Loading...
2002 04 23 PCit, Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California APRIL 23, 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 2002-037 Beginning Minute Motion 2002-008 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on March 26, 2002. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 0 C. Item ................. CONTINUED - 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 ............... Continue to May 14, 2002 Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-731 Applicant ........... WG Properties, LLC Location ............ The east side of Washington Street, north of Lake La Quinta Drive, within the Lake La Quinta project area Request ............. Consideration of development plans for construction of a 8,792 square foot office building on a 1.51 acre parcel. Action ............... Continue to May 14, 2002 Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 Applicant .......... SECO/SDC LLC/A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Location ............ The east side of Washington Street, north of Avenue 48 Request ..........1. Recommendation for certification of an Environmental Assessment; 2. Conditional Use Permit to allow a 1-3 story, 120 room hotel; and 3. Review of development plans for a 1-3 story, 120 room hotel. Action ............... Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- PC/AGENDA VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-735 Applicant ........... Peter and Marie Andriet Location ............ 47-300 Via Ravenna, south of Dulce Del Mar within Lake La Quinta Request ............. Compatibility review of architectural and landscaping plans for a one story single family residence on approximately 0.2 acres. Action ............... Resolution 2002- B. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2002-613 Applicant .......... JDD, LLC Location ............ La Quinta Court Request ............. Consideration of an amendment to the sign program for La Quinta Court Action ............... Minute Motion 2002- C. Item .................. ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION Applicant ........... City of La Quinta Location ............ City-wide Request ............. Interpretation of Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code regarding two story units. Action ............... Minute Motion 2002- D. Item .................. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING Applicant ........... La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Location ............ South side of Avenue 52, north of Avenue 54, west side of Jefferson Street with the Coral Reef Mountains as the western boundary. Request ............. Finding of General Plan conformity for the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency's Proposed Acquisition and development of The Ranch property with a Municipal Golf Course and Tourist Commercial uses. Action ............... Resolution 2002- Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of April 16, 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 26, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Abels who lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to excuse Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, 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 March 12, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 7, Item #18 be corrected. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2000-395 Addendum and Specific Plan 2000- 043 Amendment #1; a request of Madison/P.T.M. La Quinta, L.L.C. a recommendation for certification of an Addendum to a previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and review of revised design guidelines and development standards for an 81,407 square foot commercial center located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked if the parking analysis should be included in the Specific Plan. Staff stated a parking analysis would be required at the time a site development permit or conditional use permit are submitted and uses identified. At that time the amount of parking needed would be defined. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee reviewed the changes. Staff stated they review projects and not specific plans. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked staff who was requiring the stone materials on the Circle K building. Staff stated the Specific Plan only allows the Cantera stone. This Amendment allows for variation. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if the updated General Plan adopted by the City Council was in affect at this time. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Tyler then questioned why a street name did not require a General Plan Amendment. Staff stated the General Plan policy is to have the same name through the project. In this case the access at both entrances already have different names. Their request is to have the same name. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Specific Plan allows for simulated Cantera stone patterns. Staff stated yes. 8. Commissioner Butler asked if a hotel was proposed, would the parking analysis be brought forward again. Staff stated they would have to prepare a parking plan to accommodate the use proposed. At this time they are only asking to have the use approved. Commissioner Butler asked if the City, at the time the parking analysis was reviewed, be able to control the valet parking. Staff stated projects have been conditioned to provide a valet parking program, but staff's primarily purpose is to look at the number of spaces. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 9. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Rick Wilkerson, representing the applicant, stated his concern with the Point Happy Street sign. When the project was proposed they were told they had to use the existing street names. At that time they were unaware of the significant importance of the site and name "Point Happy". In regard to staff's recommendations, he asked where the light bollards were to be placed. Staff clarified they were requesting the bollard type be identified in the final Specific Plan. Mr. Wilkerson stated he would like to retain the use of the Red Fountain Grass. He further questioned the condition requiring them to supply power to the bus stop and asked that it be removed. He voiced an objection to the design of the bus stop as the users do not use the seating, but stand in their landscaping to be in the shade, which has required them to replaced the landscaping three times so far. They are willing to plant some sizeable trees and ground cover to help solve the problem. 10. Chairman Abels asked is there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler noted the bus stop on Washington Street was not on the Specific Plan and needed to be added and he thought it would be difficult to change the street names at this time. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant to explain the reasoning for the change in the sign program. Mr. Wilkerson stated that in looking at other projects in the Valley, they determined the halo backlit letters are a better looking sign. The box lights are a preference. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify the letter received from Sunline. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this particular bus shelter on Washington Street is owned by Sunline. The bus shelter on Highway 111 is owned by the City. According to the letter from Sunline they will maintain the shelter on Highway 111 at the City's expense. The one on Washington Street they will maintain at their expense. This was not known until it became an issue recently when staff was trying to remove the bus stop on the south side of Highway 111 on Washington Street. Sunline stated they would move the service as soon as someone gave them power to the new bus shelter. Staff understood Sunline did not want their own meter, but they would tie into the property owners meter and pay them a flat fee. This is not their policy. Staff therefore, asked for a clarification on their G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 policy and this letter is the result. If they own the shelter they will provide their own power, but if it is a developer installed shelter, they consider it the developer's responsibility to pay for ongoing maintenance. This is a public facility and once it is turned over to the public agency, the agency maintains it. Sunline does not do the same. Now we need lighting and no one wants to pay for it. In most instances they use solar power, but it has been a problem with vandalism. Commissioner Kirk asked who was receiving the revenue from the advertising. Staff stated it was to be split 50%. Commissioner Kirk stated that if they are receiving 50% of the revenue, they should be responsible for 50% of the power. If the shelter was owned by the developer, they could earn the revenue. 12. Mr. Michael Shovlin, owner of One Eleven La Quinta Center, gave a history of the Point Happy. He stated he had no objection to continuing the street name "Point Happy Drive" on the east side of Washington Street into the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Commissioner Kirk suggested the owners of the Von's Shopping Center be contacted to see if they would accept the name change as well. 13. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Tyler noted minor changes to the staff report. His only concern was solving the issue of the street name. 15. Commissioner Kirk suggested changing the name on Washington Street all the way across and if a letter is received from the Von's Shopping Center to allow the name change to occur, they do so at the Highway 1 1 1 entrance. He agrees with allowing the Red Fountain Grass. In regard to the bus stop, whoever is receiving revenue from the advertising, should be responsible for paying for the power. In regard to the design of the bus stop, he concurs with allowing staff to work with the developer within the Highway 111 Design Guidelines, to provide the shelter and necessary modifications on the design of the bus shelters. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-035 recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2000- 395, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-036 recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-043 Amendment No. 1, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: A. Condition #:40: Electrical power is to be supplied to and maintained by the entity who receives revenue from the advertising on the bus shelter on Washington Street. The applicant shall be allowed to work with staff to make modifications to the landscaping at the rear of the bus shelter to accommodate the bus stop users. B. Condition #55: Delete C. Condition #60: A street name change to "Point Happy Drive" shall be allowed on the east side of the property on Washington Street into the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. A street name change to "Point Happy Drive" shall be allowed when and if written permission is obtained from the La Quinta Plaza Shopping Center owners to said change. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. D. Environmental Assessment 20002-443, General Plan Amendment 2002- 084 Zone Change 2002-106 and Site Development Permit 2002-730; a request of Clubhouse Associates, L.L.C. for a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Assessment; change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and approval of development plans for a 149 unit apartment complex and ancillary facilities located on a 10.75 acre triangular parcel on the south side of Avenue 52, east of Jefferson Street. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked about the results of the water analysis in regard to the Water Efficient Ordinance. Staff stated the results of the calculations were on the landscape plans and stated the maximum allowable is 4,400,000 gallons per year and the actual use is approximately 2,900,000 gallons per year. Commissioner Kirk asked where the additional parking spaces would be located and asked for an explanation of how the fabric roofs would hold up in the deserts temperatures. He also asked if the three access points are appropriate for this kind of project. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it met the General Plan requirements. He explained and went on to explain the circulation pattern. Commissioner Kirk asked if the access point and the one to the east met the 240 foot separation. Staff stated the new General Plan requires 250 feet between driveways measured between the curb returns. On the plan there is not enough room for the third driveway access, it would need to be moved. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if an elevator was required on a three story building. Staff stated only if the Building Code required it and Building and Safety did not require it. The applicant is providing handicapped accessible units. 4. Commissioner Tyler questioned why there was no support given for Item XVII(b) Mandatory Findings of Significance in the Environmental Assessment. Staff explained there were none are required for this section. Commissioner Tyler asked staff why the staff reports states a General Plan Amendment is not required under the updated General Plan, yet there is a General Plan Amendment Resolution is before them for approval. Staff explained that since the updated General Plan is within the 30-day protest period, and the applicant asked for a General Plan Amendment, staff is processing the General Plan Amendment in anticipation of the updated General Plan being in affect by the time this application reaches the City Council. At that time it will no longer be needed. Commissioner Tyler stated he not concur with the Site Development Permit findings in regard to the architecture. In Condition #48, Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain what the word "option" meant. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified there were two options the applicant could chose from. Commissioner Tyler asked staff the location of the mounding as discussed in Condition #60. Staff clarified they were recommending four foot mounding in the street landscaping in G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 conjunction with the sound wall. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was to be a block wall on the perimeter of the project. Staff clarified they were required to provide a sound wall with mounding along Avenue 52. The applicant was asking for a chainlink fence on the rear of the site. Commissioner Tyler asked the location of the retention basin and staff identified them. Staff clarified that a condition would be added requiring a parcel map to be approved prior to building permits being issued. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chuck Crookrall, representing the applicant, stated they have no problem with relocating the third access point. They will hopefully be installing a living fence along the Canal. The remainder of the site will have a block wall. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked about the lack of elevators as it seemed to be a non -marketing issue. Mr. Crookrall stated there are only four buildings that have three stories, or 20 units. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any problem having two access points instead of three. Mr. Crookrall stated he did not see any objection. 8. Mr. Robert Kraft, architect for the project, stated that in regard to the 250 foot distance on the access point, it would not be an issue. Their purpose was to not create a dead-end aisle for the internal circulation. They have no problem with the perimeter block wall. The Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was in favor of a living fence. He went on to explain the site and the elevations. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the garages would be visible from the east side of the Canal. Mr. Kraft stated they would be below the visual site line. 10. Chairman Abels asked about the material to be used on the carports. Mr. Kraft stated it was the same material as what is used at the Palm Springs Airport. It is guaranteed for 30-years. Discussion followed regarding the material to be used for the carports. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant to explain what would be G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 seen from the other side of the Canal. Mr. Kraft gave a demonstration. Commissioner Kirk asked about the location of the extra 39 parking spaces. Mr. Kraft clarified the request was for 39 additional covered spaces not additional spaces. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a target demographic for the project. Mr. Kraft stated he did not have that information. Mr. Crookrall stated their market study showed a need for upscale apartments in the age group of 40 + . Commissioner Kirk asked about active activities. Mr. Kraft explained the amenities. Commissioner Kirk asked about the north side elevations being typical and how many would have the blank wall. Mr. Kraft stated not all the buildings would be the same; only three of the buildings would look at the blank wall. 12. Commissioner Tyler asked about the long term cost analysis for the units. Mr. Kraft stated none had been done at this time. They will be as cost effective as they can make them. 13. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Butler stated that on the three story buildings he is uncomfortable not having elevators as the project will be targeting the older generation. This project will need additional amenities to draw people to the site. He would want the project conditioned to have elevators for the three story units. 15. Commissioner Kirk stated he was in support of the General Plan Amendment. In terms of the design, he has concerns with the asphalt mote around the perimeter. It needs to be broken up with landscaping and design to create interest. 16. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees this is a good location for the high density project. There needs to be more amenities to off -set the density. His main concern is the external appearance driving around it and being highly visible from Avenue 52 and the shopping center adjacent to it. 17. Commissioner Kirk suggested the architect review the plans in light of the suggestions made by the Commission. Mr. Crookrall explained this was not the first design, but it was based on meeting all the Agency requirements. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 18. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to continue the project to April 23, 2002 allowing the applicant to work with staff on the following items: A. Work with staff on the access points to be consistent with the General Plan. B. Architecture relief on the end buildings. C. Landscape relief, greenery or detailing along the carports and asphalt to break up the asphalt. D. Provide additional amenities Unanimously approved. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:16 p.m. and reconvened at 9:21 p.m. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Village Use Permit 2000-040 Amendment #1; a request of Chapman Golf Development, LLC for review of lighting and landscaping plans for a restaurant to be located on the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. 1. Commissioner Kirk stated he had a possible conflict of interest and withdrew from the dias. 2. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Christina Dores, representing the applicant, stated they had met with the adjacent residents and have made modifications based on their concerns. She is available to answer any questions. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to hear from the lighting consultant. Mr. Ralph Reyna, lighting consultant, reviewed the lighting plan. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 5. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Brauckmann, 78-175 Calle Cadiz, thanked Chapman Golf for working with them, but lighting issues still remain. In the staff report, it was suggested the lighting plan be consistent with the Zoning Code and he would like to ask for an interpretation of the Section 9.150.080.K.5. and 6 of the Zoning Code. In addition, he would like to be assured they are in compliance with Waste Management requirements. 6. Mr. Skip Lench, 43-040 Port Maria, Bermuda Dunes, owner of the lot at 78-215 Calle Cadiz, thanked the applicant for meeting with them and working to resolve the landscaping issues. One issue remaining is the six foot wall on the northern property line. The wall starts out at six feet and goes down to four feet. He asks that they all be built at six feet for the full length of the site. In regard to the lighting he does not think there is a solution to the problem. They started out with 18-foot lights and are now down to 14 feet. If they are not willing to lower the lights, he would like to hire a lighting consultant to see what alternatives are available. 7. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. Chairman Abels asked about the height of the existing wall. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that when the wall was originally constructed some of the property owners requested a lower wall height and therefore the City lowered the height. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the wall could be conditioned to be at six feet for the entire length. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it could be conditioned. Commissioner Tyler asked the distance from the north wall to the proposed location of the light standards. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated there is 18 feet of landscaping, ten feet of parking area, 26 foot drive aisle and another 20 feet of parking for a total of four feet. 10. Commissioner Butler stated that this light fixture shines down and there has to be a certain height to make it affective in the area in which it is shining. If you lower the light, you have to change the type of light being used. Community Development Director Jerry G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 Herman stated the lower the lights, the more light poles are needed. Mr. Reyna stated the principal of the light is to meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. The light pyramids down from the light source. In order to minimize hot spots you add poles. The City Council has established a criteria for lighting as exemplified by the La Quinta Arts Foundation site. In order to meet the Ordinance more poles need to be added. This site requires more lighting due to the use and time the restaurant will be used. It is coming down to a safety issue to go any further. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated he is comfortable with the good faith effort the developer has made. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-007, approving Village Use Permit 2000-040, Amendment #1, as amended: A. With the north perimeter wall being constructed to six feet the entire length of the northern property line. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of March 19, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 9, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. on March 26, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd 11 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 23, 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 LOCATION: 10.76 ACRE TRIANGULAR PARCEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET APPLICANT: CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. REPRESENTATIVE: ROBERT KRAFT, KRAFT ARCHITECTS RECOMMENDATION• Staff received a request from the applicant to continue the project to May 14, 2002 (Attachment 1) to allow time to resolve project issues including site access, building access, parking aisle landscaping, and additional design details on certain elevations. Prepared by: Fred Baker, AI"CP Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant requesting a continuance A:\continued PC staff rpt. 2002-730.wpd u 4 1 u• a 2 TUE 10 : 4 8 FAX P']nu SLAW ProWe ties ASSET MANAGEMENT / BUILDING SERVICES April 16, 2002 Mr. Fred Baker Principal Planner City of 1_a Quinta 78-49S Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Via Fax $_ ail 760-777-1233 Ref: General Plan Amendment; Zone Change 2002-084 & Site Dev. Permit 2002-730 Dear Fred: Per our conversation today it is necessary to request an additional continuance from the Planning Commission in regard to the above referenced applications from the April 23, 2002 meeting to the May 14, 2002 meeting . The market information and design modifications will take us anothertwo weeks to complete. We will be ready for a full presentation for the May 14, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you and the Commissioners for your kind consideration of this request. Sincerely, Charles E. Crookall cc: Bob Kraft Ron lzumeda Tony Vitti 160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 250 • Newport Beach, California 42660 Telephone 94916404800 • FAX 949n59-5619 • wwwshawproperties.com 04-16-02 199:51 RECEIVED FROM: P-01 PH #B Tlaf 4 4& a" MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 23, 2002 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #2002-731 WG PROPERTIES The above referenced item is being continued by staff, in order to allow for revisions to the application and to re -notice the item. This item will be continued to the May 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as regularly scheduled PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 23, 2002 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: SECO/SDC LLC/A. G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 1-3 STORY, 120 ROOM HOTEL; AND REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 1-3 STORY, 120 ROOM HOTEL. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, APPROXIMATELY 315 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 48. ENGINEER: WATSON & WATSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA .QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC). PCstfrptmarriott.wpd-MM Page 1 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 BACKGROUND: The proposed project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land, approximately 3.89 acres in size (Attachment 1). The site is bounded by vacant land to the north and south, Caleo Bay and the existing residential development (Lake La Quinta) to the east, and Washington Street and the La Quinta Arts Foundation to the west. The site is designated as Community Commercial (CC) on the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned Regional Commercial (CR) on the Zoning Map. Existing vegetation includes the Sonoran creosote bush scrub species which includes creosote bush, brittlebush and burrobush. The site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 60 feet to 62 feet, then back to 60 feet, from the northeast to the southwest over a distance of approximately 460 feet. Existing streets include Washington Street to the west and Caleo Bay to the east. Washington Street is designated in the General Plan as a Major Arterial with a 120 foot wide right-of-way. Currently, Washington Street is a four -lane divided street and is improved along the western project boundary with a curb, gutter, meandering walkway and landscaping. Caleo Bay is designated in the General Plan as a Local Street with an 60 foot wide right-of-way. Caleo Bay is currently a two-lane undivided roadway and is improved along the eastern project boundary with a curb, gutter and sidewalk. The intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 48 is currently a three- way signalized intersection. A bus turn out currently exists on the east side of Washington Street immediately in front of the site. Existing storm drains exist along the eastern boundary on Caleo Bay and drain into Lake La Quinta. PROJECT PROPOSAL: City staff originally was proposing to initiate a Zone Change for this property from Regional Commercial (CR) to Community Commercial (CC) to provide consistency with the General Plan Update. The site was designated as Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) on the General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan Update which was adopted by the City Council on March 20, 2002, re -designated this property to Community Commercial (CC), resulting in the needed Zone Change. However, City staff has decided to wait to bring all proposed Zone Changes to the Planning PCstfrptmarriott.wpd-MM Page 2 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 Commission at a later time. Therefore, staff is withdrawing this application at this time. The applicant proposes to construct a 120 room, 1-3 story hotel with a meeting room, office space, recreational amenities including a swimming pool, two spas, a sports court, and an exercise room. The hotel is also proposed to have extensive landscaping and 132 parking spaces on site (Attachment 2). A total of three buildings are proposed (Attachment 3). The main lobby building is 1-2 stories with a maximum height of twenty-two feet and includes the lobby, a small retail shop, kitchen facilities, garden and hearth rooms, office space, an employees area, a meeting room, rest rooms, an exercise room, and storage area. The main lobby building is a Tuscan style structure consisting of stone veneer, stucco elements and a combination of pitched tile and flat roofs reminiscent of northern Italy. The main lobby is approximately 9,310 square feet in size and has a pitched tile gable roof supported by semi -square shaped stone veneer columns. Stucco walls extend to each side of the lobby area with flat roofs. A combination of these materials are included on all sides of the building. Windows and doors add interest by using square and rectangular shaped glass on all sides. The offices are offset and aluminum canopies over smooth shaped columns are provided which helps break up the building mass. The other two buildings that encompass the hotel rooms are one and three stories and range from 22 feet to 36 feet-3 inches in height. The maximum allowable building height in the Community Commercial zoning district is 40 feet. However, the City has a 150 foot setback and a 22 foot height restriction for buildings located along Major Arterials. This height restriction reduces the project's building mass along Washington Street. The buildings are also reduced in height towards the rear of the property. These structures are proposed with a variety of the same architectural features as the main lobby building. In addition, balconies are interspersed throughout the two buildings with projections and are offset to break up the massing of the building. The balconies are proposed to have aluminum railings with overhead canopies supported by smooth round -shaped columns. A combination of pitched tile gable and flat roofs is also interspersed throughout the buildings to help break up the massing. The buildings are proposed to be painted desert tone colors to accent and compliment the project. PCstfrptmarriott.wpd-MM Page 3 of 6 J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 The conceptual landscape plan for the site consists of a wide variety of trees including, Carob, Jacaranda, Mesquite, California Pepper, African Sumac, Bottle Tree, Queen and California palms among others (Attachment 4). Shrubs include Japanese Boxwood, Weeping Bottlebrush, Natal Plum, Gardenia, Hibiscus, Lantana, Bird of Paradise, and Oleander including others. The western frontage along Washington Street is currently landscaped with Date Palms, California Fan Palms, turf and a meandering walkway. The proposed landscaping will provide visual relief, compliment the buildings and provide an overall design that is prevalent throughout the City. The front and rear areas of the lobby building are proposed to have decorative paving. Meandering walkways are proposed throughout the common areas which provide access to the swimming pool, spas and lobby building. Access and Parking Vehicular access is provided near the southwest and northeast corners of the site on Washington Street and Caleo Bay, respectively, by undivided two-way driveways 28 feet wide minimum. Interior vehicle circulation is provided by a two-way loop driveway a minimum of 26 feet wide. Parking areas are proposed along the interior perimeter boundary on all sides of the loop driveway. Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Code requires 1.1 spaces per unit. With 120 units proposed the total required parking is 132, which are provided. Exterior Parking Lot Lighting The project will be conditioned to provide low pressure sodium lighting in order to reduce lighting glare onto adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures are Infrastructure and Public Services Infrastructure improvements exist adjacent to the site which can be utilized to provide adequate urban services to support the project. PCstfrptmarriott.wpd-MM Page 4 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) At the April 3, 2002, ALRC meeting one of the Committee members was absent and another lives within 500 feet of the project site. Therefore, no recommendations are being forwarded to the Planning Commission. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 11, 2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, three letters have been received from adjacent property owners and are attached. Any additional written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received from public agencies and City Departments have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve EA 2002-445; and CUP 2002-068 and SDP 2002-733 pursuant to Sections 9.210.010 and 9.210.020, respectively, of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2002-445) pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving CUP 2002-068, subject to findings and conditions; and 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving SDP 2002-733, subject to findings and conditions. PCstfrptmarriott.wpd-MM Page 5 of 6 0,_'J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Elevations 4. Conceptual Landscape Plan 5. Letters Prepared by: Martin Magan-a Associate Planner PCstfrptmarriott.wpd-MM Page 6 of 6 r^n PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445 APPLICANT: SECO/SDC, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of April, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-445 for Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 and Site Development Permit 2002-733 to allow a one to three story, 120 room hotel, generally located east of Washington Street between Lake La Quinta Drive and Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 643-200-002 & 003, WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-445) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 and Site Development Permit 2002-733, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify certifying said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-445. 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 PAMartin\Marriott\PC Reso EA 02-445.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445 APRIL 23, 2002 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2002-445 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. 1 P:\Martin\Marriott\PC Reso EA 02-445.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445 APRIL 23, 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 Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2002-445 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-445 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of April, 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 �' 9 3 P:\Martin\Marriott\PC Reso EA 02-445.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 and Site Development Permit 2002-733, Marriott Residence Inn. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Martin Magana, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: East side of Washington Street, approximately 400 feet north of Avenue 48. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: SECO/SDC LLC 55550 Riviera Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial 7. Zoning: Current: Regional Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Conditional Use Permit for Hotel use. Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a 3 story, 120 room hotel on 3.89 acre site. Site has been previously graded, and street parkway treatments have been previously installed. The hotel will include a separate lobby building with limited office, meeting and public activity areas, as well as a pool and parking. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant desert lands South: Vacant desert lands West: La Quinta Arts Foundation East: Lake La Quinta low density residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable P:\Martin\Marriott\Checklist. WPD Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics 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 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature 07 011 n INS t 6/0 Z D t + _, P:\Martin\Marriott\Checklist.WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1.) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance P:\Martin\Marriott\Checklist.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista'? (General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway'? (General Plan EIR p. 1II-159 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) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract'? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use'? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation'? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'? (Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant [finless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 91 X // ON X X X X X R. ':\Martin\Marriott\Checklist. WPD a -� Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.): e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 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. 73 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. 73 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan'? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? 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'? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X /:/ X 3:\Martin\Marriott\Cheeklist.WPD � t ` J Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.): d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault'? (General Plan EIR p. 111-61 ff.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking'? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) 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 MEA p. 96 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? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials'? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X 04 /:/ X ':\Martin\Marriott\Checklist.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.): d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 94 ff) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III- 87 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted'? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 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 substantiallv increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 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 har2rd delineation map'? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.5) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows'? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.5) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X :\Martin\Marriott\Checklist.WPD t jr 41 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.): IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? (General Plan p. 18 ff.) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan'? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state'? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels'? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X 1/ V /1 X 1A X X XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) P:\Martin\Marriott\Checklist. W PD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (coot.): 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) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) Police protection'? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) Schools'? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) Parks? (General Plan, Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X 4 e 0 F9 X X 2 :\Martin\Marriott\Checklist.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.): d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board'? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed'? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments'? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs'? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X F X :':\Martin\Marriott\Checklist.WPD 10 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.): c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable'? ( "Cumulatively considerable " means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)'? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly'? XVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. 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: 4aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. CAQMD CEQA Handbook. ieneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. 'ity of La Quinta Municipal Code :\Martin\Marriott\Checklist.WPD 11 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-445 I.d1 The proposed project will be constructed on a currently vacant site, and will therefore result in additional lighting. The City's lighting ordinance, however, requires that all lighting be contained within the site, so that there will be no impact to adjacent properties. Further, Lighting will occur primarily on the north and south boundaries, in areas which will eventually be developed for commercial projects. Only very limited lighting will occur on the eastern portion of the site, closest to existing single family development. The impacts from lighting generated at the proposed project site are expected to be less than significant. III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of motor vehicles. The 120 hotel rooms could generate approximately 588 trips per day'. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM 10 PM 10 PM 10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 21.26 0.82 4.36 -- 0.09 0.09 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 588 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 PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM10 problem in the area. In order to "Trip Generation, 6th Edition, " by Institute of Transportation Engineers. "All Suites Hotel" category (311 used. P:\Martin\Marriott\Addendum.WPD 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 Caleo Bay and the northern property line shall be installed with the construction of the first building. 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. IV. a) The proposed project is located within the required fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed lizard, and will be required to pay the mandated fee at the issuance of building permits. The payment of the fee will reduce the potential impacts to this species to a less than significant level. V. b) The site has been previously graded, and has a low potential for surficial P:\Martin\Marriott\Addendum.WPD 2 archaeological resources. There is, however, a potential that buried resources do occur on the site which will not be uncovered until grading and excavation occurs. As a result, the following mitigation measure shall be required: 1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. VI. a) i) & 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. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) The subject property is in a severe wind erosion hazard zone. Soils on the site which are not properly treated after disturbance are likely to be transported by winds in the area. 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. Vlll.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 r . J P:\Martin\Marriott\Addendum.WPD 3 drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits XI.a) The proposed project has a potential to impact sensitive receptors immediately east, in the Lake La Quinta project. The Lake La Quinta development occurs in an area which meets the City's noise standards. In addition the perimeter landscaping proposed within the proposed project, and an interior street separates the project from the residential development, creating added separation. A wall occurs on the western boundary of the Lake La Quinta project, which mitigates noise impacts also. Noise levels generated from the proposed project will not impact the noise environment in the area. XI. c) The construction of the proposed project has the potential to create temporary construction noise impacts on the residential units to the east. In order to mitigate these potential impacts, the project proponent shall implement the following mitigation measures: Xlll.a) 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. 4. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from the eastern boundary of the project as possible. 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, transient occupancy tax, and a small amount of sales 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. 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. P:\Martin\Marriott\Addendum.WPD 4 Cd 3 o Oo a� W Q N O O 00 mr 00 M M ° d o C U cQ d F d A W� u as aU �W 00 UU � U O U bD O 0 bo to o O 40 O U O 0 0 U 0 U �0 aU 0 U +O �U b�A U O O O 1.N y CJ a a 0.0. a u a cna. a x � �o to to to to U U U U v-, N z P.cl F- 0 cl Q� d � " ° Z o N CO Q o W F d A U� A a� �w O� UU O F cn � U Cd CA CZ. to O ►Zr O C] Wz �o co Q U L� a 0 Z rA C to Zn W F d A U� zA �U W Ox UU d F o 0 0 0 U U U U Qr w. �+ rA V O O O O O o 0 0 a o� w� �o a�0 A A Q Q b b 0.1 f�q W GG O N v O cn :3 U cd ,0 o � .a a ui N O o� 2 c PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ONE TO THREE STORY, 120 UNIT HOTEL (MARRIOTT) ON A 3.89 ACRES SITE. CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068 APPLICANT: SECO/SDC, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of April, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by SECO/SDC, LLC for approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 to allow a one to three story, 120 room hotel, located on the east side of Washington Street between Lake La Quinta Drive and Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 643-200-002 & 003, WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-445), and determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the project is compatible with the Community Commercial Land Use designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Regional Commercial Zoning District, including but not limited to, building heights, setbacks, parking, landscape design, and exterior lighting. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2002-445 was prepared for this project with a recommendation for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of PAMartin\Marriott\PC Reso CUP 02-068.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068 APRIL 23, 2002 Environmental Impact. 4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity in that the proposed project will be compatible with existing and proposed development with regard to commercial uses. 5. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed building, including but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, is compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City, in that it lacks the bulky mass of a commercial building due to the articulation, stucco exterior finish, desert tone colors, tile roofs, flat roofs, and trellises; the proposed building is adequately set back with multiple wall planes so as to minimize the appearance of a large structural mass. 6. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City in that the project meets the development standards imposed by the City's Zoning Code. 6. Landscape Design: As conditioned, the landscaping of the proposed project, including but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, visually emphasize prominent design elements, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between buildings, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of the plant palette, placement of shade trees and decorative plants, provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Conditional Use Permit; P:\Martin\Marriott\PC Reso CUP 02-068.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068 APRIL 23, 2002 2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of April, 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 P:\Martin\Marriott\PC Reso CUP 02-068.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068 APRIL 23, 2002 GENERAL 1. The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-068) are binding with the conditions of approval of Site Development Permit (SDP 2002-733) for the same project. 2. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to compliance with Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code, as applicable. 4. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 (D). 5. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 6. Development of this site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits approved and contained in the files for Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 and Site Development Permit 2002-733. P:\Martin\Marriott\PCCUPCOA.wpd Page 1 of 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW A ONE TO THREE STORY, 120 UNIT HOTEL (MARRIOTT) ON A 3.89 ACRE SITE. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APPLICANT: SECO/SDC, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of April, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by SECO/SDC, LLC for approval of a one to three story, 120 room hotel, generally located on the east side of Washington Street between Lake La Quinta Drive and Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 643-200-002 & 003, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-445), and determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified; 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 make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project as proposed is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the project is compatible with the Community Commercial Land Use designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Regional Commercial Zoning District, including but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass, exterior lighting, parking, circulation, open space and landscaping. PAMartin\Marriott\PC Reso SDP 02-733.wpd ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2002-445 was prepared for this project with a recommendation for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 4. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed building, including but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, is compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City, in that it lacks the bulky mass of a commercial building due to the articulation, stucco exterior finish, desert tone colors, tile roofs, flat roofs, and trellises; the proposed building is adequately set back with multiple wall planes so as to minimize the appearance of a large structural mass. 5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City in that the proposed project meets the development standards of the City's Zoning Code. 6. Landscape Design: As conditioned, landscaping plan for the proposed project, including but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, visually emphasize prominent design elements, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between buildings, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of the plant palette, placement of shade trees and decorative plants, provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit; P:\Martin\Marriott\PC Reso SDP 02-733.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-733 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of April, 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 P:\Martin\Marriott\PC Reso SDP 02-733.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 GENERAL 1. The conditions of approval for this Site Development Permit (SDP 2002-733) are binding with the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-068) for the same project. 2. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2002-733 unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 3. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 4. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 (D). 5. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this 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. 6. 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 PAMartin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 1 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 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. 7. 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. P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 2 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 8. 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). 9. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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) None - All off site street dedication is in place. 13. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways as follows: A. Washington Street - None - Landscape Setbacks have been dedicated. B. Caleo Bay - 10 feet from the Right of Way/Property Line. 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. P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 3 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 4 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 A. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' B. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. Site Development Plans: 1 " = 30' Horizontal D. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. 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. "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. 22. 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. 23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. - !41ti PAMartin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 5 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 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. GRADING 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 25. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 26. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. 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. 27. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 28. 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. 29. The applicant shall reduce the pad height to an elevation not to exceed 61.0 unless it can be demonstrated that the subsurface storm drain system or parking lot grading will not accommodate the requested pad height. PAMartin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 6 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 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. 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. Stormwater shall be directed to the approved drainage system for Tract 24230/Tract 26152 (Lake La Quinta). Nuisance flows from the subject SDP 2002-733 shall be accommodated on site through an acceptable system. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity in the existing system to accept the design run off from the proposed project. If the existing system is not capable to carry any or all of the developed run off from this development, the applicant shall retain the incremental difference on site. 33. 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. 34. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 35. 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. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. PAMartin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 7 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 UTILITIES 37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 38. 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. 39. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Washington Street) located just north of the south property line. This driveway shall be restricted to right in/right out turning movements, only. The applicant is advised that there is restricted access along Washington Street. The applicant shall submit the necessary legal descriptions and exhibits which clearly define the proposed access location and width. The vacation of the restricted access will be presented to the City Council for approval. P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 8 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 B. Secondary Entry (on Caleo Bay may be permitted) located at the northeastern corner of the parking drive isle. This driveway may have full right in/right out and left in/left out turning movements. The applicant shall re -stripe portions of Caleo Bay to accommodate the left turn lane at the driveway. Signing and striping plans which detail the left turn lane and centerline striping shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for approval. 43. 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 44. 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. 45. 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 46. The perimeter landscaping for the project shall be consistent with what is existing in the immediate area. 47. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. ;AI- P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 9 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 48. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, setbacks and retention basins 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. 50. 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. 51. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 52. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. 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 P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 10 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 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 56. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 57. 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 58. 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. 59. The applicant is responsible for paying all development impact fees pursuant to Resolution No. 99-80, as amended. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 60. The site shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the district for sanitation service. 61. Grading, landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Water District for review to ensure efficient water management techniques. 62. Appropriate fees, if any, shall be paid to the Coachella Valley Water District in accordance with their current regulations for service to the site. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 63. Approved super fire hydrants shall be located not less than 25 feet, nor more than 165 feet, from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. 64. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is located, so as to identify fire hydrant locations during an emergency. _.. f P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 11 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 65. Contact the Fire Department for the required fire flow information for the project. 66. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City's plan check procedures. 67. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 68. Buildings over 5,000 square feet are required to be equipped with fire sprinklers. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 69. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a hood/duct system for fire protection (restaurants, etc.). Hood/duct fire protection plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 70. The required water system, including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on site. 71. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 72. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building. Contact the Fire Department for an application. 73. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. LIGHTING 74. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permit. Said plan shall show the type of standard, manufacturer's specifications and location on the site. Low sodium pressure shoe box type lighting shall be utilized throughout the parking lot so as to reduce glare to the surrounding area. In no case shall lighting standards be taller than 18 feet. J P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 12 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733 APRIL 23, 2002 SIGNS 75. A sign application shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. All signs shall be in compliance with Section 9.160 of the Zoning Code. 16, P:\Martin\Marriott\PCSDPCOA.wpd Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENT #1 CASE MAP CASE No. EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 APPLICANT: SECO/SDC/ LLC PROJECT: MARRIOTT HOTEL RESIDENCE INN SITE LOCATION MAP t RTH SCALE: NTS m, i ATTACHMENT #2 .E,.1s CASE MAP n a CASE No. Z m z EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 --I • • O m APPLICANT: SECO/SDC/ LLC PROJECT: MARRIOTT HOTEL RESIDENCE INN = SITE PLAN a 10 4 Emm ME ME mm, so ATTACHMENT #4 C S INASNIN6TON STREE' R � Iff if as u CASE MAP CASE No. EA 2002-445/CUP 2002-068/SDP 2002-733 APPLICANT: SECO/SDC/ LLC PROJECT: MARRIOTT HOTEL RESIDENCE INN CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ATTACHMENT #5 Jacques Abels, Charman U U APR 17 2002 U April 17 2002 c'7y�p City of La Quinta Planning Commission COMMU1V�T 6D %I Q.O .r Dear Mr. Abels: I received the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the proposed -hotel -complex to be built on the site located at Washington Street between 4e Ave. and Lake La Quinta Drive. Since my property is located directly behind the project, I was concerned about what it entailed. My immediate neighbors and I visited the Community Development Department on April 15 and spoke with Mr. Martin Magana who was very helpful in answering our -questions. I have some serious concerns regarding the project. This project will have a major impact on the privacy of the homes behind the site. The previously granted approval for the Eisenhower complex that was to be on part of the parcel, was of concern too, but -at least -that had limited hours of operation. This one will -operate 24 hours _a day with a corresponding traffic increase and lighting. I feel a hotel just doesn't belong next to an upscale residential neighborhood. I ask that you consider a couple of points when evaluating this proposal. • Structure Height The proposal calls for some of the buildings to be 3 stories. I feel that the height should be restricted to 2 stories, particularly those buildings that are adjacent to Caleo Bay. This would be consistent with the other projects proposed for the other sites between 4t' and 4e Avenues that are all 2 stories or less. Setbacks The proposal calls for setbacks of approximately 45 feet off of Caleo Bay and 95 feet off of Washington (as measured from the Plot Plan furnished by Mr. Magana). Perhaps this could be reversed. That is, allow for a smaller setback on Washington and greater off of Caleo Bay, possibly moving the entire project more toward Washington. I understand there are zoning laws that require certain setbacks off of major thoroughfares. However, in reviewing the plot plan for the Palm Desert Bank site, the bank and adjacent office buildings are as close as 15 feet from Washington. In addition, buildings in the complex on the corner of Washington and Highway 111 are also very close to Washington. If wavers were granted for these properties, it would not be out of line to grant one here, too. I understand you have many issues to consider when granting approvals such as this, but I hope you will be able to also address the concerns of the adjacent residential property owners as weII. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Youydtruly, ewel W 9'hnson cc: Richard Butler John J Pena, Mayor Icon Perkins 7-815 V irenze Tom Kirk Stanley Sniff Jerry Herman La Quinta, CA 92253 Steve Robbins Donald Adolph (760)771-4258 RobertTyl-er Terry- Henderson April 17 2002 To: Jacques Abels, Planning Commission, City of LaQuinta Re: Conditional Use Permit for a 120 Rm. 3 Story Hotel Icy wife and I purchased our home at 47845 Via Firenze, Lake LaQuinta in 1995. Our back yard borders on Caleo Bay St. We have been impressed with the over-all zoning and development by The Planning Commission and the City of LaQuinta. we knew there would be development on Washington St. as exists from Hwy ##111 - South, with development limited to one story buildings. Therefore I could hardly believe the notice that a 120 Room, 3 story Hotel would be constructed about 100 ft. behind my back wall. I question the Environmetal Assessment --What about noise pollution in a Residential neighborhood? Increased traffic which will interfere with the Entry Gate to Lake LaQuinta at Via Florence St. One hundred and twenty rooms with balconies, windows, and walkways that overlook my swimming pool and back yard. Our privacy will be gone. If you consider the homeowners in Lake LaQuinta, our expectations and desires, you certainly cannot approve this as d®signed in this location. Sincerely, Kenneth-D. Woodward 47845 Via Firenze La Quinta, Ca. 92253 !04--16-02 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA.. 92233 ATTENTION: John J. Pena, Mayor Dear Sir: y nl�me is Marilyn Joan it.aliano. Our home is located at 7-7 5 Via Firenze in LaQu.hta. Our home backs up to aleo Bay. We are the first home South of'the,South gate f.Lake.La Quinta. We worked many years and saved to have a pleasant retirement in a.nice community in'a comfortable home. We thought we had found that when we purchased our -home. We trusted in the members of the City. -Hall of La Quizita to -make- decisions that would help the city grow and that would give consider ation to the homeowners in planning its.growth. 'It seems that we were in error. ccording to the notice sent to homeowners, it is planned to ave a three story, 120 room Marriott Hotel built behind our ome. This would-be a 24 hour facility. Earlier we had een told that Eisenhower w.as.going to erect a medical uilding - 2 stories max - and NOT open 24 hours. or on week nds. et me explain -briefly what you are attempting to.do with he Marriott. You are devaluating our property values. You are taking away our right to privacy in our rear yards and our homes. You are destroying the mountain view from our homes totally. You are creating hazards with heavy traffic on Caleo Bay. You are creating hazardous fumes.from.heavy.vehicle-use which will come into our homes and yards. You are putting us at risk.'with transient renters who can then look into our yards and homes.' In all honesty, oan you say that you would :appreeiateithis iituati-on-in your back yard? Page 2. If this is all set in granite then you still have some alternatives. Erect the Marriott buildings Closer to Washington - not our honis.s. You can change the setback and you can also keep it a two: story building. It seems that Eisenhower, the bank aid the restaurant were all willing to co-operate with'the.homeowners and take their concerns into -the construction of their buildings. Why is it to be different for the Marriott? Why when it will be a 24.hour operation, 120 suites, are you willing to ive them the right to destroy our privacy and our saf ty? What are you possibly thinking? Is this what you would want for yourself or Your family?. Please stop and -think, Sincerely, Marilyn Joan Italiano CC: Stanley Sniff, Mayor Pro Tem Donald Adolph, Council Member Terry Henderson, Council Member Ron Perkins, Council.Memb.er Tom Kirk, .Chairman Planning Commission Steve Robbins., Vice Chairman, Plann.ing.CommisffiiOn Jacques Abels, Commissioner, Planning Commission Richard Butler, Commissioner, Planning Commission Robert Tyler, Commissioner, Planning Commission Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Tom Hartung, Building.and Safety Director Jerry Herman, Community Development Director ira t -L.M B I #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 2002 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-735 APPLICANT: PETER AND MARIE ANDRIET REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON APPROXIMATELY 0.2 ACRES LOCATION: 47-300 VIA RAVENNA, APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF DULCE DEL MAR WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA (LOT #187 OF TRACT 26152) PROPERTY OWNER: PETER AND MARIE ANDRIET PROJECT DESIGNER: DESERT HOME DESIGNERS AND ASSOC. INC. (C/O MR. FRANK A. MORENO) SURVEYOR: MC GEE SURVEYING, INC. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)/RL DISTRICT SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SOUTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EAST: PRIVATE LAKE WEST: ACROSS VIA RAVENNA, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES BACKGROUND: This project is located within Lake La Quinta, a private development of approximately 281 single family lots on 103 acres oriented around a 24-acre manmade lake generally bounded by Adams Street on the east, Avenue 48 on the south and Avenue 47 on the G:\S RPCS DP735AndreitLAKE LQ.wpd/R4/9 north. The existing houses in this private development, built by various builders over the last 11 years, are one-story and typically range in size from 1,909 square feet to 3,800 square feet. The prevalent style of architecture is Mediterranean/Spanish, utilizing plastered walls and overhangs, tile roofs, metal roll -up garage doors and walled courtyards. However, since there have been various builders in the project, existing houses vary in terms of entry features, roof planes and heights, stucco surrounds, perimeter walls and gates, etc. Typical building heights range from 17' to 20' for existing houses, excluding architectural projections. Exterior building colors are typically in shades of white and brown. The vacant, irregularly -shaped lake front residential lot is located on the east side of Via Ravenna abutting improved single family lots. Seven single family houses exist on the 8-lot private cul-de-sac street (Attachment 1). Since Lake La Quinta is a partially developed subdivision, this project requires Compatibility Review (Business Item) pursuant to Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to build a custom single family house on a 10,332 square foot parcel (Attachment 2). The proposed single story house is 3,210 square feet (three bedrooms/three baths) and has a front loaded, staggered entry three -car garage with sectional metal doors. A 20' front yard building setback is contemplated. A California -Mediterranean architectural design, utilizing smooth troweled exterior stuccoed surfaces and red clay tile roofing, is proposed. Hip roofs, using 3:12 pitches, are used throughout the project in variable heights not exceeding 17'-9" high. The proposed building elevations use a variety of window styles and shapes and only one small window is planned on the front facade. Window glazing is slated to be tinted mounted in metal or vinyl white frames. To accentuate the street -facing facade, projecting columns measuring 2'-0" wide are proposed in connection with decorative horizontal banding and arches. Exterior building walls are white with light brown accents for fascia and molding elements. An exterior material and color sample board will be available at the meeting. Eave overhangs are to be stuccoed. Covered patios extend off the back of the house to shade three sets of double doors and flanking windows. A front yard landscaping plan has been submitted consisting of lawn accented by three 15-gallon trees and groundcover. Tree species are Bottle brush and Mesquite. A privacy wall is planned for the front yard area of the house, including courtyard gating. Architectural Review Committee: On March 27, 2002, the Lake La Quinta HOA approved the applicant's architectural plans for this site. A copy of this letter is on file with the Community Development Department. G:\S RPCS DP735AndreitLAKE LQ.wpd/R4/9 Public Notice: A public notice was mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site on April 9, 2002, informing them of the meeting. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met based on the compliance with the recommended conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Site Development Permit 2002-735, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Large Exhibits (Commission only) rep" red by: I'reg Trolu ell, Associate Planner G :\S RPCS D P735And reitLAKE LQ.wpd/R4/9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF A ONE STORY, THREE BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT #187 OF TRACT 26152 WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-735 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: PETER AND MARIE ANDRIET WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23" day of April, 2002, consider a request by Mr. and Mrs. Peter Andriet to approve compatibility review of the architectural and landscaping plans for a single story residential house with three car garage on approximately 0.2 acres located at 47- 300 Via Ravenna in a RL (Low Density Residential) Zone District, more particularly described as: Lot #187 of Tract No. 26152; APN: 643-100-036 Portion of the SE 1 /4 of Section 30, T5S, R7E WHEREAS, the Architectural Committee for Lake La Quinta approved the applicant's architectural plans on March 27, 2002; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) and Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency - The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use Element of the General Plan allows residential land uses up to four units per acre. The proposed single family residence is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because a detached residential unit is planned. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The 0.2 acre parcel is physically suitable for the proposed single family house, and conditions are recommended ensuring compliance with existing Zoning Code provisions. G:\ResoPCSDP735And rLakeLQ. wpd/Greg Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-735 Mr. and Mrs. Peter Andriet April 23, 2002 Page 2 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act - The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this project is exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3a) of the Guidelines for Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. Architectural Compatibility - The single family residence is compatible in architectural design and use of materials to existing Lake La Quinta houses in the vicinity in that the exterior walls are covered in plaster and roofing is clay S-tile. Roof heights are varied and a entry tower feature enhances the visual character of the private residence. The overall design elements of the project (i.e., hip -style roofing, stucco screen walls, metal entry gates, etc.) are aesthetically pleasing and consistent with neighboring one story houses. 4. Site Design Compatibility - As designed, the proposed detached single family house complies with the setback requirements of the RL District, provided roof eaves are located 3.5' from the side yard property lines. Site grading for the project is minimal and consistent in design with abutting properties. 5. Building Size Compatibility - The existing houses in Lake La Quinta vary from approximately 1,909 square feet to 3,800 square feet, and construction is ongoing within the master planned development. Therefore, the applicant's proposal of 3,210 livable square feet is within the range deviation (10%) standard allowed for this partial developed subdivision. Lot coverage is limited to approximately 38% where up to 50% is allowed. 6. Landscape Design Compatibility - The front yard landscape plan includes a variety of trees, groundcover and turf. The plant pallette is varied and blends with the proposed houses and is compatible with the surrounding area, as conditioned. The landscape design complements the surrounding residential areas in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and G:\ResoPCSDP735AndrLakeLQ.wpd/Greg Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-735 Mr. and Mrs. Peter Andriet April 23, 2002 Page 3 2. That the property owner within 500 feet of the site were notified of the meeting by the Community Development Department; and 3. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-735 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the findings and conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 23d day of April, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\ResoPCSDP735AndrLakeLQ.wpd/Greg PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-735 MR. AND MRS. PETER ANDRIET APRIL 23, 2002 CONDITIONS 1 . The applicant/property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application and any other challenge pertaining to this project. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Screen walls shall be clad in stucco to match the proposed building structure and walls located within 10 feet of the front property line shall be limited to 5' high. 3. Roof eaves shall not be located within 3.5 feet of a side yard property line pursuant to Section 9.50.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Garage lighting shall be decorative. 5. The final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, including the following revisions: A. A minimum of one front yard tree shall be a minimum height of 10 feet tall when installed (24-box specimen with minimum 1.5-inch caliper) pursuant to Section 9.60.300 (Item I, Subcategory #4) of the Zoning Code. B. A minimum of ten 5 gallon shrubs shall be installed in the front yard. G:\Cond PC SDP735Andriet.wpd ATTACHMENTS ` I Attachment 1 IE �QI • �I�I is �� .E }PRIVATE �_/d9a9 [•/z579 ;u �- �. `' Q4'a0•ss .�.- (/3B26 s, 43i? h ,�� 407, �- _ ./ /✓ 36 �9 � 282 K I90 A vB tr W� 189 m N 3 A // m o M /6 �B7.SB _ 49a1 78Si $9a N �� b q ` 199 YT a/9/•6�133�5f - t ^v�/Bin 119 1'S� <.� + 0©,5 76\C^ B7 18e 200 zo1 60`1181 ®a 19/B �2 98?O r44 5ti3 ^ 192 a yg14 1 te N ` W 17 197 J�.2g3 p 32F R ♦ t�N N 186 Ik�� 14906 a W �w 18 h � M 26 •`tda ® q"lL <ao7o �°a7 185 9i� y {} c .�4.. 196 r r tiq g �7n iw•'1 0 17 n 5 1B4 'Ile N I 194 C 195 e bti Jo I p1 � N !6 �i +ry5 Lake <, � t_Ift.71 ASSESSORS MAP ei(643 PG. /O M. S. 227177- 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF RG Attachment Z aoz orc'•�fawia'•"0caee) O0E a� (960-901—Eb9M ) Es228 Y�'tlJ Ni[lb YI p a9E29 ra • �.wmD T. aae m oasa e¢.-a, 9t:0—OOT—E49R'N'd Y/L9TN1pT/YNN3Avu YEA 006-44 Sg S oHIccaOjW 'ossv xv Ia?rPuH ralad SIR Pule •rye smalma MON .uratsNa ) roI aqua tsar X P. I?�gi al8uts a - a I - d d n,1 V'KArSA IrS vi l Vjd STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 23, 2002 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-613 APPLICANT: JDD, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: JDD, LLC REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO LA QUINTA COURT SIGN PROGRAM LOCATION: LA QUINTA COURT BUILDING 3 - 78575 HIGHWAY 111 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT GENERAL PLAN UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site History The sign program presently consists of text and drawings which govern the general type, location and installation of signs for the center. Fisherman's Market and Grill installed a 7 x 7 foot (framed area) backlit brushed metal swordfish sculpture on the south wall of Fisherman's Restaurant in Building 3 at La Quinta Court (Attachment 1). A building permit was issued for the swordfish, as it was considered to be a private art work rather than a sign. On April 2, staff reviewed the swordfish design with the City Council, and it was determined that the swordfish was in fact a sign that required review under the sign program criteria. As the existing sign criteria does not allow the design as a sign, the applicant has been directed to submit this amendment. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant has essentially proposed revised language for the existing General Sign Criteria section for La Quinta Court (Specific Plan 2000-047), that would allow the swordfish design as an exception to the sign criteria. This exception is intended to provide relief from the existing criteria, which require internally illuminated, individual channel letters. Attachment 2 contains the existing criteria and the proposed amending language. ANALYSIS• 1. The existing sign program primarily addresses the conditions which apply to sign design, location and installation. The existing sign criteria do not allow the swordfish design as a sign as defined under the La Quinta Zoning Code. As such, the criteria must be amended to allow the sign as it exists. 2. The sign criteria permit one storefront sign for each tenant in a building, except tenants that have a storefront on more than one building perimeter wall are permitted one sign for each such wall with a glass storefront. There is no definition in the Zoning Code or the sign criteria for "storefront", but the general definition is "a front room on the ground floor of a building, designed for use as a retail store". Fisherman's Restaurant space has building frontage on the west and south building elevations, each of which incorporates glass area and would be considered storefront, as defined above. 3. The sign criteria require that all signs be composed of individual channel letters, internally illuminated. This implies that all signs must consist of or incorporate text, which is not the case with the subject sign. Therefore, the sign is not permitted under this criteria. 4. The sign criteria also require that logo signs not exceed 10% of the total sign area. As this sign represents a logo and comprises the entire sign area, the sign is not permitted under this criteria. FINDINGS: • Sign Application 2002-613 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, and the approved Sign Program in that the number and location of signs proposed with said Application are consistent with said Chapter and Sign Program. • Sign Application 2002-613 is consistent with and visually related to all signs incorporated under said Application, as colors, sign design criteria and location have been considered in the sign design and demonstrated to allow unique sign options while maintaining basic uniformity among the proposed signs. • Sign Application 2002-613 is consistent with and visually related to the buildings within the La Quinta Court shopping center, through incorporation of colors and materials common to said buildings and as set forth in the Sign Program. • Sign Application 2002-613 is consistent with and visually related to surrounding development. Adopt Minute Motion No. 2002- , approving Sign Application 2002-613, subject to amendment of the existing sign criteria for La Quinta Court as follows: • Revise Criteria 1.7, to read - "No tenant in any building shall be permitted more than one sign for each perimeter storefront wall. A 'storefront' is defined as any perimeter building wall providing physical access or a substantial view into a tenant space. Tenant space that faces away from Highway 111 may be permitted one additional sign that faces the highway. Tenant signs shall meet the requirements of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code, Chapter 9.160, as applicable." • Revise Criteria II.C.2, to read - "All signs incorporating text shall be composed of individual channel letters with internal illumination, mounted directly on the building. The channel letters for each sign must be the same color. Recommended colors are: Black, Dark Green and Dark Red. • Amend Subsection II.C.3, pertaining to logo signs, to read, "Logos will be considered on a case -by -case basis. Logos designed expressly as signing (illuminated cabinet, plexiglas facings, etc.) shall not exceed 10% of the total sign area permissible for the tenancy, and must meet the criteria of this program for sign construction standards." Artistic logos or other features such as sculptures (wood, metal, ceramic, etc.), mosaics/murals, water features, statuary and similar artistic formats/design features which do not incorporate any text, advertising or premise identification are not to be construed as signs under these criteria, but must be approved by the Landlord. Such features may be freestanding or building mounted, but must be permanent in design and installation, and be in scale with the center." Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Swordfish design and location 2. Existing Sign Program criteria and Applicant's amending language Mar 26 02 O2:35p Fisherman's Mkt. 760 777 1602 fee ,i 1•t y` � S" �. ATTACHMENT 1 03-28-02 14:35 RECEIVED FROM:760 777 1662 P.01 SPECIFIC PLAN La Quinta Court, La Quinta, CA Exterior Cement Pter Trowel finish with 1' ht sand or textured finish to be painted. Stone Tile • American Sl te, 12" x 12" Ungaged, "Lotus" (Sage & Gold) and Wgbd Trellis Structures frames and supports to be painted. Treated or stained wood rafters. Window And Entrance Systems Alumtte storefront systems and steel entry systems with true divided lights. Frame color black. 1" insulated glass with clear or light tint. A la Fabric (100% Acrylic) with black metal frames (Manufacturer preliminary). C. Sign Program GENERAL SIGN CRITERIA These criteria have been established for the purpose of assuring a coordinated sign program and maintaining a continuity of quality and aesthetics throughout the shopping center, for the mutual benefit of all tenants, and to comply with the regulations of the City of La Quinta ("City"). Conformance with these criteria and City of La Quinta Zoning Ordinance requirements will be strictly enforced. Any installed nonconforming or unapproved sign must be brought into conformance at the expense of the tenant. I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Each tenant, prior to fabrication, shall submit or cause to be submitted to the landlord for approval, two (2) copies of detailed drawings indicating the location, size, layout, design, color, illumination, materials, and method of attachment. 2. The tenant or its representative shall obtain all permits for signs and their installation. 3. All signs shall be constructed and installed at the tenant's expense. 4. Each tenant shall be responsible for the fulfillment of all requirements and specifications, including those of the City. 5. All signs shall be reviewed on behalf of the landlord for conformance with this criteria and overall design quality. The approval or disapproval of ATTACHMENT 2 Conway Architecture, Inc. page t7 A subsidiary of Ertdck Howard a Seibert, krc. SPECIFIC PLAN La Quinta Court, La Quinta, CA sign submittals, based on aesthetics of design, shall remain the sole right of landlord or its authorized representative. 6. Each tenant shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of its sign. All signs shall be installed no later than thirty (30) days following the date tenant opens for business. 7. No occupants in any buildings shall, without landlord's approval, be allowed more than one storefront sign except for those tenants that: (1) have a storefront on more than one building perimeter wall may have one sign for each building perimeter wall with a glass storefront; and (2) face the highway may have one additional sign which faces the highway. Tenant signage shall meet the requirements of City of La Quinta Zoning Section 9.160. II. SPECIFICATIONS A. General Sign Specifications 1. No animated, flashing, or audible signs will be permitted. 2. No exposed lamps or tubing will permitted without written approval from landlord. 3. All signs and their installation shall comply with all building codes, electrical codes, other applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of agencies and utilities having jurisdiction over building signage. 4. No exposed raceways, crossovers, or conduit will be permitted. 5. All cabinets, conductors, transformers and other equipment shall be concealed within the sign or a raceway behind the fascia and, if visible, painted to match the adjacent materials. 6. All letters must be mounted 3/a" from wall surface for water and debris to freely pass behind the letters. All penetrations of the building structure shall be neatly sealed in a watertight condition. B. Location of Signs 1. Signs shall be attached to the building at the location or locations shown on Exhibit 13 — Sign Program. Banner signage, flags, temporary and promotional signage will be allowed with prior landlord approval for the purpose of promoting tenant businesses. Conway Architecture, Inc. Page 18 A subsidiary of Ertdck Howard 3 Seibert, Inc. SPECIFIC PLAN La Quinta Court, La Quinta, CA All such signage will be subject to the City of La Quinta Zoning Code. C. Design Requirements 1. Tenant shall install its sign as indicated on the attached Exhibits 13, 15 or, in the case of temporary promotional signage, shall receive prior landlord approval. Maximum width and length not to exceed City of La Quinta requirements. 2. All signs shall be composed of individual channel letters with internal illumination mounted directly on the building. The channel letters for each sign must be the same color. Recommended colors are: Black, Dark Green, and Dark Red. 3. Logos will be considered on a case -by -case basis, but in no event shall said logo exceed ten percent (10%) of the total sign area. Landlord will also approve colors on a case -by -case basis. 4. Undercanopy signs (double faced) shall be designed and installed as shown on Exhibit 15. Only one undercanopy sign will be allowed per tenant. a. The color of the undercanopy sign is subject to landlord's approval. D. Construction Requirements 1. All exterior letters and signs exposed to the weather shall be mounted at least 3/a" from the building to permit proper dirt and water drainage. 2. All signs shall be fabricated using full welded construction. No light leaks will be allowed. 3. Location of all openings for conduits in building walls shall be indicated on sign drawings submitted to landlord for his approval. The structural integrity of the building wall behind the sign fascia shall not be diminished. 4. All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation shall be neatly sealed in a watertight condition. 5. No labels or other identification will be permitted on the exposed surface of any sign except those required by local ordinance. Any required labels shall be applied in an inconspicuous location. Conway Architecture, Inc. Page 19 A subsidiary of Emick Howard & Seibert, koe. SPECIFIC PLAN La Quinta Court, La Quinta, CA E. Sign Illumination 1. All sign lighting will be controlled by time clock in accordance with city requirements. F. Miscellaneous 1. No temporary or permanent signs will be permitted to be applied to the face of the storefront either inside or outside, nor within six (6) feet of the lease line inside the store, without prior approval of landlord. 2. Each tenant who has a (non -customer) receiving door may have uniformly applied on said door, in two-inch high letters, the tenant's name and address. Where more than one tenant uses the same door, each name and address may be applied. MONUMENT SIGNS Three primary and one secondary site monument signs are proposed. The locations are depicted on Exhibit S. Monument sign concept elevations are illustrated on Exhibit 14. Monument signage will be integrated with landscaping and boulder arrangements (see exhibit 8a) and will not exceed an aggregate total of 100 square feet. Monument signs will be lit in accordance with city exterior lighting requirements. Monument signage will be permitted per City requirements. 0 VIII. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES AND MAINTENANCE A. Transportation Demand Management City guidelines require the following provisions for transportation demand management: 1. The project shall make provision for bicycle parking in accordance with City Zoning Code Section 9.150.060.D.3. 2. The project will provide an accessible walkway connection from the bus stop on Highway 11.1 to the buffer circulation and then to the site. 3. The project shall identify a transportation demand coordinator to promote tenant and employee participation in TDM programs, to encourage ride sharing, to promote mass -transit usage, encourage flexible scheduling, telecommuting, and other TDM programs as appropriate. %oonway Arcnneciure, inc. Pa a 20 A subsidiary of Emick Howard 3 Seibert, inc 9 Mar 28 02 02:32p Fisherman's Mkt. 760 777 1602 p.3 Mar 20 02 03:52a Dale Frank L Rssoeiiates 1206) 275-4131 p.3 SPECIFIC PLAN SIGN MODIFICATION La Quinta Court, La Quinta, CA No animated, flashing, or audible signs will be permitted. 2. No exposed lamps or tubing will permitted without written approval from landlord. 3. All signs and their installation shall comply with all building codes, electrical codes, other applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of agencies and utilities having jurisdiction over building signage. No exposed raceways, crossovers, or conduit will be permitted. 5. All cabinets, conductors, transformers and other equipment shall be concealed within the sign or a raceway behind the fascia and, if visible, painted to match the adjacent materials. 6. All letters must be mounted'/" from wall surface for water and debris to freely pass behind the letters. All penetrations of the building structure shall be neatly sealed in a watertight condition. B. Location of Signs I. Signs shall be attached to the building at the location or locations shown on Exhibit 13 - Sign Program. Banner signage, flags, temporary and promotional signage will be allowed with prior landlord approval for the purpose of promoting tenant businesses. All such signage will be subject to the City of La Quinta Zoning Code. C. Design Requirements Tenant shall install its sign as indicated on the attached Exhibits 13,15 or, in the case of temporary promotional signage, shall receive prior landlord approval. Maximum width and length not to exceed City of La Quinin requirements. All signs shall be composed of individual channel letters with internal illumination mounted directly on the building. The channel letters for each sign must be the same color. Recommended colors are: Black, Dark Green, and Dark Red. Except individual channel letters may be substituted with illustrated signage, subject to Owner and City ' approval. Specific approval is provided to allow Fisherman's Market and Grill to substitute channel letter sipage on the south facade ofbuilding 3 per Exhibit 13 attached hereto. The area of illustrated sigymage shall be as approved by the City and Owner on a case by case basis. Fishernrans illustrated fish is 7' high by T wide. Logos will be considered on a case -by -cast basis, but in no event shall said logo exceed ten percent (10%) of the total sign area. Lamdlord will also approve colors on a case -by -case basis. L'ndercanopy signs (double faced) shall be designed and installed as shown on Exhibit 15, Only one undercanopy sign will be allowed per tenant The color of the undercanopy, sign is subject to landlord's approval. D. Construction Requirements All exterior letters and signs exposed to the weather shall be mounted at least'/." from the building to permit proper dirt and water drainage. All sighs shall be fabricated using full welded construction. No light leaks will be allowed. Location of all openings for conduits in building walls shall be indicated on sign drawings submitted to landlord 1br his approval. The structural integrity of the building wall behind the sign fascia shall not be dirnirished. All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation shall be neatly sealed in a watertight condition. Page 2 63-28-02 14:33 RECEIVED FROM:760 777 1602 P.03 B 1 #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 2002 REQUEST: INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 9.60.300 OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING TWO STORY UNITS LOCATION: CITY WIDE BACKGROUND: Section 9.10.060 of the Zoning Code permits the Community Development Director to make interpretation of the Zoning Code or refer the interpretation to the Planning Commission. Based upon this Code section, staff is submitting to the Planning Commission a request for an interpretation of the following. The Zoning Code permits two story units in the Low Density Residential district with the following exception: 1. When the specific district has an attached special zoning symbol (Section 9.20.030 - Attachment 1) which limits the number of stories; or 2. When the compatibility review standards are required for a project (Section 9.60.300 - Attachment 2); or 3. When adjacent to project boundaries (Section 9.60.310 - Attachment 3). CODE INTERPRETATION REQUEST: A question that has been presented to staff: Can a property owner of an existing single family dwelling, which has ample room in the building envelope, and is able to convert that space to a habitable room. Does this constitute a second story. The exterior of the house will not change, except for a potential window, and the roof line does not change. The only change is to the interior. Example: A three bedroom house with attached garage. Can the space over the garage be converted to a room without being considered as a second story (Attachment 4)? G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\UseInter2story.wpd ANALYSIS: 1. Section 9.20.030. Special Zoning Symbols: Currently, this provision pertains to two Low Density districts. The area south of Sagebrush and north of Avenue 50, east of Washington Street; and the area east of City Hall (Washington Street) between the Evacuation Channel and Avenue 52 and west of Calle Rondo. These areas specifically address and limit the building height and number of stories for a single family dwelling. 2. Section 9.60.300. Compatibility Review for Partially Developed Subdivisions: This section applies to all second story additions and new residential units. This requirement is in addition to other applicable regulations in the Code. In particular, Section 1.1 states: "A two story house shall not be constructed adjacent to, or abutting a lot line of an existing single story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision, unless proof can be provided showing that a two story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder." This section was changed in September, 2001, to read as follows: "A two story house shall not be constructed adjacent to, or abutting a lot line of an existing single story home constructed in the same subdivision." The current definitions of Basement, Building height including Section 9.50.050, Habitable Area, Habitable Room, Livable Floor Area, and Story (Attachment 5). Staff is requesting an interpretation by the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Code allows, "an existing single story home that is constructed with enough room under the roof to literally do a remodel to add an additional floor (i.e., second story), if the addition does not change the exterior, but does allow a window, in zoning districts that permit two story units." Depending upon the Planning Commission's action, staff will need to prepare the necessary Zoning Code Amendments and schedule the matter for a public hearing. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\UseInter2story.wpd H MEi�� T ## be construed as congruent with such right-of-way lines and' shall further be construed as moving with such right-of-way lines. 2. Boundaries indicated as approximately following lot lines shall be construed as congruent with such lot lines. 3. Boundaries indicated as parallel to or extensions of the lines described in subsections (B)(1) and (2) of this section shall be so construed. Distances not specifically indicated on the official zoning map shall be determined by the scale of the map. . 4. Where any public right-of-way is officially vacated or abandoned, -the zoning district regulations applied to abutting property shall thereafter extend to the centerline of .such vacated or abandoned right-of-way. 5. In cases where uncertainty exists after application of rules in subsections (B)(1) through (4) of this section, the community development director shall determine the district boundaries. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.20.030 Special zoning symbols. A. purpose. In some cases, the city may determine that alternate development standards are required for a particular geographic area other than those set forth in applicable sections of this code with regard to minimum lot size, setbacks, lot frontage and maximum building height because the normal standards may not be appropriate for one or more of the following reasons: . 1. Unusual topography or other natural features within the area. 2. The need to mitigate development impacts on vulnerable surrounding land uses. 3. The need to ensure adherence to a key general plan goal, objective or policy. 4. Other factors affecting the subject area not generally prevalent in the city. B. Use of Special Symbols. The city may establish alternate development standards for a particular geographic area than those set forth for the zoning district covering the area by means of special zoning symbols. Such alternate development standards shall supersede those in Chapters 9.50, 9.65, 9.90 and 9.130 and shall be specified by means of one or more of the following symbols on the official zoning map: 1. Lot Size. A number following the district designation and connected by- a hyphen shall designate the minimum lot size. Where the number is greater than one hundred, it shall indicate the minimum size in square feet; where the number is less than one hundred, it shall indicate the minimum size in acres. Example: RM-500 or RL-2 2. Setbacks. A number following the district designation and enclosed by parentheses shall designate the minimum setbacks in feet. Within the parentheses, setbacks shall be separated by a slash (/) and shall be shown in the following order: front/side/mar. Example: RM (20/5/25) 3. Height and Number of Stories. A number shown below and separated by a line from the district designation shall designate the maximum height of building or structures in feet and the maximum number of stories. Height shall be given first followed by a 'T' and number of stories. Example: RM 2 4. I 'ot Frontage' A number preceding and connected to the district designation by a hyphen shall designate the minimum lot frontage in feet. Example: 100-RL 5. Symbols Combined. The preceding symbols may be used in any combination to show minimum lot size, setbacks, frontage, and maximum height. 211 UA QWVM 9.K 9.60.290 ATTACHMENT 2 ii. A descriptive report containing acoustical test data which indicate the noise attenuation characteristics of the existing party walls. and ceilings. The data for such report shall include a sampling of at least ten percent of the dwelling units involved, but in no case fewer than two dwelling units, and shall be compiled by an independent consultant experienced in the field of acoustical testing and engineering, iii. If the conversion is of an apartment or condominium facility or any portion thereof, a certified list of the names and addresses of all tenants residing in the project proposed to be converted at the time the application is filed, whether or not the unit in which the tenant resides will be converted, iv. A comprehensive list of all improvements, upgrading and additional facilities proposed, and v. A report describing all repairs and replacements needed, if any, to bring all structures into substantial compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and any other building related codes as modified and adopted by the city. 2. The information required by this section shall be reviewed by the community development director, who will require its revision and resubmittal if found to be inadequate or incomplete. Approval shall be subject to the required documentation being received, and the failure of an applicant to submit such documentation shall be grounds for disapproval. H. Required Notice. Public notice shall be given for all conditional use permits associated with timeshare facilities as required by this code. In addition, in the event an apartment or condominium facility or any portion thereof is proposed to be converted to a timeshare facility, written notice shall be mailed to all persons residing in the facility, whether or not the unit in which the person resides will be converted, not less than ten days prior to the planning commission hearing. Such notice shall be mailed by the planning department at the expense of the applicant, and shall state the following: 1. The date, time, place and purpose of the hearing; 2. Notification that if the permit is approved, tenants may be 'required to vacate the premises; 3. Notification that if the permit is approved, the property owner will be required to give all tenants a minimum of one hundred twenty days' notice to vacate. However, such notice shall not restrict the exercise of lawful remedies pertaining to, but not limited to, tenants' defaults in the payment of rent or defacing or destruction of all or a part of the rented premises; and 4. A description of any available relocation benefits to be provided by the project applicant. I. Required Findings. In addition to the requirements for findings of fact as established by California law or other provisions of this code, the approval of a conditional use permit for a timeshare facility shall require the following additional findings: 1. The proposal is in conformance with the city's general plan, this section, and other applicable requirements of this zoning code; 2. The property is physically suitable for use as a timeshare facility; and 3. The use of the property as a timeshare facility will not cause an undue burden on adjacent and nearby property owners. J. Transient Occupancy Tax. Timeshare facilities shall be subject to all applicable provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the municipal code. (Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.60.300 Compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions. A. Purpose. Residential subdivisions are often developed in phases, either by the same or different developers )r by individual owner -builders. This section imposes requirements to ensure that units in later phases of such )rojects are compatible in design and appearance with those already constructed. B. Definition. For purposes of this section, the term "compatible" means residential buildings which are similar in floor area and harmonious in architectural style, mass, scale, materials, colors, and overall appearance. C. Applicability. This section applies to all second story additions and new residential units which are dfferent from those originally constructed and/or approved and which are proposed for construction within t partially developed subdivision; except for a custom home subdivision, project or phase. These requirements Lre in addition to other applicable regulations in this code. D. Site Development Permit Required. Residential units subject to this section are subject to approval >f a site development permit by the planning commission per Section 9.210.010. Applications for such permits hall be filed with the community development department on forms prescribed by the director together with: 1) all maps, plans, documents and other materials required by the director, and (2) all required fees per Chapter 3-99) 252 9.260. The director shall provide the necessary *forms plus written filing instructions specifying all materials and fees required to any requesting person at no charge. E. Acceptance of Applications as Complete. Within thirty days of receipt of a permit application, the director shall determine whether the application is complete and shall transmit such determination to the applicant. If the application is determined not to be complete, the director shall* specify in .writing those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete. No application shall be processed until all required materials have been submitted and the application deemed complete. F. Public Hearing Required. A public hearing shall be noticed and held per Section 9.200.110 prior to planning commission approval or denial of any site development permit consisting of the construction of a total of five houses within a tract under the compatibility review provisions of this section. Construction of a total of five or less units shall require review and approval of the planning commission as a business item The community development director may require that additional notice be given by enlarging the notification radius or by other means determined by the director. G. Precise Development Plan. A site developn�nt permit approved under the compatibility review provisions of this section constitutes a precise development plan. Therefore, the residential development authorized under the site development shall be in compliance with the plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. H. Required Findings. In addition to the findings required for approval of a site development permit, the following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of any site development permit under the compatibility review provisions of this section: 1. The development standards of subsection I of this section have been satisfied. 2. The architectural and other design elements .of the new residential unit(s) will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in the project. I. Development Standards for Compatibility Review. No residential unit shall be approved under compatibility review unless the planning commission determines that it complies with the following development standards: 1. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same or better type of fencing for the new dwelling(s), as determined by the planning commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the planning commission, with respect to the following design elements: a. Architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; b. Colors; c. Roof lines; d. Lot area; and e. Building mass and scale. 4. At least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum of a 24-inch box size (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper) and minimum ten -foot tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard and street side yard with the total number of trees on each lot to be the same as that provided for on the original units. 5. The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision shall not deviate by more than ten percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. 6. Residential units with identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another. J. Commission Discretion on Unit Types. The planning commission, in reviewing dwelling units under this section, may limit the.type and the number of a particular unit to be constructed within a subdivision. K. Appeals. The applicant or another aggrieved party may appeal decisions of the planning commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.200.120. L. Major and Minor Deviations. ' 1. A minor design deviation can be approved by the community development department without a public hearing. Minor design deviation means a modification of an approved architectural unit within a subdivision 253 u' Quha 3-M Ordinance No. 361 Noticing Restrictions Adopted: September 21, 2001 Page 4 i b. Between two points located on and five feet distant from the point of intersection of an ultimate street or alley right-of-way on one hand and the edge of a driveway or another alley right-of-way on the other if parkway width is less than 12-feet wide. C. For purposes of this Code, point of intersection shall mean the intersection of the prolongation of the street curbs or edge of pavement, excluding any curved portion joining the two lines. d. Trees may be planted within this triangular area provided the bottom of the canopy (leafy branches) of the tree is at least four feet above finish grade of the street adjacent to the tree. However, trees shall not be planted in such numbers that their trunks create a visibility obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians. REVISE - SECTION 9.60.250 E. - Requirements for approval. Any approving action shall include those conditions and requirements deemed by the decision - making authority to be necessary or advisable to protect the public safety and the general welfare, together with a $1000.00 cash deposit that the structures and facilities will be removed or made consistent with applicable zoning regulations within 90 days after the expiration of the permit or discontinuation of the use the permit is approved for. REVISE - SECTION 9.60.300 1.1. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in the same subdivision. REVISE - SECTION 9.65.030 A.1 1. Setbacks. Setback criteria shall be determined based on the existing site conditions and surroundings, in conjunction with the guidelines and the proposed project characteristics. a. Setbacks along front, side, and rear property lines are not required; however, any setback provided must be made wide or deep enough to be usable space, such as for pedestrian access to side -loading commercial space, stairwells, or through -access between front and rear of the building(s). b. Projects with any retail commercial components shall maintain a minimum ten -foot landscaped setback from any RVL, RL or RMH zoned properties. • • • ATTACHMENT #3 that involves items such as, but not limited to, less than five percent change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; columns, dormer vents, window size changes, plant -on locations, color, and stucco texture changes. The community development director may refer the minor design deviation to the planning commission as a business item under the site development permit process. 2. A major design deviation is subject to the compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions. A major design deviation means a five percent or more change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; any exterior architectural modification not to defined as a minor design deviation. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.60310 Restrictions on multistory buildings at project boundaries. A dwelling located next to a project or city/county or tract boundary shall be limited to one story if an existing one story dwelling is within fifty feet of the common property line, unless there is a street separating the two. (Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997: Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.60320 Resort residential. A. Purpose. Resort residential provides for the development and regulation of a range of specialized residential uses that are individually owned but rented for periods of thirty consecutive days or less, on a regular basis and oriented to tourist and resort activity as part of a golf/resort country club. Land uses include single-family detached or attached residential uses, eating and drinking facilities, small accessory retail and personal service shops, and recreational buildings. B. Review Process. Resort residential uses are permitted when developed as part of a residential golf country club. The conditional use application review process shall be used subject to Section 9.210.020. C. Development Standards. The following standards apply to the development of resort residential uses: Minimum lot frontage Maximum building height Maximum no. of stories Minimum livable reserved floor area excluding garage Minimum front yard setback from: Street or parking stall curb Pedestrian circulation walks Garage/carport setback -from street curb Minimum building to building setback: Without partial attachment (see note) With partial attachment (see note) Minimum interior/exterior side yard setbacks Minimum rear yard setback Maximum allowable wall height Minimum parking required QUANTITY 30 ft. 28 ft. (1) 22 ft. (1) adjacent to an image corridor 2 420 sq. ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 6 ft. 4 fL 3 ft. (2) 5 ft. 8 ft. 1 space per bedroom 1 space per 300 sq. ft. QFA Note: Partial attachment of two buildings is made when an enclosed area having a typical interior function such as a hot water heater closet, furnace closet, or other essential use, is attached to two otherwise separate buildings. Construction standards and fire ratings shall meet U.B.C. requirements. 1. Chimneys, roof vents, finials, spires, and similar architectural features not containing usable space are permitted to extend up to three feet above the maximum structure height. 2. Residential unit's supporting mechanical equipment shall be allowed within side yard setback area with a minimum three-foot clearance to the side property. tA a Qd= 3-"> 254 ATTACHMENT #4 T SHOWN NEFRE ,., f,::.y,:Ts�:iicr.�e�^:T.*�+�t�Yt.�: ..)r3.:r-v��. a r,�'.'i�.. ::z,t:• �. {{{ 3 7 33:1P� x:13.'•"f�T.�a.7:a' !ll+'i7lf•'' G > x 9 a 11 C 4Y� 4' o 4r. F �i !f r t f 9.280.030 ATTACHMENT #5 Adult Business, Adult Entertainment Business or Adult Oriented Business. See "sexually oriented business," Chapter 5.80 of the municipal code. Advertising Device or Display. See sign definitions, Section 9.160.120. "Alley" means a secondary means of access to abutting property located at the rear or side of the property. "Alteration" means any physical change in the internal or external composition of a building or other structure. Animal Hospital or Animal Clinic. See "veterinary clinic." "Antenna" means a device for transmitting or receiving radio, television, satellite, microwave or any other transmitted. signal. "Apartment" means a dwelling unit within an apartment building designed and used for occupancy by one family on a rental basis. "Apartment building or apartment project" means a building or group of buildings in a single ownership with three or more dwelling units per building and with most or all units occupied on a rental basis. Area, Project Net. See "project net area." "Attached structures" means two or more structures which are physically connected with- a wall, roof, deck, floor, bearing or. support structures, trellises, architectural features or any other structure, fixture or device that exceeds thirty inches in height above the finished grade. Attached Dwelling or Attached Residential. See "dwelling, attached." "Automobile repair specialty shop" means a retail and service place of business engaged primarily in light repair and sale of goods and services for motor vehicles, including brake, muffler and tire shops and their accessory uses. Heavier automobile repair such as major body and paint work, transmission repair, or engine repair are not included in this definition. "Automobile service station" means a retail place of business engaged primarily in the sale of motor fuels and supplying those incidental goods and services which are required in the day -today operation of motor vehicles. "Automobile wrecking" or "automobile dismantling" means the storage or taking apart of damaged or wrecked vehicles or the sale of such vehicles or their parts. "Awning" means a roof -like cover that is attached to and projects from the wall of a building for the purpose of decoration and/or providing shielding from the elements. "Basement" means a habitable building level which is partly or completely underground. A basement shall be counted as a building story if more than -five feet of the height of any portion is above adjoining finish grade. `Bed and breakfast" or "B 8t B" means an establishment primarily engaged in providing temporary lodging (i.e., less than thirty days) for the general public with access provided through a common entrance to guest rooms having no cooking facilities. Meals may or may not be provided. `Bedroom" means any habitable room that may be used for sleeping purposes other than a kitchen, bathroom, hallway, dining room or living room. "Berm" means a mound or embankment of earth. Billboard. See sign definitions, Section 9.160.120. "Boardinghouse" means any building or portion thereof with access provided through a common entrance to guest rooms having no cooking facilities. Guest rooms are rented on a monthly basis or longer and meals are provided. "Buildable area" means the portion of a building site remaining after deducting all required setbacks and meeting any requirements regarding maximum lot coverage or minimum open area. "Building" means an enclosed structure having a roof supported by columns or walls. Building height means the height of a building relative to the surrounding ground area. Measurement of maximum building height is defined in Sections 9.50.050 and 9.90.010. Building, Main. "Main building" means the building containing the main or principal use of the premises. Building, Relocatable. "Relocatable building" means a building which is not placed on a permanent foundation and is designed to be movable from one location to another without the need for a special permit such as that required to move a conventional house. Relocatable buildings include but are not limited to mobilehomes, construction trailers, and modular buildings. `Building site" means a parcel or contiguous parcels of land established in compliance with the development standards for the applicable zoning district and the city's subdivision code. GA QWM 9-%) 372-28 9.50.050 9.50.050 Maximum building height. For purposes of this code, the maximum height of buildings and other structures shall be defined as the vertical distance from finish grade to an imaginary plane above the building site. The imaginary plane shall be established above and parallel to the finish grade adjacent to the exterior walls at a vertical distance equal to the specified maximum height. This definition is illustrated below: STRXIM AM NOT PENETWE SAMW W PLANE r� � I, Mec i "we Figure 9=5: Measurement of Building Height Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) �.50.060 Architectural projections. A. Roof Projections. Notwithstanding Figure 9-5, chimneys, roof vents, finials, spires, and similar architectual eatures not containing usable space are permitted to extend up to three feet above the maximum structure eight set forth in Table 9-2 preceding. B. Projections. The following architectural projections are permitted to encroach into the required setbacks pecified in Table 9-2 preceding: 1. Roof overhangs, chimneys, awnings and canopies may encroach a maximum of two feet into any squired setback provided such projections are no closer than three and one-half feet from any property line. 2. Cantilevered seating windows or ledges, which are located a minimum of one foot above the floor rid do not increase a building's usable floor area, may encroach a maximum of two feet into any required :tback provided such projections are no closer than three and one-half feet from any property line. 3. Balconies, exterior stairways, and elevated uncovered decks may encroach a maximum of four feet ito required front and rear setbacks provided such projections are no closer than three and one-half feet from ry property line. Such projections shall not encroach into required side setbacks nor. increase a building's ;able floor space. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998: Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 -(Exh. A) ►art), 1996) 50.070 Irregular Iota. A. Purpose. Setback distances established for residential districts are based*on rectangular lots. Nonrectangular ts, lots with three sides or -more than four sides, and other nonstandard lots require special measurement chniques in order to achieve the purpose of setback requirements, i.e., the appropriate separation of structures Din streets and other properties. The purpose of this subsection is to provide standards for the establishment id measurement of setbacks on irregular lots. (See Chapter 9.280 for definition of lot lines.) li QtWO 3-"> 230 9.280.030 `Roodplain" means the land area adjacent to a watercourse and other land areas susceptible to being inundated by water. "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. "Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and that part of the floodplain reasonably required to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Floor Area, Gross. See "gross floor area." Floor Area, Livable. See "livable floor area." "door area ratio" means the numerical value obtained by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings, except parking structures, located on a building site by the building site area "Fraternity house" or "sorority house" means a building or portion of a building occupied by a chapter of a regularly organized college fraternity or sorority officially recognized by an educational institution. Freestanding Sign. See sign definitions, Section 9.160.120. Front Lot Line. See definitions under "lot line." Gas Station or Service Station. See "automobile service station." "Garage" means a building or portion of a building used primarily for the parking of motor vehicles. "General plan" means the general plan of the city of La Quinta. "Government code" means the California Government Code. Grade, Average. "Average grade" means the elevation determined by averaging the highest and lowest elevations of a parcel, building site or other defined area of land. Grade, Average Finish. "Average finish grade" means the elevation determined by averaging the highest and lowest elevations of a parcel, building site or other defined area of land after final grading. Grade, Finish. `Finish grade" means the ground elevation at any point after final grading. "Grading" means the filling, excavation or other movement of earth for any purpose. ' Granny flat or granny housing" means a secondary dwelling unit which is: (1) intended for the sole occupancy of one or two adult persons sixty-two years of age or over, and (2) located on a building site containing an existing single family detached dwelling. The floor area of an attached granny flat does not exceed thirty percent of the existing floor area of the primary single family residence and the floor area of a detached granny flat does not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet. (See also "second residential unit.') "Grazing" means the act of pasturing livestock on growing grass or other growing herbage or on dead grass or other dead herbage existing in the place where grown as the principal sustenance of the livestock so grazed. "Gross acreage" means the land area, expressed in acres, within a parcel or group of contiguous parcels minus any right-of-way for arterial highways not including collector streets. Each acre so determined is a gross acre. Gross Density. See "density." "Gross floor area" means the total square footage of all floors of a building, including the exterior unfinished wall structure but excluding courtyards and other outdoor areas. Gross Lot or Parcel Area. See "lot area, gross." "Ground floor area" means all enclosed area within the ground floor of a structure, including exterior walls and mechanical spaces. Carports, garages, accessory buildings and parking structures are included in ground floor area but swimming pools and •unenclosed post -supported roofs over patios and walkways are not included. Ground Sign. See `Yreestanding sign" in sign definitions, Section 9.160.126. Guest house means a detached unit which has sleeping and sanitary facilities but no cooking facilities and which is used primarily for sleeping purposes by members of the family occupying the main building, their nonpaying guests, and domestic employees. �N- Habitable Area. See "livable floor area." �p "Habitable room" means any room usable for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. A room designed and used only for storage purposes is not a habitable room. P Quim 3-M 372-32 9.280.030 "Hazardous waste" means a waste or combination of wastes which, because of its quantity, concentration, toxicity, corrosiveness, mutagenicity or flammability, or its physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may: (1) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Home for the Aged. See "convalescent home." "Home occupation" means an occupation or activity conducted as an accessory use within a dwelling unit incidental to the residential use of the property, See Section 9.60.110. "Hospital" means a facility licensed by the State Department of Health Services providing clinical, temporary or emergency service of a medical, obstetrical, surgical or mental health nature to human patients. "Hotel" means any building or portion thereof with access provided through a common entrance, lobby or hallway to guest rooms which are rented on a daily or weekly basis and which has cooking facilities in less than twenty-five percent of the guest rooms. Identification Sign. See sign definitions, Section 9.160.120. "Industrial park," `business park" or "office park" means a nonresidential development wherein the permitted uses are. planned, developed, managed and maintained as a unit, with landscaping, amenities, and common offstreet parking provided to serve all uses on the property. ,Intensity" means the level of development or activity associated with a land use, as measured by one or more of the following: 1. The amount of parking required for the use per Chapter 9.150. 2. 'The operational characteristics of the use such as hours of operation, the inclusion of dancing or live entertainment as part of the use, or similar characteristics. 3. The floor area occupied by the use. 4. The percentage of the building site occupied by the use or by the structure containing the use. Interior Lot Line. See definitions under "lot line." "Kennel or animal shelter" means any property where four or more dogs are kept or maintained for any purpose except for treatment at pet grooming services or veterinary clinics or hospitals. "Kitchen" means any room all or part of which is designed and/or used for the cooking or other preparation of food Land Use. See "use." Land Use Intensity. See ."intensity." Landfill, Sanitary. "Sanitary landfill" means an area designed and used for the disposal of solid waste on land by spreading it in layers, compacting it and covering it daily with soil or other approved cover material. Laundry Plant. See "cleaning plant or laundry plant." ` "Livable floor area" means the interior area of a dwelling unit which may be occupied for living purposes by humans, including basements and attics (if permitted). Livable floor area does not include a garage or any accessory structure. "Live entertainment" means any act, play, revue, pantomime, scene, dance or song, or any combination of the foregoing performed in person by one or more persons whether or not they are compensated for their performance. Living Area. See "livable floor area" Lod&ghouse. See "boardinghouse." "Lot" means an area of land under one ownership which is identified as a lot or parcel on a recorded final map, parcel map, record of survey recorded pursuant to an approved division of land, certificate of complianoe, or lot line adjustment. The terms "lot" and "parcel" are interchangeable for purposes of this code. Types of lots and their definitions are as follows: 1. "Comer lot" means a lot abutting two streets intersecting at an angle of not more than one hundred thirty-five degrees. If the angle of intersection is more than one hundred thirty-five degrees, the lot is an "interior lot." 2. "Flag or panhandle lot" means a lot connected to the street with a narrow access portion less than forty feet wide and more than twenty feet long and situated so that another lot is located between the main portion of the flag lot and the street. 372-33 oB Qd= 9-90 9.280.030 "Shopping center" or "commercial center" means a commercial area or group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, managed and maintained as a unit, with common landscaping, amenities, and offstreet parking provided to serve all uses on the property. Side Lot Line. See definitions under "lot line." "Sidewalk sale" or "parking lot sale" means the temporary outdoor display and sale of merchandise which is normally displayed indoors at the location of an individual retail business not located within a shopping center. (See also "special commercial event.' "Sign" means any medium for visual communication, including but not limited to words, symbols and illustrations together with all parts, materials, frame and background, which medium is used or intended to be used to attract attention to, identify, or advertise an establishment, product, service, activity or location, or to provide information. Also, see sign definitions, Section 9.160.120. Single -Family Dwelling or Residence. See "dwelling, single-family." "Single room occupancy (SRO) facility" or "SRO hotel" means a residential facility which is rented on a weekly or longer basis and which provides Hiving and sleeping facilities for one or two persons per unit. Each unit contains a toilet and sink. Shower, kitchen, and laundry facilities may be shared. Site. See "building site." Site Area, Net. See "net project or site area." Site Coverage. See "building site coverage." Site Development Permit or Development Permit. See Section 9.210.010. "Slope" or "slope gradient" means the vertical distance between two points on a slope divided by the horizontal distance between the same two points, with the result expressed as a percentage; e.g., "the slope has a twenty percent gradient" (usually used to describe natural as opposed to manufactured, slopes). "Slope ratio" means the steepness of a slope expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to.the vertical rise over that horizontal distance; e.g., 2:1(usually used to describe.manufactured as opposed to natural, slopes). "Special commercial event" means the temporary outdoor display and sale of merchandise by two or more tenants within a commercial center, or arts and crafts shows, fairs, or entertainment events within a commercial center. (See also "sidewalk sale.' "Specific plan" means a plan consisting of text, maps and other documents and exhibits regulating development within a defined area of the city, consistent with the general plan and State Government Code Section 65450 et seq. "Stock cooperative" means a corporation which is formed primarily for the purpose of holding title to, either in fee simple or for a term of years, improved real property, if all or substantially all of the shareholders of such corporation receive a right of exclusive occupancy in a portion of the real property, title to which is held by the corporation, which right of occupancy is transferable only concurrently with the transfer of the shares of stock or membership certificate in the corporation held by the person having such right of occupancy. "Storage" means a place where goods, materials, and/or personal property is placed for more than twenty-four hours. "Story" means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor immediately above it or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and the ceiling above it. "Street" means a public or private vehicular right-of-way other than an alley or driveway, including both local streets and arterial highways. "Structure" means anything that is erected or constructed having a fixed location on the ground or attachment to something on the ground and which extends more than thirty inches above the finish grade. A mobilehome or relocatable building, except when used as a temporary use with its weight resting at least partially upon its tires, is a structure for the purposes of this definition. "Subsection" means a portion of a section of this zoning code designated by a section number followed immediately by an upper case letter, for example, subsection 9.10.010A. (See also "section.") "Swimming pool" means an artificial body of water having a depth in excess of eighteen inches, designed, constructed and used for swimming, dipping or immersion purposes by humans. "Temporary use" means a land use established for a specified period of time, which use is discontinued at the end of such specified time. Townhome. See "dwelling, townhome." . "Transient basis" means for a continuous period of two weeks or less. ti QWM 9-90 372-38 aim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 2002 REQUEST: FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S PROPOSED ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE RANCH PROPERTY WITH A MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, NORTH OF AVENUE 54, WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, WITH THE CORAL REEF MOUNTAINS AS THE WESTERN BOUNDARY. APPLICANT: LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BACKGROUND: California Government Code Section 65402 (CGC) requires that a jurisdictions planning agency (i.e., Planning Commission) review and report upon whether proposed acquisitions of real property for public purpose is consistent with the adopted General Plan. PROPOSED PROJECT: The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency is proposing to acquire the 707 acre site, including 182 acres of mountainous land to be preserved as permanent open space, located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The acquisition of the 525 acres of non -mountainous property would be by purchase agreement while the acquisition of the 182 acres of mountainous land would be by dedication or donation. The non -mountainous portion of the site would be developed with public golf courses and resort uses consistent with the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map designations for the site. The Project Site is designated under the 2002 General Plan Update for golf course uses with tourist commercial uses in the center of the site. The Golf Course designation allows both public and private golf course with their associated ancillary uses, while the Tourist Commercial designation allows resort hotels, recreational uses, conference centers and ancillary retail shops. The Tourist Commercial designation also allows Timeshare units with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. If ultimately approved, the Proposed Project would include two 18-hold public golf courses with a 25,000 square foot clubhouse as well as a 9-hole public golf course which would accommodate a junior golf program. The proposed resort uses would G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\GPConsistRanch.wpd include a 250 room hotel with a 10,000 square foot conference center, 300 timeshare fractional or condo hotel units (Timeshare) and 25,000 square feet of ancillary commercial uses. The Agency is proposing to acquire the Project Site after completing further due diligence. Subsequent discretionary actions required to develop the site include adoption of a Specific Plan, a Zone Change to make the zoning designations consistent with the General Plan land use designations, a Conditional Use Permit for the 300 timeshare units, a Site Development Permit and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site to accommodate the proposed uses. Additional design features to be incorporated into the project include passive park space, trails, and view corridors. The existing Pelz Short Game Golf School may remain. No development is planned on the 182 acres of the Coral Reef Mountains located on the western portion of the Project Site. FINDINGS: Several current General Plan policies are applicable and are referred to for conformance determination as follows: LAND USE ELEMENT: The recently adopted General Plan land use diagram designates the site as Tourist Commercial (TC) and Golf Course (GC► which permits the identified uses. CIRCULATION ELEMENT: Avenue 52 is designated as a Secondary Image Corridor/Primary Arterial; and Jefferson Street is a Primary Image Corridor/Major Arterial. Avenue 54 along the property frontage is not designated. All streets function as restricted access, higher -volume corridors for purposes of moving traffic around neighborhood perimeters with minimal interruption of traffic flow. This ensures movement of traffic around the Site, with specific intersection locations for general access to the area developments. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: The mountainous area to the west of the Site is designated as Open Space. Development is not proposed in this area which is consistent with the General Plan. PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT: The Element identifies the need to provide affordable golfing opportunities for its residents. This project is therefore, consistent with those policies. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. NATURAL RESOURCES: No key planning issues or policies are identified. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\GPConsistRanch.wpd INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT: Several policies within this Element address provision of adequate supplies of potable and irrigation water sources, flood protection, and comprehensive sewage collection, treatment and disposal. The proposed Site will need to provide these services and develop in conformance with applicable policies and programs. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-, confirming findings of conformity with the La Quinta General Plan for a potential Redevelopment Agency proposed acquisition and development of The Ranch property with a municipal golf course and tourist commercial uses to be located on the south side of Avenue 52, north of Avenue 54, west side of Jefferson Street with the Coral Reef Mountains as the western boundary. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\GPConsistRanch.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONFORMITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402, FOR A POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT WHEREAS, said Section 65401 also requires the jurisdiction's planning agency (i.e., Planning Commission) review and report upon whether proposed acquisitions of real property for public purpose is consistent with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 23" day of April, 2002, hold a public meeting to consider a finding of conformity with the General Plan for said potential Project Site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did make the following findings of conformity with respect to the proposed project: 1. The proposed Redevelopment Agency Project is in conformance with the La Quinta General Plan, as follows: A. LAND USE ELEMENT: The recently adopted General Plan land use diagram designates the site as Tourist Commercial (TC) and Golf Course (GC) which permits the identified uses. B. CIRCULATION ELEMENT: Avenue 52 is designated as a Secondary Image Corridor/Primary Arterial; and Jefferson Street is a Primary Image Corridor/Major Arterial. Avenue 54 along the property frontage is not designated. All streets function as restricted access, higher -volume corridors for purposes of moving traffic around neighborhood perimeters with minimal interruption of traffic flow. This ensures movement of traffic around the Site, with specific intersection locations for general access to the area developments. C. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: The mountainous area to the west of the Site is designated as Open Space. Development is not proposed in this area which is consistent with the General Plan. D. PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT: The Element identifies the need to provide affordable golfing opportunities for its residents. This project is therefore, consistent with those policies. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\RanchGPConformity.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Redevelopment Agency - The Ranch General Plan Conformity Finding Adopted: April 23, 2002 E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. F. NATURAL RESOURCES: No key planning issues or policies are identified. G. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT: Several policies within this Element address provision of adequate supplies of potable and irrigation water sources, flood protection, and comprehensive sewage collection, treatment and disposal. The proposed Site will need to provide these services and develop in conformance with applicable policies and programs. H. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. 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 constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby adopt this finding of conformity 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 23rd day of April, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\RanchGPConformity.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Redevelopment Agency - The Ranch General Plan Conformity Finding Adopted: April 23, 2002 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\RanchGPConformity.wpd LEGEND Area Proposed for Development TC Tounst ('ununcrcial G aolfcou-se OS Open space IAHillside Overlay �•'� Project Boundary SOURCE: ( in n/ la (11,1. r 0rnrrnl I'Ina Fxh,bil 2 1 Q I y of Le 0wn1a General Plan (Recommended(. March 20. 2002 VENUE 50 ENUE 52 AVENUE 54 NOT TO SCALE 223-00.03/02 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation