Site lighting will be provided in conjunction with an internal road re -alignment consisting of an 18-foot high steel square post with a round two foot concrete footing, located adjacent to the front and sides of the structure, with luminaries directed downward. All poles have one 400 watt metal halide lamps. Parking structure lighting consists of down lit wall mounted luminaries. Landscape Plan Acacia and Palo Verde trees are proposed along the north perimeter of the buildings with Fan Palms along the south perimeter at the entrances to the buildings and within the parking structure light wells. Large Date Palms extending through the parking structure light wells provide a vertical design accent. Plant material along the perimeter of the site in planter areas and pots are proposed to have Jacaranda, Bougainvillea, Feathery Cassia, Ocotillo, and Texas Ranger. The landscape plan is consistent with the Point Happy Specific Plan and complements the Highway 111 landscaping. Signs The signs exhibited on the elevations are illustrative only and not a part of the Site Development Permit application. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of April 2, 2003 (Attachment 3). The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2003-015, recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Tree material in the parking structure light wells shall be Washingtonia Robusta and the head of the tree will be tall enough to extend through the floor of the second story of the structure. Trees shall be skinned and provide its own irrigation, timing, and drainage system. 2. The plant material in the raised planters are to be planted in a fiberglass or poly - plastic material, with their own drip irrigation and timing control. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to City Departments and affected public agencies on March 21, 2003, requesting comments to be returned by April 10, 2003. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. P:\FRED\Point Happy\SDP PC StfRpt.wpd 3 PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on April 9, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. STATEMENTS OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution. There are no issues with this project. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-, approving Site Development Permit 2003-765 to allow development plans for two, two story retail/office/ restaurant buildings totaling 34,400 square feet with an attached two story parking structure, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Project Location Exhibit (Parcel Map 29736) 2. Site Plan and Elevations 3. Draft Minutes of the ALRC meeting of April 2, 2002 Submitted by, Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner PAFRED\Point Happy\SDP PC StfRpt.wpd 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO, TWO STORY RETAIL/OFFICE/RESTAURANT BUILDINGS WITH A TWO STORY PARKING STRUCTURE CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 22"d day of April, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review building elevations, site plans for two, two story retail/office/restaurant buildings totaling 34,400 square feet with a two story, 130 space parking structure generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street within the Point Happy Commercial Center, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 29736, PARCEL NO.9, 10, 11 and 12; and WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 2"d day of April, 2003 hold a public meeting to review two, two story retail/office/restaurant buildings totaling 34,400 square feet with a two story 130 space parking structure generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street within the Point Happy Commercial Center. 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 of approval: 1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial (CC). The Land Use Element (Policy 1) of the 2002 General Plan Update allows a full range of retail businesses. 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. AAPC RESO. SDP 2003-765.wpd 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. 3. The proposed commercial building and parking structure are consistent with the Point Happy Commercial Center Specific Plan 2000-043 which supplements, replaces or, is consistent with the City's Zoning Code requirements. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding development in that it is similar in scale to the development in the area. The building materials are provide a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, and 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 2003-765 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 22"d day of April , 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 AAPC RESO. SDP 2003-765.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 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). A:\PC COA SDP 2003-765.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 2003 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. 4. 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 " = 20' 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. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. 5. 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2003-765.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 2003 6. 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. GRADING 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2003-765.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 2003 DRAINAGE "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." 12. 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. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 13. PARKING LOTS 1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 14. 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. 15. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of paving and sidewalks). 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 A:\PC COA SDP 2003-765.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 2003 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. LANDSCAPING 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 21. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 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. ARC COA SDP 2003-765.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 2003 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. MAINTENANCE 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS 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) FIRE MARSHALL 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). 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. A:\P(' COA SDP 2003-765.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765 ADOPTED: APRIL 22, 2003 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'. 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). Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code in accordance with NFPA 10. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 37. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's Department regarding vehicle code requirements, defensible space, and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff Department should be directed to the Senior Deputy at (760) 863-8950. MISCELLANEOUS 38. Tree material in the parking structure light wells to be Washingtonia Robusta and the head of the tree be tall enough to be through the floor of the second story of the structure. Trees shall be skined and provided its own irrigation, timing, and drainage system. 39. The plant material in the raised planters are to be planted in a fiberglass or poly - plastic material, with their own drip irrigation and timing control. A:\P(' COA SDP 2003-765.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 133HIS NOIDNIHSVM F c c c ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 2, 2003 B. Site Development Permit 2003-765; a request of Madison Development for review of architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for a two story retail/office/restaurant/ building with a two story parking facility located within the Point Happy Commercial Center at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker gave a report on the request and introduced the project's representative, Mr. Mike Vuksic, architect for the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns stated his only objection is that it is not located along Highway 111. The concept and detail is excellent. The only comment is that the plant material intended for the raised planters be of a variety that is intended to grow. They should have their own watering/drainage system and separate timing mechanism designed for their growth and not included with the entire planting system. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed this is an excellent addition to the City. He also has experience with aerial planters and agrees that it has to be the right plant material. Design the planters with a good drainage system with a fiberglass material. He would suggest using the 15 gallon plant material with a drip system that is easy to maintain and replace as needed. Mr. Vuksic asked about the trees intended to be planted and protrude up through the 10-foot by 10-foot openings. Committee Members recommended Washatonia Robusta be used and that the tree trunks skinned and the heads should be at a height above the parking garage so they are in the light to begin with. They also will need to be on their own irrigation system. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2003-015 approving Site Development Permit 2003-765, as amended: 1. Tree material in the parking garage to be Washatonia Robusta and the head of the tree be tall enough to be through the floor of the second story parking structure. The trees shall be skinned and on its own irrigation, timing, and drainage system. 2. The plant material in the raised planters are to be planted in a fiberglass or polyplastic material, with their own drip irrigation and timing control system. GAWPDOCS\ARLC\4-2-03.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 2, 2003 Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2003-762; a request of Westport la-Quinta LP for review of landscaping plans for a congregate care facility providing 132 independent and 37 assisted living units for the property located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa gave an overview of the project and introduced, Mr. John Garrison, architect for the project, who was available to answer questions on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns stated he has some issues with the project. He complemented the architect on the concept of the different type of apartments on this site. His issue is with the site plan as it is not appropriate for this site nor for the type of facility it is. He understands the need to have the number of units to make it financially feasible. The north elevation will be especially difficult for the residents to the north. The elevation is boring. The south side, fronting Avenue 50 is no better. This site is highly visible from anyone traveling north on Washington Street and unappealing. It should be more of a village look versus something that looks like an upgraded prison. Therefore he cannot support the project as designed. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the north and south elevations have an appearance of a prison and is too institutional looking. The west elevation is not as bad. He is not sure there will be a site problem for the residents to the north. The north and south elevations do need some variation. He would not have a problem with the project as long as there were some changes made to the north and south elevations. 4. Committee Member Thorns stated the carports are weak and the columns are too spindly. The shape of the pool is too large and should be more "romantic" looking. He does not have a problem with the proposed use of the property, but with the site plan as it should be more friendly. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the entrance could be revised to allow a traffic flow to the front of the facility from the Avenue 50 access. Mr. Garrison stated it was intended to be a secondary access, but it probably could be done. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\4-2-03.wpd 4