The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 03 26 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California MARCH 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2002-035 Beginning Minute Motion 2002-007 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on March 12, 2002. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 ADDENDUM AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant .......... Madison/P.T.M. La Quinta, L.L.C. Location ............ Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street Request ...........1. Recommendation for certification of an Addendum to a previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and 2. Review of revised design guidelines and development standards for a 81,907 square foot commercial center. Action ............... Resolution 2002- and Resolution 2002- B Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-443, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2002-084, ZONE CHANGE 2002-106, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730 Applicant .......... Clubhouse Associates, L.L.C. Location ............ 10.76 acre triangular parcel on the south side of Avenue 52, east of Jefferson Street Request ..........1. Recommendation for certification of an Environmental Assessment; 2. Change in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and 3. Review of development plans for a 149 unit apartment complex and ancillary facilities. Action ............... Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-040, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant .......... Chapman Golf Development Location ............ 78-164 Avenue 52 (Arnold Palmer Restaurant) Request ............. Review of lighting and landscaping plans Action ............... Minute Motion 2002- VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of March 19, 2002 X. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 26, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 5, Item #13 be corrected to read, "...to express our concerns..."; Page 6, Item #13, "It is her belief..." and delete one of the "...she would.." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 27, 2002. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2001-729; a request of Michael Shovlin for Ross Dress for Less for review of development plans for a 30,187 square foot commercial building to be located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Washington Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked about the Santa Fe element above the sign. Staff stated they were outriggers and were used on other buildings in the Center. 4. Commissioner Butler asked that staff include the Architecture and Landscaping Review Commission recommendations. 5. Commissioner Tyler stated he would prefer to see a picture of the entire Center and how this fits in with the adjacent existing buildings, rather than by itself. He questioned why staff was limiting the number of columns to be landscaped and if the sign met the sign program. Staff noted they thought four planters would be adequate, but there is no reason not to have more. In regard to the larger sign, it could be granted by the Commission. The Commission has normally approved corporate signage and they have been larger than what the sign program allows. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was larger than what the sign program allowed. Staff stated the in -line shops were allowed 2/3 the width of the frontage and 24-inches high for signage and this sign was larger. Each of the major users have been submitting their signage separately. Commissioner Kirk stated he thought the sign looked appropriate for the size of the building, but he would like to know what had been previously approved. 7. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave Smalley, representing the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, gave a presentation on the proposal. He stated the landscaping is not a problem and will be submitted at a later date. In terms of this building in relationship to the other G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 buildings, the elevation has the same column/arcade frontage as the proposed Staples building next door. On the rear elevation, he would like to point out this is the truck loading area and they would prefer not to enhance this area. They have architecturally broken up the elements to add detail and they are concerned about adding costs unnecessarily. 8. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler questioned the height of the arch over the entrance as being 6.5 feet higher than the entrance to Staples. Mr. Smalley stated Staples has a curved arch to bring a variety to the architecture. 9. Commissioner Butler asked why the applicant did not want to use light scones on the rear of the building. Mr. Smalley stated it is an accent color and would not have a problem adding it to this building. There problem was the request by staff to pop the building out. 10. Commissioner Robbins stated the overhang appears to project out in front of the Staples building. Mr. Smalley stated the curb does protrude out about five feet, but the columns should align. 11. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Robbins stated he liked the rear of the Staples building and with the the accents it would be more appropriate. 13. Commissioner Kirk supported staff's recommendation and the project. 14. Commissioner Tyler stated the rear landscaping is on the north of the alleyway and does not do much to hide the rear of the building. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-033 approving Site Development Permit 2001-729, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: A. Condition #28: The plans shall provide for pocket planters around all the columns at the front of the building. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Zoning Code Amendment 2002-071; a request of the City for review of an Amendment to Chapters 9.220, 9.230, and 9.240 of the La Quinta Municipal Code amending procedures for Zone Changes and Code Amendments, General Plan Amendments, and Specific Plans; and review of an addition of Section 9.140.070 Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked staff for clarification as to why there is a distinction between a the Council and Commission's action in regard to a "majority vote." Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated it should state a majority vote of the Council, or Commission; staff will strike "majority vote" from the text. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Transfer of Development Rights has ever been used. Staff stated yes, for hillside property. Commissioner Kirk asked if it had been a transfer between properties. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated a person had purchased the Transfer Development Rights from a parcel of land. They still have them as they have not been used to date. It did preserve the hillside in perpetuity. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked that the language in Section 9.220.020.0 be cleaned up to read correctly. He asked if a farming operation would be required to file a dust control plan. Staff stated it would be corrected to not require it for farming operations. 5. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment on this item. Mrs. Gayle Cady, 82-831 Avenue 54, Vista Santa Rosa area, asked for clarification on the new ordinance in regard to whether or not there is a new Agricultural/Equestrian Zoning Ordinance or is there going to be an Agricultural Overlay District. Second, is a private ranch responsible for providing a program for G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 the maintenance of manure. In regard to housing density, is there a number of residences to be allowed per acre. She would suggest one unit per five acres. Staff stated that in regard to the overlay versus district, this is to be a District in the Code. In regard to the manure management plan it is listed for nonresidential use, so a private ranch would not be subject to the standards. The Low Density Residential (4 units to the acre) does apply here if it is to be developed into a single family residential component with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked what the current allowed density is now. Staff stated the minimum lot size under the County zoning is 20,000 square feet. Ms. Cady stated it would be impossible to continue with the rural ambience of the area if this were allowed. She is asking that in the agricultural and equestrian area there be larger lot sizes than the 10,000 square feet. 7. Ms. Betty Magnum -Smith, 82-470 Avenue 54, Vista Santa Rosa, questioned the setbacks for the accessory buildings. She asked that those who have existing accessory buildings, be grandfathered. Staff noted they are. Ms. Magnum -Smith asked how many dogs would be allowed. Staff stated currently under the County zoning, any person with 5-10 dogs would be considered a kennel and a permit would be required. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code has a requirement that more than five dogs is considered to be a kennel and a license would be required. The setbacks under the County are more restrictive than what is proposed. Ms. Magnum -Smith concurred with reducing the density. 8. Ms. Susan Hale, 83-230 Avenue 52, stated that in the polo world they need more than five horses per acre. For caretaker housing, a 1000 square feet is a very small house. 9. Mr. Lee Anderson, 59-777 Calhoun Street, Vista Santa Rosa, stated he was involved in agriculture and farm animals. In regard to the raising and breeding of sheep they are mentioned in both categories and he questioned which was correct. In regard to the spreading of manure and dust control, he requests it not be required by the agriculture users. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 10. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 11. Commissioner Tyler suggested a lower density be considered for this area. 12. Commissioner Butler asked if the residential development standards only apply if someone wanted to develop their property. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Butler asked if the manure plan applied here. Staff stated it was for a commercial stable. Commissioner Butler asked if a property owner was boarding only one or two horses would they have to comply with this. Staff stated at that point it is a commercial stable, yes they would. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated the density issue is a major issue and we are proposing to double the density for this area. He asked if the minimums were left as they currently are to allow for the density that is suggested in the General Plan, but require to achieve that density they would have to acquire Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). If you do not acquire TDRs from some other property, the minimum stays as it is today, 20,000 square feet, maintaining the current density allowed under the County, and you could double that density by acquiring TDRs. This would be consistent with the General Plan, maintain the way of life as it is under the current Zoning Code, and create a market for TDRs. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated that if the underlying density is two units to the acre under the Zoning District, and the only way to achieve four units to the acre is by buying TDRs, then this is not consistent with the General Plan. It is not possible to be consistent with the General Plan without doing something else. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that to the extent you are relying on a third party sales transaction to essentially make the zoning consistent with the General Plan, would be questionable. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the purpose is that if someone owns ten acres and they want to maintain their lifestyle, they can sell their density to a developer who wants to develop and they can have their lifestyle in perpetuity. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not see much a a demand for the TDR. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 14. Commissioner Tyler stated this is a valid concern for the residents in this area. If they own a ten acre parcel and he decides to sell it to another who wants to keep it as a ten acre parcel, can they do this. Staff stated they could. This is why this district is being created to allow the uses to remain forever. They have a choice; it can be agricultural, equestrian, or it can be subdivided and developed. 15. Commissioner Robbins stated the concern is not that they would sell their property, but that if they own a parcel with one unit on it today, the neighbor may sell their parcel and it would be developed with 40 units. 16. Commissioner Tyler stated that if other restrictions are placed on the property, then the neighbor has restrictions which limits his ability to maximize his gain. 17. Commissioner Robbins stated this is why it cannot be down zoned. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated that currently under the County zoning, the A-1 designation allows planned unit development in golf courses. Without a change in zone, under the County standards there could be a golf club very similar to anyone currently in the City, in any of the A-1 areas tomorrow. Generally, that kind of development because of the transfer of density that occurs between a golf course and the residential portion, runs somewhere between two, two and a half units to the acre. She went on to give an example. The zoning designations are up to the maximum of four units to the acre, and as Commissioner Kirk stated generally we seem to be seeing projects that are under the maximum, rather than pushing the maximum. 18. that if the County density was two units per acre, the City should not go lower. He asked staff to elaborate on the size of the caretakers unit. Staff stated it does not affect an existing house. Commissioner Robbins stated that if a property owner boards one horse they should not be subject to the manure plan. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-034, recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-071, as amended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 A. Section 9.220.010.0 amend by deleting "by a majority vote." B. Section 9.220.020.0 and 9.230.010.C. Delete "may recommend that the City Council initiate a Code Amendment/General Plan Amendment." C. Exhibit B: Equestrian and Agricultural Uses, Delete the first reference to sheep and goats under the section that reads, "The grazing and breeding of cattle, horses, llamas and other farm animals...." D. Under Development Standards delete Sections B.4 and 8. E. Under Definitions, add to "commercial stable" "...the stabling of more than five horses not owned by the residence of the property...." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abets. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sian Application 2002-609; a request of Coronet Enterprises/Sign-A- Rama for review of a planned sign program for 51-105 Avenida Villa (Durango Building) located on the west side of Avenida Villa, north of Avenida Montezuma. 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wally Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2002-006 approving Sign Application 2002-609, as recommended. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: D. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002 X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 26, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. on March 12, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 9 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 26, 2002 CASE NO.: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 395 SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO. 1 REQUEST: 1. RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY MITIGATED CERTIFIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; LOCATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE/ PROPERTY OWNER: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE 2. APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 81,907 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET MADISON/ P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L. C. RICK WILKERSON/ MADISON/ P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L. C. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) NORTH: CITY OF INDIAN WELLS RESORT COMMERCIAL SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) WEST: OPEN SPACE BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW• Property Description The project site, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, consists of 9.779 acres and is under development. The project is bounded by the Whitewater Stormwater Channel on the north, Washington Street on the east, Highway 111 on the south and a rock outcrop on the west. Highway 111 and Washington Street frontage are improved with curb and gutter. A new bus stop shelter and pull-out is located on the Highway 1 1 1, and an existing shelter was re- located to service Washington Street. The CN.W.D. Stormwater Channel with concreted side borders the northern portion of the site. The Point Happy Specific Plan is a commercial center consisting of ten building clusters designed around centralized parking. The previously approved uses include retail, fast food, restaurant, office, bank, financial and a service station/convenience store/car wash. Each proposed new building will require a site development permit and the future uses may move or change location among the development pads at the time a site development review permit is processed subject to the required parking provided for the commercial center. In addition, each building pad size may be modified subject to the required parking provided for the commercial center. 1. Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 The applicant has revised the Grading, Drainage, Utility, and Circulation Plans to reflect an "as -built" status. The Conceptual Building Mass and Land Use Table are revised to reflect "as -built" pads and new conceptual building massing for Lots 8-12, and Lot 6. This reflects a total increase in building square footage of 8,957 square feet. The following table identifies building square footage of each parcel for existing and proposed development in the Specific Plan. POINT HAPPY SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY Parcel Proposed and Existing Uses 1 Fast Food 2 Restaurant 3 Restaurant 4 Office/Retail 5 Bank/Financial 6 Fast Food 7 Service station convenience store/car wash 8 Office/Retail 9 Office/Retail 10 Office/Retail/ 11 Office/Retail 12 Retail TOTAL Proposed and Existing Building(s) Square Footage (used to calculate required parking) 2,969 5,340 9,000 5,306 9,868 2,300 3,974 10,000 9,000 4,000 8,000 9,100 81,907 Development Standards In general, project development standards meet or enhance Zoning Code requirements. Maximum structure height proposed remains at 36 feet and limited to 22 feet within 150 feet of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street. The Zoning Code would allow 40 feet for the entire project. Maximum number of stories proposed is two, Zoning Code would allow three. The applicant is nQJ proposing any changes to height or setback standards. In addition, the plan amendment updates all previously approved building square footage and parking ratios, and provides 389 parking spaces to meet Code requirements. The request is for approval to revise certain portions of the Development Regulation and Design Guidelines Sections of the Specific Plan. The applicant is proposing to add Section "C" to provide an alternate land use plan that would allow a hotel use to the Specific Plan to be located on parcels 8-12 subject to a Conditional Use Permit. A Parking Study is referenced that analyzes the parking requirements for the site if a 140 room hotel were proposed. The applicant is proposing to expand the palette of plant materials available to the parking area of the site; the highlighted change proposes to include hybrid Paloverde trees in the parking lot. Landscaping guidelines identify a pallette of plant material for shrubs, groundcover, and trees for Highway 1 1 1, Washington Street, parking lot areas and buildings. Water efficient landscaping materials, including native plants are suggested where possible. Design Guidelines The applicant is proposing the following modifications to the Design Guidelines: 1 . Add to Roof Tile: Two piece barrel tile to match approved color. Las Casuelas Restaurant was approved with barrel tile roof contingent upon this proposed change. 2. Add to Stone Columns, Surrounds, Sill, and Wainscots: Exterior simulated stone (Tuscany Country Rubble) Circle K is required to build the facility with Canterra Stone/Pattern: Cafe II unless the Specific Plan allows this addition. 3. Add to Wood Trellis & Rafters: Color "Early American #1 159912 4. Add to Accent Colors : Ryan's Eye (generally chocolate); and add Mauve Niagra generally rich purple. _ w.k The applicant is proposing to add to the Sign Program: 1 . Individual back -lit halo letters. 2. Box lights for buildings matching building design. The applicant is requesting to amend Condition No. 57 which reads: "Street names as they exist at each of the signaled intersections shall be continued with the proposed project" to read as follows : "Since the Point Happy development has grown in stature and name recognition, the developer requests this condition be eliminated as to allow the street name Point Happy to be seen at both the Highway 111 signal and Washington Street" (now Condition No. 61). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Environmental Assessment 2000-395 was certified by the City Council. An Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with minor changes in the project. The Community Development Department has determined that no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated will result from this project. Therefore, no further environmental documentation is necessary. An Addendum to the original Environmental Assessment is recommended for certification. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public agencies on February 15, 2002, requesting comments returned by March 4, 2002. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on March 4, 2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: Specific Plans are designed to allow flexibility for future development of the property. Proposed development in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the Specific Plan, as conditioned, will provide the unique environment within the planned commercial development "Point Happy". The proposed modifications to Development Regulation and Design Guidelines reflect high quality development. The proposed site planning, conceptual architectural designs, landscape guidelines, and sign program for commercial development at Point Happy are consistent with, or enhance current Zoning Code requirements and all structure development is subject to further review under a Site Development Permit. Findings can be made that the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Code with the following proposed changes: !. Staff recommends prohibiting or substituting Pennisetum Setaceum (Red fountain Grass) from the Landscape Pallette (as the "white" variety often gets planted by mistake) as it is an invasive plant that spreads quickly and is highly water consumptive. 2. Staff recommends prohibiting Date Palms trees in undesirable high use activity locations including pedestrian corridors and courtyards. 3. Staff recommends deleting restaurant use from Parcel 12 in Table 1 (Land Use Summary) since , if an additional restaurant were allowed, it would generate the need for more parking than can be accommodated on -site given the existing and planned uses and building sizes on the other parcels. 4. Staff recommends adding lighting bollards to Landscape Details, Figure 10 per the adopted Point Happy Specific Plan and the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. 5. Staff recommends not including the attached Point Happy Parking Analysis in the Final Specific Plan as it is not relevant until a submittal for a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit to build a hotel occurs. 6. Staff recommends Modifying Condition No. 31 .A.2) as follows: "Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bike path. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at the north access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection. If a hotel use is selected as described in Alternative Use #2, the applicant shall construct a right turn lane for south bound traffic from Washington Street onto Highway 1 1 1, including necessary modifications to the existing traffic signal, curbs and gutters, traffic signs and traffic markings. The design of the right turn lane shall be subject to Caltrans and the City Engineer's approval. Additional right of way may be required to accommodate the approved right turn lane design and shall be dedicated to the City and the State as necessary." 7. Staff recommends Modifying Condition No. 40 by adding the following: "The applicant shall provide and pay for perpetual electrical power to the Bus Shelters on Highway 111 and on Washington Street for the Bus Shelter lighting. The source of power may be part of the landscaping lighting system or through a separate system." RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2000-395; and, 1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending approval of Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Point Happy Specific Plan, Amendment No. 1 2. Point Happy Parking Analysis Prepared by: 2 Fred Baker, AIC Principal Planner a RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO. 1 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 ADDENDUM MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 261h day of March, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2000-395, as prepared for Specific Plan 2000-043; and, WHEREAS, said applications 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 Addendum to Environmental Assessment 97-341 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164; and, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the La Quinta City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043; and, WHEREAS, the Amendment to the Specific Plan does not call for the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: (1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or (3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for certification of said Addendum: 1 A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1 \PCReso EA Add 2000-295.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2000-395 Addendum Adopted March 26, 2002 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards. The project does not have the potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory, as extensive archaeological investigations of the site have been conducted as part of the project to implement appropriate mitigation alternatives. The applicant has agreed to implementing the necessary mitigation prior to site development activities and is in concurrence with project conditions relating to this. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have the potential to achieve short term goals. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment and related applications will not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project is undertaken pursuant to the General Plan for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2000- 395. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2000-395 in that the changes proposed to the project are a minor nature and do not require the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166 and there are no new circumstances which would require the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and there is no new information or change in circumstances which would require the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4_. 3 A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PCReso EA Add 2000-295.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2000-395 Addendum Adopted March 26, 2002 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of March, 2002 following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development City of La Quinta, California ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT �; SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO. 1 Prepared by: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Contact: Principal Planner Fred Baker (760)777-7125 Prepared for: MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA L.C.C. 71361 SAN GORGINO RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 Contact: RICK WLKERSON , MANAGING MEMBER 760-771-1755 FEBRUARY 1, 2002 1 INTRODUCTION This Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Assessment (EA 2000-395) for the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 has been completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with minor changes. Proposed changes to now require further environmental evaluation. This evaluation need not take the form of another EA, as explained below, but can take place in an Addendum to the EA for Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No.1. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15164, if a project does not fulfill any of the criteria enumerated in CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1)-(3) then an Addendum, rather than a subsequent or Supplemental EA is appropriate. The determination that none of the criteria outlined in CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1)-(3) are fulfilled must be supported by substantial evidence. As stated in CEQA Guidelines § 1 5162: a. When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified 2 significant effects; or, (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or Negative Declaration was adopted shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. A detailed description of the initially proposed project and the currently proposed project is provided in Section (Project Site Characteristics) of this document. Using the information provided in Section 2, a brief refutation of the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 is provided as follows. Subsection (a)(1) does not apply to the proposed changes to the Project because the revision is not a substantial change in the Project's scale with commensurate increase in environmental impacts from those initially anticipated and disclosed in the Negative Declaration. No new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur as a result of construction of the currently proposed project. Subsection (a)(2) does not apply because there are no substantial changes to he existing environmental conditions such that new and significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the environmental impacts would occur. As previously stated, the proposed Project is not a substantial change, with a commensurate increase in environmental impacts. In summary, the environmental circumstances under which the Project is undertaken are substantially similar to, or 3 in some cases are, improved over the conditions in 2000. Lastly, Subsection (a)(3) does not apply because the environmental analysis did not identify any significant environmental effects that were not previously disclosed in the Negative Declaration, nor did this analysis find that any significant environmental effects previously examined in the Negative Declaration will be substantially more severe with the revised plan. In fact, some effects were determined to be less severe as a result of the project redesign. Further, this analysis did not reveal that there are any new mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects. In summary, CEQA Guidelines § 15164 (a) states that: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Given that none of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 have occurred, an Addendum to the Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for evaluating environmental impacts resulting from the revised Tentative Tract. GENERAL The proposed Point Happy Specific Plan is a commercial center consisting of nine building clusters designed around centralized parking. The project site is divided into twelve 12 buildable parcels. The uses proposed include retail, fast food, restaurant, office, bank, financial and a service station/convenience store/car wash. Each proposed building requires a site development permit and the proposed uses may move or change location among the development pads at time a site development review permit is processed subject to the total parking provided for the commercial center. The Specific Plan establishes guidelines and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, design and development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The revision to this Specific Plan adds additional landscape material, one additional sign type, one additional roof the type, one additional facade type, and a project entry/street name change. In addition the plan amendment updates all previously approved building square footage and parking ratios. These proposed additions apply to the entire site. M REVISED IMPACTS The addition of landscape, design material, street name change, and updating building size and parking allocation on the project site will not change the environmental impacts. No significant change in impacts will result in the areas of air quality, noise, population generation, use of natural and energy resources, traffic, public facility and services demand, and cumulative impacts. CONCLUSION The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that based on this addendum to the previously certified Negative Declaration, no further environmental review is deemed necessary, pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15304. AASP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\EA Addendum.wpd 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 81,907 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO.1 MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of March, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to Specific Plan 2000-043, a 81,907 square foot commercial development consisting of a mixture of retail, office and restaurant uses on 9.779 acres, generally bounded by; Washington Street, Highway 1 1 1, and a CVWD Storm Water Channel. The project area is located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 29736 WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment was conducted for Specific Plan 2000-043 (Point Happy Commercial Center) in 2000, for the overall development of the Commercial Center. No substantive changes exists which would require the preparation of additional environmental documentation. An Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with minor changes in the project. The Community Development Department has determined that no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated will result from this project. Therefore, no further Environmental Documentation is necessary. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21 166 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 Specific Plan Amendment: That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2002 2. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses and circulation will require Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. 2. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a guideline; further review will be required under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be attached to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development City of La Quinta, California !t�J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO. 1 ADOPTED MARCH 26, 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 permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 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) • Caltrans • 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. This development shall be subject to the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of permit approval. A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. 5. The applicant may be required by Caltrans to furnish additional Highway 1 1 1 right of way to accommodate the proposed bus turnout and dedicated right -turn -in lane. If so, the right of way shall be deeded to the City in fee simple. 6. If the applicant cannot obtain permission from CVWD for location of the bikepath (required below) within the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall grant an easement across the north end of this property for that purpose. 7. The applicant shall dedicate or deed cross -access easements to all private lots or parcels existing or created on this property. The easements shall cover all parking and circulation areas and routes within the development. 8. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows: A. Highway 1 1 1 - 50 feet. B. Washington Street - 20 feet. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 9. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures. 10. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage except access points described herein. 11 . The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 12. Prior to placement of any privately -owned buildings or other costly structures in the City's drainage easement along Washington Street, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for that purpose. The permit will require that in the event the City finds it necessary to construct, reconstruct or maintain facilities therein, the applicant shall indemnify the City from expenses exceeding those which would have been incurred with hardscape or landscaping. t � A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 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 landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 14. 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. 15. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans for any public street improvements 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. A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 16. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City after the date of approval of the original conditions of approval for this property, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 17. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map, or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 19. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 (e.g., access drives, traffic signal improvements & perimeter landscaping) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 20. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 21. 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. 22. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 and wind control measures soil stabilizing binders approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 24. 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:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 DRAINAGE 25. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 26. If the applicant does not discharge stormwater to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, stormwater shall be retained on -site and disposed of in facilities approved by the City Engineer. 27. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in facilities approved by the City Engineer. UTILITIES 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 31. 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 AND BIKEPATH 1) Highway 1 1 1 - Complete construction of north side of the street. Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bikepath. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at the west access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection. 2) Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bike path. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at the north access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection. If a hotel use is selected as described in Alternative Use #2, the a applicant shall construct a right turn lane for south bound traffic from Washington Street onto Highway 111, including necessary modifications to the existing traffic signal, curbs and gutters, traffic signs and traffic markings. The design of the right turn lane shall be subject to Caltrans and the City Engineer's approval. Additional right of way may be required to accommodate the approved right turn lane design and shall be dedicated to the City and the State as necessary. 3) Bike path- Pay pro-rata share of Bike Path adjacent to project site. Prorate share shall not exceed $30 per lineal foot of 8-foot wide PCC bike path. 32. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 33. 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. A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd ` i Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 34. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 35. 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. 36. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Highway 111 1) Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the southwest corner of this property. 2) Right-in/Right-out drive centered approximately 435 feet east of the centerline of the westerly drive. B. Washington Street 1) Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the northeast corner of this property. LANDSCAPING 37. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in landscape setbacks and in on - site areas as designated in the landscape plan for this Specific Plan. 38. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd } ° c. r Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 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. 39. 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. PUBLIC SERVICES 40. The applicant shall provide an improved bus turnout with a City approved Bus Shelter design on Highway 111 as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. The applicant shall provide an improved bus turnout with a City approved Bus Shelter design on Washington Street between the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel and Washington Street, if needed by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. The applicant shall provide and pay for perpetual electrical power to the Bus Shelters on Highway 111 and on Washington Street for the Bus Shelter lighting. The source of power may be part of the landscaping lighting system or through a separate system. QUALITY ASSURANCE 41. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 42. 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. 43. 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 A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 44. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvements constructed within City or Caltrans' right of way. 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 45. 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 46. 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. FIRE MARSHAL 48. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the water district, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. 49. Automatic fire sprinklers providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with La Quinta City Ordinance 8.08.090. 50. All interior fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width and ab unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. Any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of any building shall be located within 150 feet from apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 1 Adopted March 26, 2000 MISCELLANEOUS 51. Prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit , the final Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated in the Final Specific Plan document. Applicant shall work with staff to correct internal document inconsistencies prior to final publication of Specific Plan document. 52. On Page 39 of the Specific Plan under General Criteria add a new item to read: "Detailed sign plan shall be submitted for each tenant or building consistent with the Specific Plan Sign Program prior to issuance of a building permit." 53. On Page 35 of the Specific Plan under Architectural Features and Details add a new bullet point to read: "Design articulation and enhanced landscaping of all buildings along on all north elevations (i.e. rear elevations facing the channel) shall be required." 54. On Page 36 of the Specific Plan under Carports add a new bullet point to read: "All carport structures shall be made of wood." Delete the word steel in the second bullet point under carports regarding acceptable materials. 55. Prohibit or (substitute an alternative) Pennisetum Setaceum (Red fountain Grass) from the Landscape Pallette. 56. Prohibit Date Palms trees in high use activity locations including pedestrian corridors and courtyards. 57. Delete restaurant use from Parcel 12 in Table 1 (Land Use Summary). 58. Add lighting bollards to Landscape Details, Figure 10 per the adopted Point Happy Specific Plan and the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. 59. Delete the Point Happy Parking Analysis from the Final Specific Plan as it is not relevant until submittal for a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit to allow a hotel occurs. 60. Allow Street name change at both the Highway 111 and Washington Street signals to be renamed "Point Happy". A:\SP 2000-043 Amd No. 1\PC.COA.SP2000-043 AMD NO. 1.wpd ATTACHMENT 133HIS NOIDNIHSVPA- 4T PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 26, 2002 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-443 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2002-084 ZONE CHANGE 2002-106 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730 REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; 2) CHANGE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; 3) APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 149 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: A:\PC staff rpt. 2002-730.wpd ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-443 WAS PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2002-084, ZONE CHANGE 2002-106, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSIDERATION 10.76 ACRE TRIANGULAR PARCEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. ROBERT KRAFT, KRAFT ARCHITECTS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/VACANT SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/CANAL AND PLANNED CASITAS EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/CANAL AND PLANNED CASITAS WEST: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)/TEMPORARY BANK AND FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The currently vacant triangular 10.76 acres project site is located on the south side of Avenue 52, approximately 600 feet east of Jefferson Street; with the All American Canal on the eastern property line. (Attachment 1) General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Zoning use designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. The High Density Residential allows up to 16 units per acre; the proposal is for 149 apartment units on 10.76 acres which yields a density of 13.8 units per acre. The General Plan Update, adopted by City Council on March 20, 2002, approved High Density Residential use for the subject property, negating the need for a General Plan Amendment. Site Development Permit The applicant proposes eighteen apartment buildings with eight different floor plans having similar elevations including a one story 5,680 square foot Clubhouse/Administration building, pool, putting green, barbeque areas and a great lawn. (Attachment 2) Apartment buildings are one, two, and three stories with four buildings at the maximum 40' height. Units proposed are one and two bedrooms (some with dens). Access/Circulation/Parking The proposed site plan has frontage on Avenue 52 with three access points into the site parking for residents and guests. The west access will be shared with an adjacent planned and approved neighborhood commercial center allowing a right -in, right -out, and left -in turning movement; the middle access provides a right -in, right - out turning movement; and the east access allows a right -in, right -out, and left -in turning movement. Proposed resident parking is provided around the entire perimeter of the project; with the east and west perimeter parking proposed to be screened by a 6' chain link fence. Proposed are 118 open parking stalls (9' X 17' with a 2' A:\PC staff rpt. 2002-730.wpd overhang), 189 carports (9' X 17' with a 2' overhang) , and 40 one car (10' X 20) garages. Exterior Parking Lot Lighting Plan Site lighting consists of twenty lights on 18-foot high square poles, located generally within the perimeter parking lot. The stylized shoe box light will have flush lenses directed downward with 100 watt high pressure sodium lamps. Fifty-nine building mounted sconces with 100 watt high pressure sodium lamps are proposed to be mounted throughout the project. The photometric data from the illumination study shows light in the parking area average of 1.46 foot candles and driveways at 3.62 foot candles. Sign Plan Three project monument signs are proposed to be located at each driveway entrance. Two project identification monument signs at 133 square feet ( 7' x 19') are proposed to be located at the east and west driveway entrances with copy to read "Clubhouse Apartments, XX-XXX Avenue 52" ; and one project entry sign at 63 square feet ( 9' x 7') to be located at the middle driveway entrance with copy to read "The Clubhouse Office" is proposed. Architectural Plans The applicant proposes eighteen buildings with eight different floor plans and similar elevations including a Clubhouse. Floor plans are one and two bedrooms (some with dens) ranging in size from 752 square feet to 1,308 square feet. Four apartment buildings are one story at approximately 24 feet in height, 10 buildings are two story at approximately 33 feet in height, and three stories with a maximum 40' height and all with a 5:12 roof pitch. All buildings are proposed to have a similar contemporary design, each proposed building will be covered with flat concrete the and walls will have a stucco finish. The proposed roof style is a gable style with pyramid and dome style roofed stairwells with flat concrete tile and ceramic the respectively. Also proposed is a twenty two foot high 6,000 square foot "L" shaped Clubhouse with a similar design using the same materials as the proposed units. All proposed windows for the apartments are multi -pane with slider glass doors. Aluminum frames are proposed for all windows including the sliding glass doors that lead to outdoor patios or balconies covered with stained wood trellis'. All three story buildings are proposed to have garages (with roll -up wood panels) and storage with two levels of dwelling units above the garages. Carport structures are freestanding with support posts located at the front of the stall; they are 12 feet high and custom constructed prefabricated painted steel with fabric roofs. A:\PC staff rpt. 2002-730.wpd The Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the entries, the setbacks , the on -site planting areas, and the building perimeter planters. For the required landscape setback on Avenue 52 the applicant proposes 26 "Desert Museum" Palo Verde trees. California Fan Palms and Mexican Fan Palms accent the two gated project entries and entry wall on Avenue 52; Queen Palms surround and define the pool area. Date Palms are scattered throughout the courtyards and walkways. A variety of additional trees for shade and accent are proposed (all with 1.25 to 1.5 calipers) throughout the site. They include: Hong Kong Orchid Tree, Flame Tree, Palo Brea, Chinese Pistachio, Chilean Mesquite, Pomegranate, and Texas Mountain Laurel. Colored pavers are proposed to delineate courtyards, pathways, patios, and pool decking. A water efficiency calculation has been completed and the project is in compliance with the code. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2002-443 for the project. The Noise Assessment Study, prepared for the EA, recommends certain noise control mitigation measures including a minimum five feet in height noise barrier along Avenue 52 which can be achieved with a berming and/or a wall. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 13, 2002 (Attachment 3). The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2002-010, recommending approval subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this review 1. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall identify an average three foot mounding within the Avenue 52 landscape setback to screen the parking lot. 2. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall not use Queen Palms on -site in an organized pattern as this tree will not provide the intended effect. 3. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall eliminate the use of Date Palms trees along pedestrian corridors and courtyards and substitute it with another palm tree type such as a California Fan Palm or a Mexican Fan Palm. AAPC staff rpt. 2002-730.wpd 4. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval which provides vines on all perimeter walls/fences; and eliminates plant material from the perimeter landscape setback adjacent to parking. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The project was sent out for comment to City departments and affected public agencies on February 25, 2002, requesting comments be returned by March 15, 2002. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on, March 4, 2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings, as noted in the attached Resolution, required by the Zoning Ordinance can be made, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, with the following exceptions: 1. Adequate parking is provided, however an additional 39 parking spaces are required to be covered per Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Code. Staff is recommending a Condition of Approval requiring an additional 39 spaces be provided covered parking. In addition, the administration portion Clubhouse/Administration building will create a demand to for parking directly in front of the facility. Staff is recommending Condition of Approval No. 78 requiring six spaces in close proximity to the Clubhouse facility to be signed and striped for apartment managers/employees and prospective renters only. 2. Proposed monument signs do not meet code requirements. Staff is recommending Condition of Approval No. 79 requiring redesign of the Monument Signs, consistent with Section 9.160.040 of the Zoning Code, to be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 3. The proposed chain link fence on the east and west perimeter of the site is prohibited per Section 9.60.030 of the Zoning code. Staff is recommending Condition of Approval No. 80 requiring wall design be consistent with Section 9.60.030 and Section 9.150.080 (Parking Facility Design Standards) to be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. AAPC staff rpt. 2002-730.wpd 4. The proposed illumination study does not meet Code standards for average illumination per Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code (Parking Facility Design Standards). Staff is recommending Condition of Approval No.81, requiring a revised Illumination study to be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval which provides driveways with illumination to allow overall site illumination to achieve an average of two footcandle or less . RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission 2002-_ recommending to the City Council certification of an Environmental Assessment 2002-443; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council approval of a Zone Change 2002-106; and, 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2002-730 subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Plans and Elevations (Large copy Planning Commission only) 3. Draft Minutes of the of March 13, 2002 meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner A:\PC staff rpt. 2002-730.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2002-084, CHANGE OF ZONE 2002- 106, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-443 APPLICANT: CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of March, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-443 for General Plan Amendment 2002-084, Change of Zone 2002-106, and Site Development Permit 2002-730 herein referred to as the "Project" for Clubhouse Associates L.L.C.; and, WHEREAS, said Project 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 2002-443) to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1 . The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. A:1PC RESO EA 2002-443.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-443 Adopted March 26, 2002 3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2002-443 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact upon the environment. 8. EA 2002-443 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 922253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2002-443 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, J A:\PC RESO EA 2002-443.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-443 Adopted March 26, 2002 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO EA 2002-443.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-084, Change of Zone 2002-106, Site Development Permit 2002-730, Clubhouse Apartments. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: South side of Avenue 52, approximately 600 feet east of Jefferson 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Clubhouse Associates, LLC 160 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Low Density Residential Proposed: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential Proposed: High Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to change the density of the property from 4 units per acre to up to 16 units per acre on a parcel of land approximately 10 acres in size. Site Development Permit to allow the construction of 149 apartments and ancillary facilities. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Avenue 52, Low Density Residential South: All -American Canal West: Vacant Neighborhood Commercial, recently approved for a shopping center East: All -American Canal, Single Family Residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable P:\CEQAchccklistEA 02-443wpd 1 e Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared 0 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. R I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. March 7, 2002 `—Signature Date a' G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: l . A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) II. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X K4 X X \WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD I 4 V. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological 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)? c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed Delineation Map) X X X X X X X X X X :\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD i 1 5 ✓I (II d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological Associates, July 2001) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ("Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 7 Lot Residential Subdivision...," Sladden Engineering, August 2001) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) 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) 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) X f7 X APDOMEnv Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD 6 d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g► Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-1 1) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) ✓III. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) X X X X X X X \WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD 7 V X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) (. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) (I. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ("Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates; General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates; General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, Pg 6-17) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) X KI X X 91 91 91 X \WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD 8 (II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) (I11. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) (IV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) X X X X X X CV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of X vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, pg 4-126 ff.) KI X X X t1,.3 MPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD 9 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) KVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, pg 4-20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) MPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD X X X X X X X X X X X X (VI1. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Vill. EARLIER ANALYSIS. KI f9 X FN Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. No earlier analysis were used in this review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. OURCES: taster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. CAQMD CEQA Handbook. ieneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. Ity of La Quinta Municipal Code :\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD 11 Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, IOVEMBER 29, 2001. Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Clubhouse at La Quinta...," prepared by W & S :onsultants. raffic Impact Analysis letter, dated February 12, 2002, prepared by Wildan. :\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-443 a) & c) The proposed project includes one, two and three story buildings. The three story buildings are proposed on the boundary of the site adjacent to the All - American Canal (buildings 1, 2, 2.13 and 4). The height of these buildings is shown to reach 40 feet. However, the buildings will never be adjacent to other development, insofar as the All -American Canal will always provide a buffer to development on the south. The buildings will be at least 200 feet from any development to the south, and probably more when setbacks are added to those properties. This distance reduces the potential impacts associated with the structures to a less than significant level. III, a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of motor vehicles. The 149 apartment units could generate approximately 5,500 trips per day'. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 198.8 7.65 40.7 -- 0.85 0.85 7 9 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 5,500 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR. As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be significant. III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the Traffic Analysis letter dated February 13, 2002, prepared by Wildan. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIubAssocAdd.WPD potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the area. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit such a plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Avenue 52 and the retention basin landscaping shall be completed with the first phase of development. 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout will not be significant. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocAdd.WPD V. b) A cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property'. The survey found three prehistoric sites and one isolate on the site. As a result, the report recommends the imposition of the following mitigation measure: 1. A Phase II testing program shall be conducted on the subject property. The findings of the Phase II testing shall be compiled into a report to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will implement requirements for a PM10 management plan, and additional mitigation measures have been included in the Air Quality discussion above. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts associated with groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c►&d) The proposed project will alter the drainage pattern in the area through grading and covering of soil with impermeable surfaces. The City requires that all construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. z "Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Clubhouse at La Quinta...," prepared by W & S Consultants. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocAdd.WPD XI. a) A noise study was prepared for the proposed project'. The study found that noise levels of 69 dBA CNEL could be expected at 100 feet from the center line of Avenue 52. Since the project proposes sensitive receptors, namely apartments, for the site, mitigation is required to reduce the impacts, particularly to first floor units near the Avenue 52 right-of-way. 1. A 5 foot tall barrier, either in the form of a wall or berm, or combination of both, shall be erected along the entire length of the property on Avenue 52, and for a distance of at least 200 feet along the western and eastern property lines. The wall shall have no openings or cutouts, except drain holes, within the 5 feet of height. 2. Construction of all units shall conform to the recommendations made in the "Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments...," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, November 2001. XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will also generate temporary high noise levels which could impact residential development to the south and east. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located in the northwest corner of the site. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. X111. a) The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to schools. "Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments...," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, November 2001. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocAdd.WPD XV. a) The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. A traffic analysis letter was prepared for the proposed project'. The letter finds that the potential additional traffic generated at the site will not represent a significant impact on the City's roadway system. Further, the City's General Plan EIR and associated traffic study included analysis of this property for High Density Residential development. The project falls within the parameters of the EIR, and will not further impact the roadway system. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. 4 Letter dated February 12, 2002, by Wildan. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocAdd.WPD N 0 CD 6 O M N U N 0 a N U H O � Q z a � a A U W d W F a c W � a° w aV � W OS UU b .. w b 0 0 U b a o n CA Qaj OA •U 'U .D O O 'U �Z••.. y y � U Ln F r. O O O O U U •4 U U U 0 i O O CA .. C U U O O O O O T3 •� a a u.a a a as ci •W] � o � � a�i 00 �' C� a. in. a aOD U N Cd z o 0 U 0 V] }• C�.7w �? a E ;, N ap a -n l oCdb Ln u b a N Cd c 3 A W a > a a. L-10 w F d A U O�0 �TWAW Y �w O� UU Cd F � a U � � � U Cd v� a, U E- U 0 0 o ¢ a 0~ �z 0 �O zz Oo Q .0 w Cd a. o � UA z �O F to W U o � �Q a ¢� Cd a. cC v � u F d A U� �A �w O� UU W 0 0 0 0 C7 0 0 0 0 U U U U 0 0 0 0 O� w a u zz cd m cl to m m m m 0 O O 0 d > cl , d wo o cn —03 � O V 'C3 '✓, O � � r—i O N Cd 00 N O X U u PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 10.7 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON, SOUTH OF AVENUE 52 CASE NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE 2002-106 APPLICANT: CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26`h day March, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and to consider the request of Clubhouse Associates, L. L.C. for a Change of Zone as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 772-300-002 & 772-300-003 and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1 . This Zone Change is consistent the updated General Plan, in that the zone change category proposed are consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan. 2. The Zoning Change is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is a small triangular shaped lot more suitable for the higher intensity use. 3. The new land use designation is compatible with the similar designations within the City because the property is accessible from an arterial street . 4. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. AAPC RESO ZC 2002-106.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Change of Zone 2002-106 Adopted March 26, 2002 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Zone Change request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO ZC 2002-106.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THE DESIGN PLANS FOR A 149 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730 APPLICANT: CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of March, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and to consider the request of Clubhouse Associates, L. L.C. for a Site Development Permit as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 772-300-002 & 772-300-003 and; WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, at its meeting of March 131h, 2002 did review the architecture and landscape plans for the proposed project and recommended approval. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said Site Development Permit 2002-730 : A. Site Development Permit 2002-730 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan proposed General Plan Amendments are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the proposals meet General Plan Policy 2-1.1.8 and 2-1.3.1 which state: Policy 2-1.1.8 A High Density Residential (HDR) Category shall be established on the Land Use Policy Diagram. The density standard for this category shall range from 12-16 DU/AC. The maximum density shall be 16 DU/AC. The general residential product type shall be charac- terized by one -three story single family attached units and one -three story apartments. Appropriate locations for HDR areas include areas where planned community facilities, major vehicular transportation system access, appropriately -sized utilities, commercial services and employment uses are easily available, and where adjacent development is compatible. A limited amount of this use is appropriate in the Village area, where the opportunity for pedestrian access to shops and recreation creates a unique opportunity for a special "center" in La Quinta. A:\PC RESO SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-730 Adopted March 26, 2002 Policy 2-1.3.1 Projects which include a mixture of residential housing types shall be encouraged to implement the General Plan's Housing Element. B. The design and development of the apartment complex will be consistent with the City's Zoning Code provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2002-443. C. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the development quality in the area and accommodates site generated traffic. D. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and surrounding development in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area, provides adequate visual buffering with trees and mounding, and uses a high quality of plant materials. E. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that is a similar scale, massing and building height of other development in the area; the building materials will be high quality, durable and low maintenance, provided conditions are met. F. The architectural design of the project is consistent with the Zoning Code in that land use and circulation considerations, scale, massing and building height of the facility are met. 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 to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2002-730 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 26th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: A:\PC RESO SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-730 Adopted March 26, 2002 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO SDP 2002-730.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002- 730 CLUBHOUSE APARTMENTS, L.L.C. ADOPTED MARCH 26, 2002 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. (FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES FIVE (5) ACRES OR MORE: A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("N01"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City.) A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC: 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All 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). A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 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 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) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) 110 foot ultimate developed right of way, 55 feet on the south side. 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. Avenue 52 (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the Right of Way/Property Line. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 1 1. 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 Permit. 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 Permit. 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. When an applicant proposes the vacation, 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 provide an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties, or shall submit notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 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. 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. 17. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. 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:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' D. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal F. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal G. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal The plans shall be submitted a minimum of 8 to 10 weeks prior to the issuance of construction permits to allow adequate time for plan check and revisions. 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 adjacent existing streets. "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. "Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 18. 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. 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 f A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 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. OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 20. Prior to the conditional approval of this Site Development Permit, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Off -Site Improvement Agreement ("OSIA") 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. 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. 22. When improvements are to be secured through an OSIA, and prior to any permits being issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed off -site improvements for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the same time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for the security determination of the OSIA, the applicant shall also submit one copy of an 8- 1 /2" x 11 " reduction of the Site Development Plan, 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 Cost estimates for the security of telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements will not be required. 23. 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 an OSIA, 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 an OSIA, 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.) 24. In the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, or other phasing method, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 26. 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. 27. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. ,- ) A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 28. 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. 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. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the pads within this development. The existing approved SDP 2001-71 1 is located immediately west of the subject property and has proposed grades at the southerly end approximately 6 feet lower than the proposed parking grade for the subject project. The applicant shall provide a workable design which either minimizes the grade difference between the two projects or design and construct a retaining wall/garden wall system in accordance with the City's standards to accommodate the grade differential. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 30. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any building pads within the project site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 32. 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. 33. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 34. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 35. 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. 36. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 37. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 . 38. 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. 39. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 40. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 41. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQIVIC. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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 46. 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. 47. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 4 J A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 48. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) 110 foot Right of Way Option Widen the south side of Avenue 52 along the project frontage. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutters, cross gutters and spandrels, traffic control striping, legends, marking and signs. 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 westerly property line to the easterly project limits. Necessary transitions and tapers into the existing bridge at the All American Canal will need to be designed and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 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. 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" c.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. 51. 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 52. 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. 53. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 54. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 55. 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. 56. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Avenue 52) at the Westerly Property Line. This driveway shall be a shared access drive/road with the adjacent landowner (See SDP 2001-71 1) and shall be centered on the westerly property line. This driveway shall have right in, right out and left in turning movements. The median improvements shall accommodate a left in, only, design. The shared access drive/road layout shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The security gate for this project shall be located away from the property line a sufficient distance with the following access road design features: adequate stacking, a rejection turnaround feature, and a separate lane for guests. Nothing in this condition requires the adjacent landowner to pay for sufficient improvements to implement the shared access requirements in a manner that serves the development proposed by SDP 2002-730. 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. B. Secondary Entry (Avenue 52) approximately 740 feet east of the westerly property line. This driveway shall have right in, right out and left in turning movements. The median improvements shall be designed for left in only turning A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 movements. The location of this proposed driveway shall take into account the proposed entry for the Mountain View Country Club on the north side of Avenue 52. The Mountain View Country Club entrance will also have a left in only turn lane design. The driveway for SDP 2002-730 may need to shift easterly to provide adequate separation from the Mountain View Country Club Entrance to accommodate the proposed left in only turn lane designs for both projects. The location of the driveway and median design is subject to City Engineer's approval. C. Secondary Entry (Avenue 52) approximately 240 feet east of the westerly property line. This driveway shall be a right in/right out driveway. 57. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b) (Parking), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 30-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 30-feet. CONSTRUCTION 58. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include the test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include the most recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that the design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs have been approved. 59. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 60. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall identify an average three foot mounding within the Avenue 52 landscape setback to screen the parking lot. . A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 61. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall not use Queen Palms on -site in an organized pattern as this tree will not provide the intended effect. 62. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall eliminate the use of Date Palms trees along pedestrian corridors and courtyards and substitute it with another palm tree type such as a California Fan Palm or a Mexican Fan Palm. 63. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which provides vines on all perimeter walls/fences; and eliminates plant material from the perimeter landscape setback adjacent to parking. 64. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 65. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. Only incidental storm water 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. W A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 QUALITY ASSURANCE 69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 70. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such or other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 71. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 72. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 74. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 75. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002- 730 Clubhouse Apartments, L.LC. Adopted March 26, 2002 FIRE MARSHALL 76. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 77. 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 78. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall provide a minimum of six spaces in close proximity to the Clubhouse facility to be signed and striped for apartment managers and prospective renters only. 79. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall redesign of the Monument Signs, consistent with Section 9.160.040 of the Zoning Code, to be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 80. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall provide a wall design be consistent with Section 9.60.030 and Section 9.150.080 (Parking Facility Design Standards) to be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 81. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall submit a revised Illumination study to the Community Development Department for review and approval which provides driveways with illumination to allow overall site illumination to achieve an average of two footcandle or less. 4) A:\PC COA SDP 2002-730.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 I YRA OZO-057 Pot i O p O4 9 25Ae NI e ioo / d Por P ® O 5 90Ac N1 d' S 53 rd PM. 44167-68 Parcel Mop No. 896/ 32 a 0 O47A: 60'Rds pfr ins/, R3 93/BZ 3Z69Z 4155 ✓0 ATTACHMENT Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 13, 2002 2. Committee Member Thorns questioned the air conditioning ducts. Mr. Jim Cathcart explained the location of the ducts and work to be done. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the ducting were removed would the exposed stucco be repainted. Mr. Cathcart stated yes, but it is not part of the funding request. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there was any limit as to how many times an applicant can apply for the funding. Staff stated only once a year, but as many times as there are funds. 5. Committee Member Cunningham stated the duct work is the area of concern from the public view, but the replacement of the duct is not $2,600. The cost involved is the replacement of the entire system to replace the duct. The question is how far does the City want to go to get rid of the duct. In essence, the City is paying $2,682 to get rid of the duct eyesore. Mr. Cathcart explained the request was based on comments made by members of the City Council and Historical Society members. Discussion followed as regarding the request. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it was border line as to whether or not the City should pay for this, but he has no problem with the request. 7. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002-009 approving Commercial Property Improvement Program request of La Quinta Palms Realty with a score of 81. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2001-730; a request of Clubhouse Associates, LLC for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for the Clubhouse Apartments to be located on the south side of Avenue 52, east of Jefferson Street. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Bob Kraft, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\3-13-02.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 13, 2002 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff what the height limit was for commercial buildings. Staff noted it was 36-feet. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the coordination of the shared access. Mr. Chuck Cockrell, Project Manager, stated they worked with the City on the shared access. They have a left in, with right in and out only. Their concern is the truck deliveries for the commercial project at the corner and the traffic patterns. To resolve the issue they decided to have a stacking element for three cars. If this project is constructed before the commercial project an agreement will be made between the two to meet the conditions for the commercial project to reimburse them for the payments. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the use of wood on some of the elements. Mr. Kraft stated they will be blocked as designed to be constructed to keep them from turning. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the wood doors and the use of the date palm trees in a high traffic areas. He asked how the residents at Country Club of the Desert would be impacted by the height of the apartment buildings at the 40-feet. Mr. Kraft showed a site elevation. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern in light of the problems that were created with the height of the berm is the height of the buildings. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is a situation of who is there first. This backs up to the Canal and with the parking it has a buffer, but you will never be able to hide it. 5. Staff noted a different material would be used on the carports and asked the Committee's opinion. Mr. Kraft gave a presentation on the material. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated the material gives a lot of design freedom and are great. He likes the shade structures. Mr. Kraft stated that from a design standard it offers a lot more than the wood. Committee Member Cunningham stated he liked the architecture. A big issue with apartments is the maintenance over a period of years. In regard to the wood siding, he would prefer a painted metal. They will be using clay tiles instead of concrete which are better and richer. The white on the color board should be replaced on the stucco. He questioned whether or not the small tiles on the dome would pop off due to the earthquakes. He would recommend a different material. The windows are all setback giving a shadow line that will enhance the building. In regard to the carports, the fabric covers do look good, but a sand color should be used. In regard to the wood, whether or not you G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\3-13-02.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 13, 2002 block them they will turn. Metal may be a consideration. He asked the location of the trash enclosures and that they be "bullet proof". 7. Committee Member Thoms asked what type of fencing would be used along the property line that backs up to the All American Canal. Mr. Kraft stated they would prefer to use the chainlink fence that is installed by CVWD and they would be asking them to put it on the property line, not where it is now. They hope to make it into a living fence. Committee Member Thoms asked about the area between the carports and fence on the west of south side, as they are difficult to landscape. The important item is to give attention to will be the fence. Plant material on the barrier itself. He asked for an explanation on the security wall on Avenue 52. Mr. Ronald Masanobu Izumita, Image Design, stated they have a requirement to provide a five foot high sound barrier wall. Committee Member Thoms stated he liked the site plan, architecture, and carports. He is concerned about the landscaping on Avenue 52. There is an exposed parking lot and he would like to see more screening for the car noses. Mr. Izumita stated it will be bermed with meandering sidewalks with a lot of ground cover. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that the plant pallette be similar to the adjacent shopping center. 9. Committee Member Thoms asked if the wall facing the north side will have plant material. Mr. Izumita stated there would be plant material on certain locations. Committee Member Thoms asked what "15-feet BTH" meant. Staff stated at means "brown trunk height". Committee Member Thoms asked that the Queen Palm not be used in an row situation. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-010 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-730, subject to the conditions as submitted and amended: A. Landscaping along the perimeter, around the parking lot not to use plant material on the ground, but use vines on the wall or living fence. B. Avenue 52 a three foot berm is required to screen the parking lot. C. Queen Palms not be planted in an organized pattern. Unanimously approved. GAWPDOCS\ARI,C\3-13-02.wpd 4 B 1 #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 26, 2002 CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2000-040, AMENDMENT NO. 1 REQUEST: REVIEW OF LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A RESTAURANT LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE APPLICANTS: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONING: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) EAST: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) WEST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) BACKGROUND: Previous Planning Commission Action At the Planning Commission Public Hearing of February 26, 2002, the Commission approved VUP 2000-040, Amendment No. 1. The Commission asked that the Lighting and Landscaping Plans be brought back as a Business Item after the applicant addresses concerns of adjacent property owners to the north. After three meetings with the adjacent property owners, the applicant has submitted revised Lighting and Landscaping Plans. At staff's request, the applicant also submitted a Shading Plan for the parking lot. (Attachment 1). MIXOMW-1 • The revised Landscaping Plan shows 17 California Fan Palms with parallel parking spaces along the north property line within the Landscape setback. The landscape setback is proposed to be increased from 6 feet to 18 feet in depth. This revision eliminates approximately 32 spaces from the parking lot for a total of 158 spaces. The number of spaces in the parking lot exceeds the Zoning Code requirements by approximately 40 spaces. Lighting Plan The revised Lighting Plan shows 17 parking light poles all at 14' height (2' lower than the previous plan), with two styles, one with a four inch high base and one with a 2' high base. Lamps wattage has been reduced from 150 watts to 100 watts. The pole number and locations are the same as previously proposed. The Lighting Plan is consistent with the Zoning Code (Section 9.100.150). STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: All findings can be made for per the Municipal Code with the exception of the following: 1 . The Shading Plan does meet the 50% parking lot shade requirement (Section 9.150.080), and is not shading fifty percent of the parking spaces by approximately 18 spaces. 2. The parallel parking space dimensions do not meet Zoning Code requirements per Section 9.150.080. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Lighting and Landscape Plans as presented with the following Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit submit for approval by the Community Development Director a revised Landscaping Plan that adds shade trees to the parking area, except along the north perimeter, to meet the 50% shade requirement per Zoning Code (Section 9.150.080). 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit submit for approval by the Community Development Director a revised Landscaping Plan that provides parallel parking space dimensions, along the north property line, consistent with Zoning Code requirements per Section 9.150.080. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Revised Lighting Plan, and revised Landscaping Plan/Shading Plan with Letter from applicant Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner T fl A N S l f A F f Y r Y March 22, 2002 Mr. Steve Speer Senior Engineer City of La Quinta P O Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Speer: MEMBER5- Desert Hot Springs Rancho Mirage Indio Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella Cathedral City Indian Welis Riverside County Lo Quinto Public Agency MAR 2 5 2002 We have been requested to put in writing our Policy concerning electricity and/or lighting at shelters that are not owned by SunLine Transit Agency. At shelters erected by cities, developers or other non-SunLine entities, SunLine does not assume responsibility for the lighting or supplying of electricity. On shelters that are owned by SunLine, we make arrangements for electrical service on a case by case basis. SunLine will maintain all shelters that serve SunBus passengers. The costs for this daily, 7 day a week service, is offset by the revenue SunLine generates from selling advertising space in SunLine owned shelters. For all shelters not owned by SunLine, the cost of maintaining the shelters is billed to the city. We hope this letter assists you in understanding SunLine's position. We are La Quinta's public transit provider, just as we are the public transit provider for each of the cities in the valley. We stand ready to assist you whenever we can and look forward to working with you on future projects. Very Truly Yours, ichard Cromwell III General Manager & CEO cc: Mayor John Pena, SunLine Boardmember William A. Maier, Chief Financial Officer Dennis Gilman, Director of Administrative Services Leslie Grosjean, Senior Transportation Analyst h: u\s\corresVorrc3Vq 1 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 260-343-3845