The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 05 28 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California MAY 28, 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 2002-050 Beginning Minute Motion 2002-010 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on May 14, 2002. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 0 C. Item .................. CONTINUED - SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-056 AND 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 ............. Review of design guidelines and development standards for a 16,042 ± square foot office/medical office complex on 1.5 acres; and consideration of development plans for construction of a 8,792 square foot medical office structure. Action ............... Resolution 2002- and Resolution 2002- Item .................. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-072 Applicant ........... City of La Quinta Location ............ City wide Request ............. Recommendation to the City Council to add Section 9.50.055-Second Floor Addition within an Existing Unit, to the La Quinta Municipal Code, within the Residential Zones excluding the Cove Residential District. Action ............... Resolution 2002- Item ................ ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH #9164450613444, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-447, AND ZONE CHANGE 2002-107 Applicant .......... Dave Twedt/Shea Homes Location ............ Bounded on the north by Avenue 60, the south by Avenue 62, west of Madison Street and on the east side of Monroe Street. Request ......... 1. Certification of an Addendum to Certified Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232 prepared for Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1 (Coral Mountain-525 acres); 2. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Approximately 115 acres located within Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, not included in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1; and 3. Consideration of a Zone Change for preannexation zoning designations from Riverside County's SP (Specific Plan), A-1-10 (Residential Agriculture), and W-2 (Planned Development) to RL (Low Density PC/AGENDA Residential), RM (Medium Density Residential), GC (Golf Course), and OS (Open Space) for 640 acres in Riverside County Action ............... Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- and Resolution 2002- D. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-450 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-058 Applicant .......... Marvin Investments (Wells Marvin) Location ............ South side of Calle Tampico, Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive and the southeast corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive Request .......... 1. Review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and 2. Review of development principals and guidelines for a 127,517 square foot commercial complex on 6+ acres. Action ............... Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- , E. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 Applicant .......... Tenet Care California, Inc. Location ............ 2.92 acre parcel on the east side of Washington Street between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 Request ............ Review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 25,486 square foot medical facility. Action ............... Resolution 2002- F. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-441 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30378 Applicant .......... Rod Vandenbos Location ............ Southwest corner of Avenue 51 and Madison Street Request ............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and review of a request to subdivide 9.13 acres into eight residential lots and other common lots Action ............... Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- , G. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-721 Applicant .......... Coachella Petroleum, Inc. (Jiffy Lube) Location ............ 78-988 Highway 111 Request ............ Consideration to establish a +400 square foot shade structure to be used for outdoor servicing of vehicles Action ............... Resolution 2002- PC/AGENDA VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2002-616 Applicant .......... Graphic Resources for Desert Automotive Location ............ 78-611 Highway 111 Request ............ Consideration of a sign program for Champion Cadillac Chevrolet Action ............... Resolution 2002- VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding a joint meeting with the City Council to be held on June 5, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. B. Report on the City Council meeting of May 7, 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 May 14, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to excuse Commissioner Kirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Martin Magana, 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 April 23, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, Item #3 be corrected to add the last name of the Community Development Director; and correct the spelling of the word "sight". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Robbins abstaining and Commissioner Kirk absent. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 20002-443 General Plan Amendment 20027 084 Zone Change 2002-106 and Site Development Permit 2002-730; a request of Clubhouse Associates, L.L.C. for a recommendation for G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 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 asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if this complex was age restricted. Staff stated no. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify their statement in regard to the access off Avenue 52 . Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they will not be matched up with the access to the development across the street. The left turns are to be off -set from each other. Commissioner Tyler asked why there was not a full turning movement. Staff stated it would not comply with the General Plan. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Chuck Cockrell, representing the applicant, stated he was available for questions. 5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler stated the Commission had struggled with whether or not to require elevators. Mr. Cockrell stated they would address this and introduced Mr. Robert Kraft, architect for the project, who gave a presentation on the changes requested by the Commission and regarding elevators. Ms. Annie Gerard and Joyce Hummel, National Suvey Sysems, market study consultants, gave a presentation on the market study they completed on the site for what type of project would be best suited for this location. 6. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether the desert temperature was taken into consideration in their study. People who will live on the third floor will not want to go up and down the stairs in the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 high temperatures of the desert. Ms. Gerard stated their study has shown, even in Las Vegas, that this type of product is desired. 7. Mr. Ron Isameda, landscape architect for the project, gave a presentation on the landscaping for the project. 8. Commissioner Robbins asked if it was in compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Isameda stated it complied with the Ordinance. 9. Commissioner Butler asked about the architectural relief that was requested by Commissioner Kirk. Principal Planner Fred Baker explained the detail that had been added to the blank wall on the building in question. Commissioner Butler asked if all the areas of concern requested by the Commission had been addressed. Staff noted they had met most of the issues. 10. Commissioner Tyler asked about the material to be used on the "eyebrow arbor" along the rear of the project. Mr. Kraft stated they intended to use metal instead of wood. 11. Chairman Abels thanked the applicant for addressing their concerns, but he still had a problem with the lack of elevators. Mr. Kraft explained they had looked at how elevators could be integrated into the project. The average rise from floor to floor is only 11 feet and there are only four buildings this would apply to. In speaking to other developers in regard to a three story walk-up building and the answer he got was that with an urban setting and a central courtyard, it was not used. When they added the elevators they had no issue architecturally, but from the unit standpoint they have an issue. It brings the pedestrians along the front of the neighbors bedroom and livingroom space which causes the owner to live in an environment of closing the drapes to keep their privacy. They met with the Sheriff's Department and they voiced a concern in regard to indefensible space. 12. Commissioner Butler stated he could understand their reasoning on the stair walk, but he did not totally agree with the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Kraft explained the floor plan of the units in question. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 13. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not have a strong feeling on the elevators. His issue is the proposed chainlink fence along the All American Canal which is a safety factor. Staff noted a condition had been added to require the block wall. 15. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on his presentation and addressing the issues raised by the Commission. However, in his opinion he would not trade a view for a staircase. Commissioner Tyler asked if the access points between this project and the project to the north could not be better coordinated even if a General Plan Amendment was needed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is 800 feet between the two turning movements on the south side of the street. 16. Chairman Abels stated he thought the elevators were necessary. 17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-042, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-443. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abets. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-043, recommending approval of Zone Change 2002-106, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-044, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2002-730, approving the elevation with the elevator and the revised conditions: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 a. Condition #80: A six foot block wall shall be required along the eastern property boundary adjacent to the All American Canal. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 2002-731; a request of WG Properties, LLC for consideration of development plans for construction of a 8,792 square foot office building on a 1.51 acre parcel located at the east side of Washington Street, north of Lake La Quinta Drive, within the Lake La Quinta project area. 1. Chairman Abels asked if there was a motion to continue the project to May 28, 2002 as requested by the applicant. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to continue the project to May 28, 2002. Unanimously approved. C. Environmental Assessment 200 -444 Conditional Use Permit 2002-069, and Site Development Permit 2002-732; a request of Southern California Presbyterian Homes and the City of La Quinta for: 1) Recommendation for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an 81 unit, single story, senior apartment complex; and 3) Review of development plans for an 81 unit single story, senior apartment complex to be located at the southwest corner of Avenue 47 and Adams Street. 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify the need for the eight feet from the curbline to the wall. Staff stated yes, it would be eight feet from back of curb to the wall which is the property line. The homeowners' association would maintain from the wall to the curb and the applicant would maintain their portion of the property. Commissioner Butler asked if the Oleanders could be G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 planted between the block wall and five foot setback. Staff stated they could plant any type of plant. Discussion followed in regard to the property line and the hedge. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if a noise study had been conducted to determine the level of noise for the street. Staff clarified this street did not warrant a study. 4. Chairman Abels asked the size of the letters on the sign. Staff stated they are proposed for four inches by nine inches. Chairman Abels stated that is too small and should be at least one square foot in area. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Ben Beckler, representing SCPH, stated they were available to answer any questions. 6. There being no questions of applicant, Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Dutch Dilsaver, 78-835 Dulce Del Mar, deferred his comments to the homeowners' association president. Mr. John Miller, Homeowners' Association President, 47-850 Via Nice, stated they were looking forward to having the project as their neighbor. The only issue was the lack of a block wall between the project and Lake La Quinta. The Oleander hedge is currently the only thing between the two projects. Staff met with them on the site to determine the property line and as explained it falls where the Oleanders are planted. The only two options are to do a lot line adjustment to put the lot line five feet behind the Oleanders or remove the Oleanders and put the block wall on the lot line. 7. Mr. Dutch Dilsaver, 78-835 Dulce Del Mar, stated he wanted the block wall installed prior to the beginning of construction and that the City take care of the chainlink fence along Avenue 47. 8. Ms. Renell Burch 47-145 Via Owieto, stated she was concerned with the Oleanders. These are beautiful and make a nice entry to the project and to rip them out is irresponsible. 9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 10. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the project. He questioned Condition #37 and asked that it be changed. He appreciated the fact that the Oleanders have been present for a number of years, but it is known that they are susceptible to a disease prevalent in the desert and he would suggest a wall be constructed. 11. Chairman Abels stated he is experiencing a similar problem with the Oleanders and is therefore in favor of the wall. 12. Commissioner Robbins complimented staff and the architect on the project. In regard to the Oleanders he believes there should be a wall and the Oleanders should be removed because of the amount of water they require. If planting material is desired, it could be planted with a more water efficient plant. The wall should be constructed after the grading. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-045 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-444, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-046 approving Conditional Use Permit 2002-069, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-0047 approving Site Development Permit 2002-732, as amended: a. Condition # 37: The swales shall be maintained by the applicants. b. Condition #76: Flat lenses shall be required on carports. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 C. Condition #81: A six foot high block wall matching the existing wall along the southern property line shall be constructed prior to construction of any buildings and the Oleander hedge shall be removed. d. Condition #82: "Room and Information" signage shall be one square foot in size. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened at 8:51 p.m. D. Specific Plan 99-036 and Site Development Permit 2002-734; a request of Sky West Corporation Centre Group, LLC and the City of La Quinta for: 1) Amendment of the text development standards and design guidelines for a 36 acre Specific Plan, and 2) review of architectural landscape, site, and lighting plans for a two story office building on 2.25 acres located approximately 800 feet east of Adams Street and on the north side of Corporate Centre Drive. 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the project butted up against the storage center. Staff indicated the location on the site plan and stated it did not. 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Robert Wood, construction manager for Sky West Corporation gave a presentation on the project. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Robbins stated that in the middle of the site there is a storm drain which has no grate with an eight foot hole that is full of trash and is dangerous and should be resolved before anything else happens. His other concern is the wall at the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 rear of the project; would the well site be walled off or will there be a hole in the wall. Mr. Wood explained there would be a six foot slumpstone wall around the entire facility. Across the wash they are proposing a wrought iron fence to march to the J. Paul property. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was a blank space between this project and the storage area for the District well site. Mr. Scott Gaynor, master developer, explained they would take care of this. 5. Mr. Scott Gaynor, the master developer, stated they supported the project. He also asked that a classification of "retail" be added to Planning Areas #3 and #4. Commissioner Butler asked that a letter be received from the owner of PA #4 for the file granting approval. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Tyler noted other miscellaneous changes that should be made on the Specific Plan. 8. Commissioner Robbins stated they will need to reroute a storm drain and get the new outlet approved by CVWD. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-048 recommending approval of Specific Plan 99- 036, Amendment #1, as amended: a. "Retail" shall be added to Planning Areas #3 and #4 throughout the Specific Plan document, if requested by the property owner. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-049 approving Site Development Permit 2002-734, as recommended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding a joint meeting with the City Council on June 5, 2002. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of April 16, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held May 14, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. on April 23, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-14-02.wpd 10 PH V STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 2002 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 23 AND MAY 14, 2002) CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448 SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-056 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-731 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: WG PROPERTIES, LLC REQUEST: 1. RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448; 2. REVIEW OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A ± 16,042 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX ON ± 1.5 ACRES; 3. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ±8,792 S.F. MEDICAL OFFICE STRUCTURE, LOCATION: NORTH OF LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE, ±200 FEET, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND CALEO BAY DRIVE (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE REQUEST HAS NO POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: The 1.51 acre project site has no history of development proposals. It was originally mapped as part of a larger parcel under Tentative Tract 24230, approved in 1989. Subsequently, this particular parcel was created under Parcel Map 27892 in 1994. As a result of prior grading activity associated with Tract 24230 and its improvements, the site is barren of vegetation and any topographic relief or features. The applicant proposes a 16,042 square foot commercial/office project. The initial building (Phase 1) is intended as medical office space. The second phase building site is an 8,000 s.f. pad which will house a 6,500 s.f. general office building, according to the specific plan document. The premise of the application presents a Specific Plan for review of design guidelines and development standards on the overall project development. The Site Development Permit is proposed for the construction of the 8,792 s.f. Phase 1 medical office building, which includes the necessary on and off - site improvements for that use. Building A (Phase 1 building) is oriented to the northeast corner of the parcel. The roof line incorporates an alternating flat parapet and mansard treatment, with rounded cornices at the top of the main roof lines. The main building roof line is 20 feet high. Two hip roof elements extend the highest roof peak to 26 and 30 feet. The 30-foot element is approximately 90 feet from the Washington Street R.O.W. The building architecture utilizes smooth texture plaster walls and columns, solar bronze glass with darkened aluminum moulding and rough sawn outriggers. Color tones for building surfaces are in shades of brown, used to accent outriggers, roof edges and other portions of the building elevation. No exterior light fixtures are shown. Building Height - The CR district allows building heights of four stories, up to 50 feet, but limits building height to 22 feet for structures within 150 feet of any Primary Image Corridor and Major and Primary Arterial, as designated in the General Plan. The Specific Plan proposes that the proposed Phase 1 building height be permitted to peak at 30 feet within 150 feet of Washington Street. The building has a peak roof height of 30 feet associated with a tower gable hip roof at the west end of the building. From the Washington Street R.O.W., this element exceeds the 22 foot height limit starting at a linear distance of 87 feet at it's closest point, increasing to 93 feet moving south along the roof edge (Attachment 2). Relation to Lake La Quinta residential - The project lies west of existing residential areas of the Lake La Quinta project. At its closest point, the project is about 350 feet from the nearest residential unit (Attachment 3). The current finished grade of these homes varies approximately 2-3 feet below the proposed pad grade of the project site, which will be similar to the existing pad elevation. Access - The Specific Plan provides access to Washington Street and Caleo Bay. Washington Street access is shown to be a shared configuration with the northerly property, which is currently in review for a 25,500 s.f. medical office facility. This will be restricted to right turns in/out, and is consistent with access guidelines of the General Plan. There are three separate access points to Caleo Bay, which is a local street with no minimum driveway separations specified in the General Plan. Parkin - Based on the Specific Plan document, the overall project requires 74 spaces. This assumes the Phase 2 building at 6,500 s.f. of general office (site plan shows 8,000 s.f., Page 3 of the Specific Plan indicates 7,250 s.f.), and the Phase 1 building as medical office. The site plan proposed provides 74 spaces. Signs - Sign guidelines included in the Specific Plan document are minimal and relate to letter size. There is nothing inconsistent with City sign requirements. At the April 3, 2002 ALRC meeting, one of the Committee members was absent and another was determined to be within 500 feet of the project site. Therefore, no recommendation is being forwarded to the Planning Commission. This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 4, 2002. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required. No negative comments have been received. Any correspondence received before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department. Where appropriate, comments have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of each item can be found in the respective resolutions to be adopted for these cases with the exception of: A. Specific Plan - Land Use Compatibility Finding While the general building height stated in the Specific Plan is well below the 50 foot height limit established under the CR district, notwithstanding, no building within 150 feet of Washington Street may exceed 22 feet. The applicant has filed a specific plan to vary from this zoning regulation and allow the roof element at 30 feet high within the 150 foot limit. While most projects have complied with this standard in the past, it is permissible to use a specific plan to vary this standard. B. Site Development Permit - Site and architectural design The proposed project indicates a shared access onto Washington Street with the northerly adjacent property. Condition #57 has been prepared to address requirements to allow this. The Phase 2 building shall be limited to a building area of 6,500 s.f. of gross floor area, as the parking provided will only accommodate that amount as stated in the Specific Plan. The building will require separate site plan review as well. Condition #5 (SP) and #79 (SDP) include these requirements. The overall project lighting is consistent with the Zoning Code, and lighting details will be reviewed as commonly required during plan check. Condition #74 (SDP), which requires standard plan check items for lighting, includes a requirement that the lighting plans consider bollard lighting for parking and walkway areas within the project. The 3-stall parking area at the northeast corner of the project has a trash enclosure shown, which should be relocated to a more interior location on the site. Condition #78 (SDP) addresses this item. Landscaping improvements for all projects along Washington Street and Caleo Bay need to be coordinated for consistency and drainage provisions. Condition #62 (SDP) has been incorporated to assure this is accomplished during final preparation of landscaping plans by the applicant. Sign approvals will require more detailed information than that provided in the Specific Plan. Condition #76 (SDP) addresses the requirement for sign program submittal. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending certification of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2002-448; 1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-056, subject to conditions as recommended by staff; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2002-731, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Building location relative to 150' height buffer 3. Building location - residential proximity 4. Approved Omri & Boni site plan PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448, FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-056, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-731 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448 WG PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing (as continued from April 23'd, 2002 and May 14th, 2002) to consider a recommendation for Specific Plan 2002-056 and Site Development Permit 2002-731, a request by WG Properties to develop a ± 16,000 square foot commercial/office complex on a 1.51 acre site, located ±200 feet north of the intersection of Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL 6 OF PM 27892, PM 182/063 OF MAPS WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-448) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan 2002-056 and Site Development Permit 2002-731 could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\resos\resoeapc448.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- WG Properties Environmental Assessment 2002-448 Adopted: May 28, 2002 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. 2. 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. 3. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, to the extent development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by this proposed project. 5. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 7. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2002-448 and determined that it reflects the independent judgement of the City. 8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 9. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\resos\resoeapc448.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- WG Properties Environmenta0 Assessment 2002-448 Adopted: May 28, 2002 Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That is does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2002-448 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May 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 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\resos\resoeapc448.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Site Development Permit 2002-731 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wallace Nesbit 760-777-7069 4. Project Location: ± 200 feet north of Lake La Quinta Drive, between Washington Street and Caleo Bay Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: WG Properties 78467 Highway 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial) 7. Zoning: CR (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.) Review of development plans for construction of a 16,042 square foot commercial/office complex on a ± 1.5 acre site. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: Vacant M/RC land; retail use farther north South: Vacant M/RC land East: Low Density Residential development West: Institutional (St. Francis church and LOAF facility) 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448.wpd 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and nothing further is required. ❑ Signature Wallace Nesbit Preparer s-// �10 Z Date Community Development Dep't C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\Sp05 6\EAdocs\cklst448. wp d 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must account for the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance CAWrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448.wpd 3 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (LQ General Plan) b► Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Site assessment) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials/site assessment) 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: a1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? (EIR, LQGP) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; LQGP MEA) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use? (site not in agriculural use) 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? 0 990 PM10 SIP) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook/PM10 SIP) X X ►9 K4 X K9 X X X 124 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\EAdocs\cklst448.wpd 1TJ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis) pollutant X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials/site assessment) X 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? (LQGP MEA) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (site conditions; LQGP MEA) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (MEA,LQGP) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (MEA; EIR, LQGP) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; LQGP) 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? (LQGP MEA; CVFTL HCP) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000 - SP 2001-049) X X X X X X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000 - SP 2001-049) fI X C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\ckist448.wpd c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed delineation map) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000) X VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (LQGP; EIR,) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (LQGP; EIR) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (LQGP EIR) iv) Landslides? (LQGP EIR) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (LQGP EIR) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that could become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (LQGP EIR) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (LQGP EIR) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (LQGP MEA) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Site/project assessment) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Site/project assessment) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Site/project assessment) X X X X X X X X KI K9 X C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448.wpd d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing; Site/project assessment) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Not applicable) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Not applicable) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (LQGP MEA) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Aerial data; Site assessment) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or waste discharge requirements? (LQGP MEA) 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? (LQGP EIR) 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? (LQGP EIR, Lake LQ Maintenance Plan) d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site?(LQGP EIR, Lake LQ Maintenance Plan) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems to control?(LQGP EIR, Lake LQ Maintenance Plan) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable) g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (LQGP MEA) X X Ell X 0 K9 M X X X C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\EAdocs\ckist448.wpd X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site assessment; Aerial data) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (LQGP MEA; CVFTL HCP) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (LQGP MEA) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (LQGP MEA) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (LQGP EIR) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground - based vibration/noise levels?(LQGP EIR) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(LQGP EIR) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Not applicable) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (Not applicable) KI X 9 K9 X FN X X KI XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a► Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other X infrastructure) ? (LQGP; Project assessment) C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448.wpd 8 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project assessment) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project assessment) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a1 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? (LQGP EIR) Police protection? (LQGP EIR) Schools?(LQGP EIR) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan) Other public facilities? (LQGP EIR) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated? (Project assessment) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Project assessment) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a► Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (LQGP EIR) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Not applicable) X X X X X X X X 114 9 KI C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448. wpd 9 d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (LQGP EIR) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment, Fire/police comments) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project assessment) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (LQGP EIR; CVWD) 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? (LQGP MEA; CVWD comments). c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (LQGP MEA; CVWD comments) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (LQGP MEA; CVWD comments) e1 Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (CVWD comments) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (LQGP MEA) XV11. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X X X X X K9 X C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448. wpd 10 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? KVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. f3 X Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Checklist Addendum. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448.wpd 11 SOURCES CONSULTED: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. City of La Quinta General Plan, 2002. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993. Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Lake Management Plan for Lake La Quinta, 1989 State Implementation Plan for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley, November 1990. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, Section 10A Permit, June 1985. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\ckist448.wpd 12 Checklist Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-448 Introduction This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for a proposed 16,042 square foot office complex, to be located on 1.51 acres in the City of La Quinta. The site location is ± 200 feet north of Lake La Quinta Drive, between Washington Street and Caleo Bay Drive. The project site is currently vacant, with the Lake La Quinta recreation and residential areas to the east, vacant commercial land to the south (approved for 8,500 s.f. of office and restaurant use), Washington Street, the La Quinta Arts Foundation facility (LQAF) and Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church to the west, and vacant commercial land to the north (proposed for a 25,500 s.f. medical office facility). I. AESTHETICS There are no scenic view sheds identified from the site, nor is the site directly in line with any view windows as identified by the General Plan documents. There will be minimal view obstruction from the proposed building at 30 foot maximum height to residents of Lake La Quinta as there is a significant distance between the site and any proximate residential lots. Also, the visibility lines to the 30 foot peak building height are similar to surrounding approved uses, some of which have lower peak heights but are sited closer to Washington Street and/or Caleo Bay Drive. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The site is in an area identified by the General Plan EIR as being prime agricultural soil. The soil type is of the Gilman series (GbA, GbB, GcA), which are well drained, moderately permeable soils suitable for agriculture and recreational uses. Development of the site will remove approximately 1.5 acres from the City's inventory of available prime agricultural soil. However, this is recognized as a cumulative impact due to the growth -inducing nature of impacts associated with adoption of the General Plan, and the designation of the site in that document for commercial land use. The property is not, nor has it been, in agricultural production. Its location away from agriculture -based infrastructure, in an urbanizing area, along with the small parcel size, render the site unsuitable for such use. III. AIR QUALITY Development of the proposed project will not, in and of itself, have an appreciable impact on ambient air quality. Air quality impacts for a development of this type and scale are generally limited to short-term construction. In the Coachella Valley, the greatest concern relative to C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\ea2OO2448.wpd construction emissions is particulate matter. The site has been previously disturbed in its entirety during prior grading of Tract 24230, and is a source of fugitive dust during moderate wind periods. The Coachella Valley has in the past been a serious non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). However, in recent years the area has met criteria for reclassification to attainment status and, in fact, SCAQMD has filed for such status recognition from California Air Resources Board (CARB). The latest information from SCAQMD indicates that the Valley has now moved back into non -attainment status. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust, and is in the process of modifying its current ordinances to improve monitoring and compliance requirements. No grubbing, clearing, grading or land disturbance of any kind is permitted without the review and approval of a PM 10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), as required by Chapter 6.16, LQMC. Adherence to these requirements will ensure that impacts to air quality from the proposal will not exceed those under the present site conditions. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site has been significantly impacted by prior land disturbance activity and development of improvements associated with the Lake La Quinta project surrounding this site. The site is isolated on the east and west by developed roadways, with commercial lands to the immediate north and south, and is not viable as habitat nor would it facilitate the transitional migration or movement of species. The site is within the CVFTL habitat fee area, with the fee having been paid as part of the prior grading of Tract 24230. No significant stands of trees or other vegetation exist on the site, as verified by field observation. No impacts to any biological resources are identifiable V. CULTURAL RESOURCES It was determined during initial review that a Phase I (survey level) cultural resource assessment would not be required for the proposed site, based upon findings contained in previous surveys prepared for contiguous sites. As a result, while unlikely, there is unknown potential for impacts to historic/cultural resources. Standard monitoring requirements will be conditioned upon project approval to ensure detection and retrieval of any uncovered resources. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The proposed project area lies just inside the Zone 111 ground shaking zone. It is close to the Zone IV designation that includes much of the Highway 1 1 1 and northern La Quinta areas. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\ea2OO2448.wpd Structures already constructed within the area have been required to conform to Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones. All proposed structures will be subject to conformance with the Uniform Building Code. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans for all development proposed on the site. Adherence to these requirements will adequately address project impacts due to ground failure. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC There will be some increase in traffic volume associated with the project's development (i.e. vacant to urban transition). The proposal was reviewed by the City Public Works Department. There is shared access proposed with the northern parcel to Washington Street, a Major Arterial under the General Plan. Caleo Bay and 47th Avenue are designed and built as Collector status roadways, with adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes. No traffic issues were identified and no studies of area -wide traffic patterns or generation were requested. No significant impacts have been identified that would require mitigation at this time. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE No mitigation beyond standard ordinance requirements has been deemed necessary. No Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared, as project conditions will adequately address all requirements on the project and shall therefore serve as the monitoring for it. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\ea2OO2448.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A ± 16,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX CASE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-056 WG PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing (as continued from April 23'd, 2002 and May le, 2002) to consider a recommendation for Specific Plan 2002-056, a request by WG Properties to develop a 16,000 square foot commercial/office complex on a 1.51 acre site, located ± 200 feet north of the intersection of Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL 6 OF PM 27892, PM 182/063 OF MAPS WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Specific Plan could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1 . The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of Community Commercial and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. 2. The proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, as the site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract and surrounding area, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\resos\resopcsp056.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- WG Properties Specific Plan 2002-056 Adopted: May 28, 2002 3. The proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially equivalent to those permitted under existing zoning for permitted uses, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, development of existing Regional Commercial land is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial. 4. The proposed Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, development of the site as Community Commercial land use is considered to be suitable and appropriate due to the General Plan designations for existing and approved residential and commercial development/land use in the surrounding areas. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 2002-056 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Resolution 2002- WG Properties Specific Plan 2002-056 Adopted: May 28, 2002 JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-056 ADOPTED - MAY 28, 2002 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Specific Plan 2002-056 (SP 2002-056) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, the Specific Plan document, and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and other exhibits submitted for this application and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SP 2002-056, these conditions shall take precedence. 2. 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 Specific Plan or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. 3. All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Site Development Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent shall submit amended documents within 30 days of City Council approval of the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit, or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 4. SP 2002-056 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2002-448 • Site Development Permit 2002-731 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 5. The Specific Plan document for SP 2002-056 shall be revised in conformance with the following: A. Page 3.C. - In the second paragraph, revise the second phase building area from 7,250 to 6,500 square feet. B. Page 7, Signage (sic) Criteria - Change reference from 'Signage' to 'Sign'. Add text: "A detailed sign program will be submitted prior to occupancy permits for any permanent building". C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsp056.wpd Specific Plan SP 2000-049 Conditions of Approval - Adopted March 27, 2001 6. Minor changes, as determined by the Community Development Director to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan, may be approved. Examples include modifications to landscaping materials and/or design, parking and circulation arrangements not involving reductions in required standards beyond those identified in the Specific Plan, minor site, building area or other revisions necessary due to changes in technical plan aspects such as drainage, street improvements, grading, etc. Such changes may be approved on a staff - level basis and shall not constitute a requirement to amend the Specific Plan. Consideration for any modifications shall be requested in writing to the Director and submitted with appropriate graphic and/or textual documentation in order to make a determination on the request. 8. All other applicable conditions of approval for SDP 2002-731, and any subsequent amendment(s), shall be incorporated into the revised text for SP 2002-056 in the appropriate sections. The revised Specific Plan document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review and acceptance prior to issuance of any permit for a main building. C:\Wrkgrp\Cased ocs\SpO56\CO A\coapcsp056. wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A ± 16,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-731 WG PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 281h day of May, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing (as continued from April 23`d, 2002 and May 10, 2002) to consider Site Development Permit 2002- 731 , for a ± 16,000 square -foot commercial/office complex on a 1.51 acre site, located ±200 feet north of the intersection of Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL 6 OF PM 27892, PM 182/063 OF MAPS WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1 . The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of Community Commercial and other current City standards. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially equivalent to those permitted under existing zoning of permitted uses, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, development of existing Regional Commercial land use is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\resos\resopcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-731 - WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that the Site Development Permit could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed. 4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract and surrounding area, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed project with the surrounding development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-731 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\resos\resopcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-731 - WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\resos\resopcsdp731.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-731 WG PROPERTIES ADOPTED: MAY 28, 2002 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Site Development Permit 2002-731 (SDP 2002-731) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SDP 2002-731 these conditions shall take precedence. 2. SDP 2002-731 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2002-448 • Specific Plan 2002-056 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 3. This approval shall expire one year after it's effective date, as determined pursuant to Section 9.200.060.0 of the Zoning Code, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.200.080. The validity of other related applications, as identified in Condition #2, may be considered in determining extension provisions. 4. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Building and Safety Department • La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading/ Improvement/Encroachment Permits) • La Quinta Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Southern California Gas Company • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Waste Management of the Desert Exhibit "A" The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 6. Handicap access and facilities shall be provided in accordance with Federal (ADA), State and local requirements. Handicap accessible parking shall generally conform with the approved exhibits for SDP 2002-731 . 7. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code. 8. All applicable conditions of approval for SDP 2002-731 shall be incorporated into the revised text for Specific Plan 2002-056 in the appropriate sections. The revised document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review prior to issuance of the first building permit. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. 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. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 10. 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. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for any acceleration and deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 11. 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. 12. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 13. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Washington Street - None - Landscape Setbacks have been dedicated. B. Caleo Bay - 10 feet from the Right of Way/Property Line. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 14. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas as shown on the Site Development Permit. 15. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties, with the exception of those access points shown on the Site Development Permit. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 17. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 18. 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 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 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. 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. C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' D. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. Site Development Plans: 1 " = 30' Horizontal F. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 G. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal The plans shall be submitted a minimum of 8 to 10 weeks prior to the issuance of construction permits to allow adequate time for plan check and revisions. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "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. 21. 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. 22. 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. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 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. FIRE PROTECTION 23. Approved Super -fire hydrants shall be located not less that 25 feet, nor more that 165 feet, from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. 24. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the street side of each hydrant, to identify the hydrant locations. 25. The required water system, including fire hydrants, will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 26. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required in all new commercial structures 5,000 square feet or greater, in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code 8.08.090 and NFPA 13. Sprinkler system plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department. 27. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 GPM for a 2-hour duration. Fire flow is based on Type VN construction and a complete fire sprinkler system. 28. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review, to run concurrent with City plan checking. 29. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection (Le restaurants, etc.). 30. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building. Applicant must contact the Fire Department for an application. 31. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 32. The applicant/developer shall prepare and submit for Fire Department approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 GRADING 33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 34. 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. 35. Prior to obtaining 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. 36. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 37. 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. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 38, The final building pad elevation for the proposed building shall not differ by more than one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 39, The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 40. 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. 41. 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 42. 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 . C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 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. 43. Stormwater shall be directed to the approved drainage system for Tract 24230/Tract 26152 (Lake La Quinta). Nuisance flows from the subject SDP 2002-731 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. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 44. 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. The parking lot drainage may not be directed to the existing retention basin in the Washington Street parkway unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the basin was sized to accommodate the run off from the developed property as well as the run off from Washington Street. 45. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 46. 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. 47. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 48. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 49. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 50. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 51. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 52. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 53. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flow line shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1, in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 54. Parking lot design shall conform to the requirements of LQMC Chapters 9.150 and 12.32. 55. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 56. The City will conduct final inspections only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. Improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. 57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Washington Street) shared access located on the northerly property line. This driveway shall be a shared access drive/road with the C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" adjacent landowner to the north (see SDP 2001-736) and shall be centered on the northerly property line. This driveway shall have right in/right out turning movements, only. Nothing in this condition requires the adjacent landowner to pay for sufficient improvements to implement the shared access requirements in a manner that serves the development proposed by SDP 2002-731. However, reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. 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. B. Secondary Entry(s) on Caleo Bay located approximately 20' north of the southerly property line, approximately at the center of the site, and approximately 30 feet south of the northerly property line. These driveways 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 lanes at the driveways. Signing and striping plans which detail the left turn lanes and centerline striping shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for approval. 58. 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. LANDSCAPING 59. The applicant shall provide landscaping in all required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SpO56\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 60. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 61. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 62. The final landscaping plans submitted for plan check shall incorporate the items listed below, in order to maintain continuity of landscaping improvements along Caleo Bay Drive: A. Tree species to be used in the Caleo Bay Parkway shall primarily consist of Chilean Mesquite. B. Use of shrub species Feathery Cassia and Bougainvillea "La Jolla" shall be employed from the north parkway, transitioning to the south. Final plans submitted for plan check may require further revision due to potential changes in project landscaping for the north and south parcels. Review of landscaping improvements on Caleo Bay parkway shall be coordinated with those plans based on the best available information at time of review. 63. Landscaping within the overall project area shall be commonly maintained under a single maintenance contract. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, an appropriate maintenance mechanism shall be established to assure compliance with this requirement. Documentation necessary to meet this requirement shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the Community Development/Public Works Departments prior to any Certificate of Occupancy for building areas. Said documentation must include that landscape materials shall be maintained as planted in perpetuity, and that dead, dying or otherwise C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" missing landscape improvements shall be replaced, re -planted or provided within 30 calendar days. PUBLIC SERVICES 64. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as may be required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 65. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 66. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 67. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 68. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 69. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. CULTURAL RESOURCES C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" 70. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth disturbance, the applicant shall have prepared and obtained approval from the Community Development Department for an archaeological monitoring program for the project site. The program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist, and shall include provisions for strictly controlled archaeological monitoring and data recovery, including research and field methods, lab analysis methodology, Native American consultation and monitoring, curation procedures, report preparation and disposition of artifacts and records. FEES AND DEPOSITS 71. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 72. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 73. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 74. Any permit(s) 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 said permit(s). MISCELLANEOUS 75. The applicant shall submit a detailed project area lighting plan for the entire Specific Plan area. The lighting plan shall comply with the following general criteria: A. Pole -mounted light standards shall be limited to 18 feet adjacent to Caleo Bay, and shall not exceed 20 feet in height throughout the site, consistent with developments to the north and south. Pole lighting and under -canopy lighting fixtures shall incorporate flush lens caps or similar recessed ceiling lighting. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-731 WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 Exhibit "A" B. The lighting plan shall incorporate bollard lighting for pedestrian areas and parking aisle entries. The lighting plan shall include a photometric plan and must be approved prior to issuance of the first permanent building permit. 76. A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to establishment of any permanent signs for the project. Provisions of the sign program shall be in compliance with applicable sections of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code and Specific Plan 2002-056. 77. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures requiring such screening. 78. The trash enclosure located at the north easternmost corner of the site shall be relocated, with the current location to be used for additional parking as can be accommodated. 79. The Phase 2 building shall be limited to a maximum of 6,500 square feet in order to maintain the current parking requirements. Plans for this building are subject to the Site Development Permit review process and shall be consistent with the Specific Plan (SP 2002-056) for WG Properties as approved at time of Phase 2 submittal. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\COA\coapcsdp731.wpd ATTACHMENTS . y _ c S[G� _�� ,�fX BS/w�� _ i--Ex C a c �o'► gH 00 h �24J.00• CONSTRUCT J' DOE NG CU �ENI-� '+I RAP NEW Top SIOPE °� (rX is' - - - I ' DIA PEPPER '• K a r TREE) n �o 7i I 74 FL- 0 8x O It d In 3.83R FUTURE B•.9CTCPR ORY E OFFICE o �'y7/ x /1� my ,� in 8.008 S.F. 9 PROP. A. (32 CARS REQO m J P.E. = 62.1) m z>< °� 4.9oz Ale532; PROP. 8 Ra U o eQ L 6 0/ I 12 / 1T 28• 1 9I' PROP, V-CUT. rj i A. e PRQP 8. ,3• 1T• ROOF �Ra �7t7?c B 4.9a IS ) 9�� I j ' H1C./t �o 0 12 - I Raw PROP, c a c 12 I STORY 0, K 1� S 8,792 S.. o � PROP AC 6% P a , ^ I m B� 2T 1 40 ry btc pfta' kpr �'`/ .iX �,e r u 2r s F.F.=62.50 o r g P.E.=62.0 ' ij'iJ s tc a ^/ 8�IC7 p CURB may'' 2T I Bo.� WERNER MD 4040 S.F. Jy� 4YF \ F.F.=62.50 ►� 7 \ 3.B3x rc w z P.E.=62.0 P Z• 4 PATIO 6.48 \ \ i 'Jy 28• �1. 4 Bl 10Tr 8• B•1 fi BI.3o,t I \ I RO 2540 ATTACHMENT 2 as DEVELOPER \� 1NSTR 154662 0.1� RE(,', 12/4/74 r LOT LL ,73 17L ul 174 ^�, „ l'7 G � z 175 0 1 a A$ \ �� 17 6 I+ N 89030 ' 04"E 632.14 16 177 16E C O C C mac! a c \� �, 78 167 Qc 284 � �, ' \ 179 (COMMERCIAL LOT) 166 rn _ to fi•�to J 3 t` 1 1 o t3c,�G. / ?�` .3�`�� / 180 181 Z LOT M 18 1 RESERVED FOR L 0 RECREATIONAL ' 1183 PURPOSES \ 1 Q HEREON m 18 �I 12.00' STORM 1 j 1 N 44854 ' 49"W J DRAIN EASEMI 1 35.7E Q 10.00' U DRAIN �2'08'55"E A I MAOQUESSA 440 55 04"E •"-' (LOT H) ` -73 I 35.05 . i ATTACHMENT 3 0 0 c\J SOT "CC" r— "/-4 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 7 TAL AP� A I AZRF 4�3 56�'� AN-1, 'C A p A. a--4 Wkm, W v-4 m of Shrit vrA;�;. ATTACHMENT 4 PIS #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 2002 CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-072 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADDING SECTION 9.50.055-SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITHIN AN EXISTING UNIT, TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES EXCLUDING THE COVE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATION: APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: CITY-WIDE CITY OF LA QUINTA THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE SECTION ADDITION IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES, AND SECTION 15268, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS, OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 23, 2002, directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Code addressing the following concerns: 1. Approval is obtained from adjacent property owners. 2. Windows shall be allowed on the street frontage only 3. The change must stay within the existing structure with no exterior changes; and 4. A provision that will not allow any adjoining neighbor to build a second story that changes the existing structure. Staff has reviewed the Code in light of the discussions at that meeting and has prepared the attached language (Attachment 1). G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ZCA072-SecStory.wpd Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 18, 2002. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment can be made, as noted in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-072. Attachments: 1. Zoning Text G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ZCA072-SecStory.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADDING SECTION 9.50.055-SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITHIN AN EXISTING UNIT, WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES EXCLUDING THE COVE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CASE NO.: ZCA 2002-072 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for a Zoning Code Amendment to add Section 9.55.055 to the Municipal Code, to allow second floor additions within an existing unit, within the residential zones excluding the Cove Residential District; and WHEREAS, the text amendment is exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act statutes, and Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zoning Code Amendment: 1 . The proposed text changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The proposed text changes will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as they have been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements. 3. The proposed text changes supports the orderly development of the City. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\ZCA072-SecStory.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Zoning Code Amendment 2002-071 Adopted: March 12, 2002 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Zoning Code Amendment is exempt from CEQA. 3. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the addition of this Section is exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes, and Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-072 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 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:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\ZCA072-SecStory.wpd EXHIBIT "A" Section 9.50.055- Second Floor Addition within an existing unit in RVL and RL Zoning Districts. A property owner may apply through the Minor Use Permit (Section 9.210.020) process for permission to alter a single family dwelling unit to provide an upper story living area within the Very Low and Low Density Residential Zones when the following has been complied with: A. No change to the exterior building elevation with the exception of providing light and ventilation. Windows are only allowed on the street -facing facade, excluding dormer windows. B. No windows (except skylights) or access points are permitted on roof slopes (i.e., hip roof sections). C. Roof trusses shall not have been altered within the last five years. D. Permitted only in areas where two story structures are permitted by Code. The second floor shall not be considered as a two-story home as defined in Section 9.60.300.1.1 (Compatibility Review). E. Comply with all Building Codes including, but not limited to: 1. Foundations; 2. Floor loads; and 3. The interior vertical clearance requirements. F. Maintain a two car garage with a vertical interior clearance of 7-feet 6-inches. G. The second floor living area cannot exceed 10% of the existing house square footage. The addition can only be located within the front half of the existing structure that abuts, or is adjacent to the street right of way where the primary access to the structure is located. H. Access must be from the interior of the existing house or garage. No exterior reconstruction of the existing structure is permitted to accommodate the addition with the exception of windows and skylights. G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\ZCA072-SecStory.wpd PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 2002 CASE NO: 1) ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH# 9164450613); 2) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-447; AND 3) ZONE CHANGE 2002-107. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: DAVE TWEDT/SHEA HOMES REQUEST: 1) RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO CERTIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH# 9164450613) PREPARED FOR 525 ACRES OF SPECIFIC PLAN 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1 (CORAL MOUNTAIN); 2) RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR APPROXIMATELY 115 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, NOT INCLUDED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1 (CORAL MOUNTAIN); 3) RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FOR PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY'S SP (SPECIFIC PLAN), A-1-10 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE), AND W-2 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), GC (GOLF COURSE), AND OS (OPEN SPACE) FOR 640 ACRES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. LOCATION: SECTION 34 OF TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, BOUNDED BY MADISON STREET TO THE WEST, MONROE STREET TO THE EAST, AVENUE 60 TO THE NORTH AND AVENUE 62 TO THE SOUTH. ENGINEER: N/A PCstfrptShea.wpd-MM Page 1 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: 1) THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED AN ADDENDUM TO THE PRIOR CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH# 9164450613) FOR A PORTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1, AND BASED ON THAT ADDENDUM, DETERMINED 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. 2) THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-447 FOR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT A PART OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AREA. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE RECOMMENDED. THE LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES AT THE HEARING. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN (CITY): 1. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR): 2-4 UNITS/ACRE; 2. MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR): 8-12 UNITS/ACRE; 3. GOLF COURSE (G); 4. OPEN SPACE (OS). CURRENT ZONING (COUNTY): 1. SPECIFIC PLAN (SP); 2. RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE (A-1-10); 3. CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT (W-2). PCstfrptShea.wpd-MM Page 2 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR ADDENDUM/EA 2002-447/ZC 2002-107 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY MAY 28, 2002 PROPOSED ZONING (CITY): 1. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) ; 2. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); 3. GOLF COURSE (GC); 4. OPEN SPACE (OS). BACKGROUND: The applicant, Shea Homes, is requesting annexation into the City of La Quinta. The proposed 640 acre annexation area is located outside the existing City's limit and Sphere of Influence and is bounded by Madison Street to the west, Monroe Street to the east, Avenue 60 to the north and Avenue 62 to the south (Attachment 1). Surrounding land uses include a date farm and vacant land to the north, vacant land, two single family homes, a date farm and a carrot field to the east, vineyards to the south A majority of the proposed annexation area has an existing approved Specific Plan (SP218, Amendment No.1) and certified Environmental Impact Report under Riverside County. The Specific Plan was the original Coral Mountain Specific Plan development project on 1,280 acres. The current application covers approximately 525 acres of the original 1,280 acres. Shea Homes purchased this portion of the original Specific Plan project which was approved for residential and golf course development. This portion of the Specific Plan is now being referred to as "Trilogy" and is currently being graded under permits from Riverside County. For purposes of this staff report, "Trilogy" refers to that portion of Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218, Amendment No. 1. The remaining 115 acres of the proposed annexation area consists of vacant land, a few single-family homes, a small date farm, and a dike. While this area is proposed as part of the annexation application, it has no development plans currently under consideration. These lands are proposed to remain in an "as is" condition and are not part of the Trilogy project. KstfrptSheampd-MM Page 3 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR ADDENDUM/EA 2002-447/ZC 2002-107 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY MAY 28, 2002 PROJECT PROPOSAL: Prior to annexation, the City requires that General Plan and Pre -Zoning designations be established to City standards. The proposed annexation area currently has General Plan Land Use designations based on the recently adopted General Plan Update, therefore, no General Plan Amendment is required. However, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council reconfirm these General Plan Land Use designations for the record. These General Plan Land Uses include Low Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Golf Course, and Open Space (Attachment 2). Riverside County Zoning designations for the same area are Specific Plan (SP), Residential Agriculture (RA) and Controlled Development (W-2). These are proposed to be changed to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, and Open Space for consistency with the proposed General Plan designations (Attachment 3). STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings for the request outlined in Sections 9.220.010 and 9.230.020 of the Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. Consistency with the General Plan. The existing land use designations are not changing, therefore, they are consistent with the City's goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. With a total of 1,203 units on approximately 232 acres, the density (5.18 units/acre) falls within the range of the City's requirements of 4-8 units/acre under the Medium Density Residential zoning designation. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed changes are consistent with existing land uses in the area. Land Use Compatibility: The Zoning designations are compatible with existing land use and zoning designations on adjacent properties in that they are consistent with the City's General Plan. PCstfrptShea.wpd-MM Page 4 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR ADDENDUM/EA 2002-447/ZC 2002-107 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY MAY 28, 2002 Property Suitability: The proposed Zoning designations are suitable and appropriate for the property and adjacent properties in that they are consistent with the permitted uses in accordance with the Zoning Code and consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the proposed Zone Change is warranted because the situation and general conditions of the property have substantially changed in that the Trilogy project area has been approved under Riverside County and is currently under construction. Urban services are being provided to the area which allow for planned development in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. Approval of the proposed Zone Change for the remaining adjacent properties is warranted for consistency with the General Plan due to the status of the approved Trilogy project. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 18, 2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any 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. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending to the City Council certification of an Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232 (SCH# 2000091023) prepared for Specific Plan 218 Amendment No. 1, pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; PCstfrptShea.wpd-MM Page 5 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR ADDENDUM/EA 2002-447/ZC 2002-107 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY MAY 28, 2002 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (2002-447) pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2002-107, according to the findings in the attached Resolution. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Existing City General Plan Land Use Map 3. Existing Riverside County Zoning And Proposed City Zoning Map Prepared by: 4,4:4"- Martin Magana Associate Planner PCstfrptShea.wpd-MM Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT #1 ..�-, r .;"jam-^\�.��!i�� .�.11 � •'-_ __ �,� I� 3• _I r�L�� I i IT -- - � - • - -- - ■an�■n1■■■iii■■a>t■a■■■■■air#��; ■1 +f�- -�_ T - 58TH AVE L - - - ---- _--'------------ ---- - -- 11_LL4CfJ+ - --- I - ; 71i1■■■■S i - StiTti AVE Y, � , / �X '�' � �/ . � ,� ,ham.v .X• '�, 'r - __ - �. /� t _ / - — _ -02ND AV€- - '^ City of La Quinta I ® Area Outside Shea Homes Project Area Shea Homes Project = Original Coral Mtn. SP Area it Annex Boundary City Boundary 0 55 170 220 Feet I i 1 N ATTACHMENT #2 ij r. t�IA Till it man _il 1��.a.aaaaa0aj , a�auauaaaaOa_ 58TH AVE Y11T I'I I I -- --—i -- - I---- d LT 'I I It I ------ -- W--HAUL km - Aiy ,•� — �X i >�. y;.: ? 1 `fX ----- Y City of La Quints ® Area Outside Shea Homes Project Area Shea Homes Project ® Original Coral Mtn. SP Area ■ __. _ _ - 5R!w Annex Boundary ; I City Boundaryi - r 0 55 tto 220 Feet ATTACHMENT #3 A --7 ---------- W-2 Existing & Proposed Zoning Coun City Original Coral Mtn. SP Area City ndary Annex =Boun 10 -10 - A A-1-10 -1-10 69Nna7AAVZF—,--.- 2U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH#2000091023) PREPARED FOR ZONE CHANGE 2002- 107, PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1 CASE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 APPLICANT: SHEA HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 (SCH#2000091023) for Zone Change 2002-107 for Pre -annexation Zoning designations for Specific Plan 218, Amendment No. 1 located west of Madison Avenue, east of Monroe Avenue, south of Avenue 60 and north of Avenue 62, and more particularly described as follows: APNs: 764-270-001, 002, 004, 017 & 018; and 764-280-016. WHEREAS, said Addendum 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 determined that although the proposed Zone Change 2002-107 could have a significant adverse 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 project, nothing further is required. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending certification of said Addendum: 1. The proposed Zone Change 2002-107 will not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare of the community, either directly to indirectly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by the Addendum. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso Addendum.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- RIVERSIDE COUNTY EIR ADDENDUM SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY ADOPTED: MAY 28, 2002 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 Addendum. 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 the Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232 (SCH#2000091023) and the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effects 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. 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 Addendum. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232 (SCH#2000091023) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso Addendum.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- RIVERSIDE COUNTY EIR ADDENDUM SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY ADOPTED: MAY 28, 2002 in the Addendum on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That the Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 281h day of May, 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\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso Addendum.wpd ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (CEQA GUIDELINE 15164) FOR ZONE CHANGE 2002-107 FOR PRE -ANNEXATION APPLICATION FOR A PORTION OF THE CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN, NO. 218, AMENDMENT NO. 1 P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EIRAdden.WPD 1 The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #232 ("EIR") that the County of Riverside certified in 1999 for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, SP 218, Amendment #1. The purpose of this Addendum is to document the annexation of the project to the City of La Quinta, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals: ZONE CHANGE 2002-107 This is referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures included in EIR 232 and AEIR 232 are incorporated into this document by this reference. It is assumed for purposes of this analysis, that all the mitigation measures required within Riverside County's jurisdiction would also be required by the City. The Revised Project consists of 525 acres of the total 1,280 acres included in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan SP/EIR 218, Amendment #1. The Revised Project will result in the annexation of the southern portion of the Specific Plan area into the City of La Quinta. The City's General Plan identifies 232 acres of Medium High Density Residential and 293 acres designated Golf Course. The City has determined that the proposed residential development will be consistent with the density and character of the adjacent residential development, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1, as approved by the County in 1999. The Revised Project does not propose any change to the land uses proposed in Specific Plan 218, Amendment #1. Only annexation of the site, and associated pre - annexation land use and zoning designations, are being considered at this time. The Specific Plan allows 18 holes of golf, a practice range, a golf clubhouse, a homeowners' clubhouse, a tennis center on approximately 293 acres, and 1,203 residential units on approximately 232 acres. Since General Plan designations have been assigned to the property under consideration, the only approval requested is: 1. Zone Change to change the designation on 232 acres currently designated Medium High Density Residential under the Specific Plan to Medium Density Residential, and 293 acres to Golf Course on land designated Open Space and Commercial in the Specific Plan; The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the EIR and finds as follows: P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EIRAdden.WPD 2 Aesthetics - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the proposed land will not result in any change in the buildout of the property. The residential units, golf course and clubhouses are consistent with those currently permitted and constructed in other areas of the City under the City's General Plan. The proposed building style and architecture within the annexation area is of substantially the same character as those existing in the City and encouraged in the General Plan. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no impact on hazardous materials; the residents of the proposed project will participate in the City's household hazardous waste disposal programs. Public Services - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation of the property will be served by the Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Department, under the City's service contracts. The contract costs may increase for the City, but will be offset by revenues generated by property tax throughout the site, and sales tax at the golf and tennis clubhouses, and generated by the increased population within the City. School fees will be paid regardless of which jurisdiction is responsible for construction of the project. Parks will be constructed within the Specific Plan, and golf course lands will surround the homes. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EIRAdden.WPD 3 Agriculture Resources - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. The development of the approved Specific Plan will result in a loss of lands designated as Prime Farmland in the County General Plan. The annexation of the property will not change the previously analyzed impacts to agriculture. Air Quality - Impacts identical to those previously analyzed. No changes to the project are proposed as part of the annexation. The Air Quality analysis in the EIR reviewed the same levels and types of development as are currently planned. Hydrology and Water Quality - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. The City requires the implementation of both NPDES standards and 100 year storm retention in proposed project construction. All construction on the proposed annexation area will be required to conform to these standards. Land Use Planning - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation represents a logical extension of urbanization for the City. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use Element of the City General Plan and the Specific Plan, as amended, and continues the development pattern envisioned in the General Plan. Recreation - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation of the project will not affect the golf course planned for the proposed project area. Additional park lands are proposed in other parts of the Specific Plan. These facilities will be provided regardless of the jurisdiction in which they occur, and will offset the need for such facilities created by future development. Transportation/Traffic - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The development potential of the annexation lands are the same as were analyzed in the EIR, insofar as the land use designations are consistent. The proposed project results in a slight reduction in the total number of residential units to be constructed on the site, so that it is likely that the impacts will be slightly less than analyzed in the EIR. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EIRAdden.WPD 4 Biological Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action will have no direct impact on biological resources. The mitigation measures included in the EIR, including potential for additional surveys, will be implemented by the City. Cultural Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed Although the annexation action, in and of itself, will have no impact on cultural resources, the potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project were analyzed in the EIR, and mitigation measures included. These will be implemented by the City. Geology and Soils - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The impacts of development of the proposed project were analyzed in the EIR, and will not change as a result of annexation. Mitigation measures included in the EIR will be implemented by the City. Mineral Resources - Not applicable. Noise - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The annexation action, in and of itself, will not impact the noise environment at the project site. The buildout of the project, as analyzed in the EIR, included mitigation measures which will be implemented by the City. Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Annexation will have no impact on utilities and service systems. The buildout of the proposed project was analyzed in the EIR, and mitigation measures included, which the City will implement. Population and Housing - Impacts less than those previously analyzed. The annexation action, in and of itself, will have no impact on population and housing. The number of units proposed under the Specific Plan has been reduced with the proposed project, and impacts are expected to also be slightly reduced. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EIRAdden.WPD 5 The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: 1. substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EIR which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; 2. substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR; or 3. new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EIRAdden.WPD 6 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 2002-447 PREPARED FOR ZONE CHANGE 2002-107. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-447 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28" day of May, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-447 for Zone Change 2002-107 for Pre -annexation Zoning designations of lands located west of Madison Avenue, east of Monroe Avenue, south of Avenue 60 and north of Avenue 62, and more particularly described as follows: APNs: 764-270-005, 015; 764-280-001 thru 007, and 014. 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 2002-447) 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 and 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 recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-447. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-447 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY ADOPTED: MAY 28, 2002 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 2002-447 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. 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 the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2002-447 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso EA 02-447.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-447 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY ADOPTED: MAY 28, 2002 Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-447 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28" day of May, 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\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso EA 02-447.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Zone Change 2002-107, Pre -Annexation Zoning 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: Non-contiguous lots in Section 34, T.6S., R.7E., located between Madison Street And Monroe Street, and Between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 478-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (approximately 84 acres) and Open Space (approximately 31 acres). 7. Zoning: Current: W-2 (Controlled Development) and Residential Agriculture. Proposed: Low Density Residential and Open Space. 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Pre -Annexation Zoning designations are requested for lands currently in unincorporated Riverside County. A parallel application has been made for a portion of lands in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, located in Section 34, T.6S., R.7E. This request for pre -annexation zoning encompassed the balance of the lands in this section which are not located in the Specific Plan. Approximately 31 acres are currently zoned Agriculture in the County (located at the centerline of the section, on its eastern boundary), and 86 acres are zoned W-2, controlled development (located north and south of the centerline of the section, along its western boundary). Approximately 31 acres within the W-2 zoned lands include the Bureau of Reclamation flood control levee. The total annexation area is 115 acres. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant desert lands, agriculture, Coral Mountain Specific Plan South: Agriculture, Open Space West: Open Space, flood control levee East: Coral Mountain Specific Plan, agriculture 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. EJ 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. ❑ Ae�-- Sf/gnature Date PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I . 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. g. 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 PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan 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. III-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) 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 nonagricultural use? (Aerial photographs) [I. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X 91 X X X X GI ':\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) L X 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.) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 122 ff.) 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)? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 122 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 122 ff.) X R. X X X X X PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD I. 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. III-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. I1I-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) III. 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) 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) X X X X X X X X X X X R. X P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD 7 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) 'III. 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.11I-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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. lIl-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 hazard 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) 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.) M X 91 X 1y X F.4 X X P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD 1. KIII. 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.) 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, p. 110 ff.) 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) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) 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) 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.) M 09 X FA ►9 X // X R. ►k P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkist.WPD 9 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.) [V. 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) V. 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 f.) 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.) 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) (VI. 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.) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ►il P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkist.WPD 10 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.) VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ;VIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. X X X V1 X /1 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. Environmental Impact Report 232, Coral Mountain Specific Plan. 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. 1AMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD 11 :)URCES: [aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. CAQMD CEQA Handbook. eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. ,eneral Plan Environmental Impact Report, 2002. ity of La Quinta Municipal Code P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EACkIst.WPD 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-447 II. a) Approximately 31 acres of the annexation area is currently designated Agriculture under County Zoning. This area of the County is designated as Prime Farmland in the County General Plan. The annexation itself will have no impact on this designation. Should the 31 acres eventually be developed under the Low Density Residential Designation, the land would be lost to agriculture. The 31 acres is currently divided into a 19.4 and a 9.33 acre parcel, and is surrounded on three sides (north, south and west) by the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, which is under construction at this time. The parcels are therefore isolated, and do not represent a long term valuable resource for agriculture in the area. The impacts to agricultural resources are therefore not expected to be significant. III. a) The annexation itself will not result in any impact to air quality. The buildout of the lands, however, would result in up to 336 single family residential units on 84 acres. These single family units will generate approximately 3,216 trips per day on the regional roadway system', which will generate emissions which have an impact on the air quality in the area. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 116.29 4.47 23.85 -- 0.50 0.50 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 3,216 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 SCAOMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR. "Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single -Family Detached Housing. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EAAdden.WPD 1 The buildout of the annexation area 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. Ill. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The annexation of the area will not have an impact on PM 10 generation, in and of itself. The buildout of the area, however, which will result in the construction of 336 residential units, has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 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 during construction on any portion of the annexation area. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on each parcel as construction occurs. 5. Any portion of a parcel to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of any parcel or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity. Portions of any parcel 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. As projects are proposed within the annexation area, the Community Development Department shall impose conditions of approval which require landscaping of parkways, open areas and front yards as part of the first phase of any project. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EAAdden.WPD 2 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes. 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 of the annexation area will not be significant. IV. a) The annexation of the properties being considered for annexation will not have an impact on biological resources. The buildout of the area, however, could have a potentially significant impact on several sensitive species. The City's General Plan identifies the annexation lands on the western boundary of the Section as potential habitat for desert tortoise, Palm Springs pocket mouse, and Palm Springs ground squirrel. In order to ensure that the impacts to these species are less than significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Any parcel within the annexation area which proposes development shall be required to perform focused biological species for all species shown as potentially occurring in the area, according to the General Plan biological resource exhibits in place at the time development is proposed (currently exhibits 5.2 through 5.8, inclusive). V. b) The annexation area and the City occur in an area of considerable archaeological significance. The buildout of the annexation area could therefore result in significant impacts without mitigation. In order to ensure that the impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Any parcel within the annexation area which proposes development shall be required to submit Phase I cultural resource surveys performed according to City standards in force at the time development occurs. These surveys shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any permit for the proposed development. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed annexation area lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The lands will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. When building begins to occur on the properties, structures 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 for each project proposed. This requirement will PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EAAdden.WPD 3 ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) The annexation area is subject to moderate wind erosion hazards. The City Engineer will require the preparation of PM 10 Management Plans for each proposed development to control the potential for blowing dust from each project. In addition, the mitigation measures listed under Air Quality, above, will mitigate the potential impacts of soil erosion to a less than significant level. VIII. b) The annexation of the properties under consideration will have no impact on water resources. As development occurs on these properties, each will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater. Each project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. Finally, as new conservation measures are developed, the City will have the ability to impose additional standards to increase water conservation. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. XI. a) The annexation area occurs in an area with lower levels of traffic, which are not expected to result in exceedances to the City's noise standards at buildout of the General Plan. The ultimate buildout of the annexation area will have less than significant impacts on the noise environment. XI. c) The construction of individual projects within the annexation area will result in temporary high noise levels which could impact residential development within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, since this area is already under construction. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located as far from occupied dwelling units as possible. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XIII. a) The annexation will not impact public services. Development of the lands within the area, however, will have an impact on public services. The parcels will be PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EAAdden.WPD 4 served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Site development on each parcel will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. Any development project within the annexation area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Each project will also be required to pay school fees in effect at the time of development, to offset the potential impacts to the school system. The ultimate buildout of the annexation area is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XIV. a► The ultimate buildout of the annexation area will result in an increase in population which will have a need for recreational facilities. The generation of property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\EAAdden.WPD 5 El C4 5 b b bd C ram-. � • � � N .�. �p H COD (D C3 a r7 ty A CD • y `� CD y O � cn � 'C3• � CD °z N a dtTj C� as ao � � °,rc-�y °3. o ~ �n CD .fD.1 CD O O CD O b clA bib b 0. CD o. a o CD o' o, CD o' 02. CD r. '. as o o a A o r* CD CD ... C� 0 C) CD A CD 0 Z CD dQrQ d� a 0' to o ,a Cal A CD CD a p) 5 CD nn �r C� a C�! n C7 z Po �xrJ Ox >z � N O D o g > O � � v 7d y POW O C* � 7d z r z o �� z n 0 z y tTj0 0 z N o n � z o C x CD a � CD � fD , N o C ly o p o o °� z t� C `A° a w r' C �. c 0-4 z o � OrQ GQ QrQ �O 7� d d d as m va 0 cCDi c�i o A AA �r C� bd A ►C tji Y A (rop � y�c 00 b o' 0 co y AA �r C� bd A Y C ° o � n � c z do d zz o� b o' 0 co � v� cn AA O A Cam" �y C7 z WA G PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FOR PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY'S SP (SPECIFIC PLAN), A-1-10 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE), AND W-2 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), GC (GOLF COURSE), AND OS (OPEN SPACE) FOR 640 ACRES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCATED WEST OF MADISON AVENUE, EAST OF MONROE AVENUE, SOUTH OF AVENUE 60 AND NORTH OF AVENUE 62. CASE: ZONE CHANGE 2002-107 APPLICANT: SHEA HOMES/CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Pre - annexation Zoning from Riverside County's SP (Specific Plan), A-1-10 (Residential Agriculture), and W-2 (Planned Development) to RL (Low Density Residential), Rm (Medium Density Residential), GC (Golf Course), and OS (Open Space) for 640 Acres in Riverside County located west of Madison Avenue, east of Monroe Avenue, south of Avenue 60 and north of Avenue 62, as shown on Exhibit "A," more particularly described as: APNs: 764-270-001, 002, 004, 005, 015, 017 & 018; 764-280-001 thru 007, 014 and 016. WHEREAS, said Zone Change 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 completed an Addendum to the prior certified Environmental Impact Report No. 232 (SCH#2000091023) for a portion of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1, and based on that Addendum, determined 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. WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has also completed Environmental Assessment 2002-447 for those properties that are not a part of the Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1 area, and based upon this assessment, it was found that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended. PAMartin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso ZC 02-107.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- ZONE CHANGE 2002-107 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY ADOPTED: May 28, 2002 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.220.010 of the Zoning Code to justify a recommendation for approval of said Zone Change: 1. Consistency with the General Plan. The existing land use designations are not changing, therefore, they are consistent with the City's goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. With a total of 1,203 units on approximately 232 acres, the density (5.18 units/acre) falls within the range of the City's requirements of 4-8 units/acre under the Medium Density Residential zoning designation. 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed changes are consistent with existing land uses in the area. 3. Land Use Compatibility: The Zoning designations are compatible with existing land use and zoning designations on adjacent properties in that they are consistent with the City's General Plan. 4. Property Suitability: The proposed Zoning designations are suitable and appropriate for the property and adjacent properties in that they are consistent with the permitted uses in accordance with the Zoning Code and consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. 5. Chana a in Circumstances: Approval of the proposed Zone Change is warranted because the situation and general conditions of the property have substantially changed in that the Trilogy project area has been approved under Riverside County and is currently under construction. Urban services are being provided to the area which allow for planned development in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. Approval of the proposed Zone Change for the remaining adjacent properties is warranted for consistency with the General Plan due to the status of the approved Trilogy project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Addendum to the Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232 and Environmental Assessment 2002-447 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, P:\Martin\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso ZC 02-107.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- ZONE CHANGE 2002-107 SHEA HOMES -TRILOGY ADOPTED: May 28, 2002 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2002-107 as contained in Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part of, for the reasons set forth in this resolution effective upon annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 281h day of May, 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\Shea Homes-Trilogy\PC Reso ZC 02-107.wpd EXHIBIT P AVE Existing & Proposed Zoning County city Original Coral Mtn. SID Area City 6bundary Annex Bour�;! PH ##D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 28, 2002 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-450 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-058 APPLICANT: MARVIN INVESTMENTS (WELLS MARVIN) ENGINEER: MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE TAMPICO, AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE REQUEST: 1.) REVIEW OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2.) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPALS AND GUIDELINES FOR A 127,517 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL COMPLEX IN NINE BUILDINGS ON 6 + ACRES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-450 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS SPECIFIC PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: SOUTH: EAST: WEST: BACKGROUND: VC / COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VACANT LAND VC / COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VACANT LAND VC / VERIZON OFFICE AND RL 10,000 17/1 / VACANT LAND VC / COMMERCIAL BUILDING The property consists of approximately six acres in the Village area of the City. The site is bounded by Calle Tampico on the north, Avenida Bermudas on the west, Desert Club Drive on the east, and Avenida La Fonda on the south. The majority of the property is vacant, with a small commercial building on the west end of Avenida La Fonda and two small, older apartment buildings on the west side of Desert Club Drive, approximately midway between Calle Tampico and Avenida La Fonda. An unimproved east -west running alley and power poles with overhead utility lines runs parallel to, and near Avenida La Fonda. On the north side of Avenida La Fonda near Desert Club Drive the La Quinta Arts Foundations office building is within the boundary area, but is not a part of the project. PROJECT REQUEST: General: Proposed is a Specific Plan which allows a commercial complex of nine buildings spread out around new interior streets which would be private. The Specific Plan provides principals and guidelines for approximately 127,517 square feet of floor space. Tenants are anticipated to consist of retail, restaurant and office uses. Based on the Specific Plan, the uses would consist of approximately: Restaurants - 16% - 20,403 square feet Office - 39% - 49,731 square feet Retail - 45% - 57,383 square feet TOTALS 100% - 127,715 square feet The project is proposed to be developed in three phases, with three buildings per phase. Buildings "A, B and C", consisting of 56,538 square feet of floor area, located near the intersection of Avenida Bermudas and Avenida La Fonda comprise the first phase. All of the new private interior streets and 81 on -site parking spaces would be constructed at that time. p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd Site Design/Circulation: The nine buildings are laid out around one Main Street and three shorter streets, creating an "old town" village type of atmosphere. The "Main Street" runs between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive in a diagonal direction. This Main Street will feature a central plaza "surrounded by fountains, the roof tops, paved walkways, and palm trees." Stores will front on the new streets as well as the existing perimeter streets. Most of the buildings will fully or partially front on Main Street. Only one building at the corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas will not have any frontage on Main Street. Two of the private streets intersect Main Street, one from Calle Tampico and one from Avenida La Fonda. These streets will be right turn -in and right turn -out only at the perimeter streets. The remaining street will access the property at Avenida Bermudas north of Main Street and intersect the private street leading to Calle Tampico. The only other access to the perimeter streets will be on Desert Club Drive where the existing alley will access the rear of the La auinta Arts Foundation building, a loading area, and trash bins. The only other trash area is shown on the short private street near the northwest corner of the property. The separate parking lots on the east side of Desert Club Drive show one driveway to Desert Club Drive and two on Avenida Buena Ventura. Parking: The plan provides 176 parking spaces on -site and notes approximately 220 spaces are available off -site for a total of nearly 400 parking spaces. The on -site spaces are placed along the private streets and in two parking lots at the southeast corner of the site. Off -site spaces include two new parking lots with 48 spaces proposed at the northeast and southeast corners of Desert Club Drive and Avenida Buena Ventura (newly paved public street east of desert Club Drive) and those recently installed with the Avenida La Fonda street improvements and those in the City owned parking lot at the northwest corner of Avenida Bermudas and Avenida Montezuma which can park up to 108 cars. Based on Zoning Code requirements, the required parking for the project is as follows: Restaurants with ancillary seating - 67 spaces Sitdown restaurants - 133 spaces Office - 200 spaces Retail - 228 spaces TOTALS 628 spaces The applicant proposes, as permitted by the Zoning Code in the Village Commercial zone, that the parking be deemed acceptable by the Planning Commission for the p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd project based on the shared parking concept. The existing parking within 300 feet can and will be used by the customers and tenants of their project, while allowing their spaces to be used by users outside their project. Additionally, the applicant states the project has been designed to promote pedestrian mobility, thus reducing the need for on -site parking. Architectural Design: The proposed project will use an architectural theme derived from California Mission Revival ("Santa Barbara" or "Monterey") architecture and the La Quinta Resort. Building forms will combine sloped clay the roofs with parapet walls with extensive use of covered pedestrian areas and patios. Plaster walls will have a smooth "mission" texture and rounded corners. Exposed rough sawn wood will be used sparingly for maximum effect. Awnings are shown to shade windows, doors and pedestrian areas, Building heights will vary from one to two stories (maximum 35' high allowed). The Specific Plan shows two story buildings along Calle Tampico and through the middle of the project in a north to south direction. Landscape Design: The landscape design will compliment the architectural theme and use plant materials primarily desert in nature. Mexican fan palms will line most street frontages at 40 feet on -center with canopy trees used for accent and shade in pedestrian and parking areas. Perimeter streets will use shrub and ground cover planting areas next to the buildings while interior streets will combine tree and shrub planting next to the curb. Vine pockets will be used on arcade and covered walkway supports. Decorative paving will be used through the central area of the site, anchored by the Main Street plaza area and for street cross walks. PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on May 17, 2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW: The request was sent out for comment and any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) ACTION: An Initial Study for a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements. As a part of the Environmental Assessment, a Phase 1 cultural resource report study was reviewed by the HPC on May 16, 2002. The Commission unanimously accepted the report, with the added condition that trenching activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The four findings necessary to recommend approval of the Specific Plan can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. Those findings being that the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with zoning on adjacent properties, will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, and is suitable and appropriate for the property. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2002-450, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to all mitigation measures. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council, approval of Specific Plan 2002-058, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan 2002-058 text Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-450 MARVIN INVESTMENTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28T" day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Marvin Investments for Environmental Assessment 2002-450 prepared for Specific Plan 2002-058, located on the south side of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive, more particularly described as: APN's: 770-121-001, 770-121-002, 770-121-003, 770-123-001, and 770-124-005 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 2002-450) and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan 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 Specific Plan 2002-058, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigable impacts were identified. 2. The proposed Specific Plan will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of rare, or endangered plants, or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. p:\stan\ea 2002-450.frm Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-450, Marvin Investments Adopted: May 28, 2002 Page 2 3. The proposed Specific Plan 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. 4. The proposed Specific Plan 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 subdivision. 5. The proposed Specific Plan 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. 6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities. The fees will be paid at time of issuance of building permits. 7. 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). 8. The Location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-450 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City of La Quinta. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 28th day of May, 2002, by the following vote to wit: p:\stan\ea 2002-450.frm Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002-_ Environmental Assessment 2002-450, Marvin Investments Adopted: May 28, 2002 Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\ea 2002-450.frm Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2002-058 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: South side of Tampico, Between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Marvin Investments, Inc. 78-080 Calle Estado, Suite 201 La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial 7. Zoning: Current: Village Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Specific Plan establishes development and design standards for the construction of 127,500+ square feet of retail, office and restaurant space on 5.42 acres. The project is proposed to combine single and two story buildings, with a central drive and some on -site parking. Off -site parking is also proposed. The project would be constructed in phases. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant lands and commercial uses, Village Commercial South: Scattered commercial, vacant lands, Village Commercial West: Commercial uses, vacant lands, Village Commercial East: Vacant lands and Verizon building, Village Commercial 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable PASTAN\WeIIsEACkIst.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 Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. nn L� 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. El Signature Date P:\STAN\We11sEACk1st.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:\STAN\We11sEACk1st.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan 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. III-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) I. 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 ,he 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 nonagricultura" 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 Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X ro X X 91 X ASTAN\W eIIsEACklst. W PD 4 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) X V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis..., James Cornett, July 2001) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis..., James Cornett, July 2001) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis..., James Cornett, July 2001) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis..., James Cornett, July 2001) 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? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis..., James Cornett, July 2001) 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? (Historical/ Archaeo-logical Resource Survey La Quinta Village..." CRM Tech, July 2001) 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)? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Survey La Quinta Village..." CRM Tech, July 2001) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9) X Kq 91 X K4 X 91 KI ASTAN\WeIIsEACkIst.W PD d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Survey La Quinta Village..." CRM Tech, July 2001) I. 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. III-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) 111. 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? ("Report on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, February 2001.) 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? ("Report on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, February 2001.) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ("Report on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, February 2001.) 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? ("Report on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, February 2001.) X X X X X X X X X X ►91 \STAN\WeIIsEACklst. W PD 6 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (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) 'III. 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. II1-87 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 substantially 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 I00-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.5) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) F.4 09 X X X X X X X X X �STAN\WeIIsEACklst. W PD 7 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.) 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.) I. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 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., Application materials) 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? (Application materials) 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) :II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) 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) 91 X M EN X X ri 04 X `3 X X ,STAN\W eIIsEACklst. W PD 8 CIII. 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.) KIV. 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)? ("La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, November 2001) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ("La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, November 2001) 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.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ("La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, November 2001) 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) X X X X X /1 X X X X X X X X ':\STAN\W eIIsEACklst. W PD 9 VI. 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.) VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ;VIII EARLIER ANALYSIS. 91 0 X KI X X X rJ R R. 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. STAN\WeIisEACkIst.W PD 10 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. DURCES: :aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. eneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002. �AQMD CEQA Handbook. ity of La Quinta Municipal Code 3iological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Marvin Commercial/Retail Center," prepared by mes W. Cornett, July 2001. Jistorical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report La Quinta Village Project," prepared by CRM Tech, July )01. ,a Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001. teport on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, February 2001. STANV\WeIIsEACkIst.W PD 11 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-450 I. d) The proposed project will be located on lands which are currently generally vacant, and will therefore result in a new source of light. The City requires that all projects contain exterior lighting on -site, and this project will be subject to these regulations. In addition, the project has been designed so that much of the on -sit parking is located on the interior of the site. New light sources will be shielded by the buildings planned around the perimeter, further reducing off -site impacts from lighting. City standards and the project design will lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of motor vehicles. A traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project concluded that the project will generate a total of 5,060 trips per day'. Based on this trip generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 45 mph 149.4 6.7 26.8 -- 0.67 0.67 5 1 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 5,060 trips/day and average trip length of 6 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. 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 "La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001. P:\STAN\We11sEA-Addend.WPD 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to PM10 concentrations in the Valley. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit a PM10 Management 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 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. Parkway landscaping on Calle Tampico, Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive shall be installed with the first phase of the proposed project. 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. PASTAN\WeIIsEA-Addend.WPD 2 V. b) A cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed project2. The survey included both a records search and field survey. The site has been previously graded, and had a low potential for surficial archaeological resources. The field survey confirmed that no artifacts or historically significant features were present at the site. The study recommends, however, that the following mitigation measure 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. The Historic Preservation Commission during their review of the report requested that all trenching below graded levels be monitored by an archaeological monitor. 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 and the State'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. VII1. b) The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. All buildings within the Specific Plan area 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 commercial businesses which will eventually occupy the site will use less water than residential development. 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. Z "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report La Quinta Village Project," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2001. P:\STAN\WeIIsEA-Addend.WPD 3 VIII. d) The proposed project will result in buildings and parking lots on a parcel which is currently vacant. The land in its current condition allows the free flow of stormwater, and some ponding in this part of the City. The City Engineer will require that all phases of the project retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm, and should eliminate the ponding of storm water on surrounding roadways. The project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated with surface water to a less than significant level. VIII. g) A portion of the site (northeast corner) occurs within the boundaries of the flooding area for the 100 year storm, as mapped by FEMA. The balance of the site occurs within the boundaries of the 500 year storm. The City Engineer will require that all buildings be designed according to standards for flood zones, such as raised foundations. The building and grading plans will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits, ensuring that the proposed project will not be impacted by flooding in the future. X1. c) The construction of the proposed project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities. There are no sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the proposed project however. The impacts of temporary noise at and around the project site are not expected to be significant. XIII. a) The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XV. a) & b) A Traffic Impact Study was completed for the proposed project'. The study analyze not only traffic on immediately adjacent streets, but also intersections further removed from the project site. The analysis found that the project would generate 5,060 daily trips at buildout, of which 800 will occur at the 3 "La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001. P:\STAN\WeIIsEA-Addend.WPD 4 AM peak hour, and 614 at the PM peak hour. The study also found that the project will reduce levels of service on City roadways, but not to a significant level with the addition of off -site improvements needed to accommodate this additional traffic. These improvements include the signalization of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52, and the addition of another left turn lane to Calle Tampico at Washington Street. The project proponent will be required to participate in these projects through the payment of Transportation Impact Fees, which are designed to offset costs to the City's transportation system. The City Engineer will also review and approve all circulation plans for the proposed project as part of the construction review process. These standards, and the recommended improvements in the traffic study, will ensure that impacts to the roadway system as a result of buildout of this project are reduced to a less than significant level. P:\STAN\WeIIsEA-Addend.WPD 5 N O O N O 00 W) 0 N O O N a U w U in En U 0 A V W d w W B Ey � d C7 W U0 z w @� d �W F., U U 0 Cd �o z U y •� o 0 a ° EA a Cl) o z � � O o -. _o o 0 U y r �° N rA ° cn 0 a U o cs. v, ,. o rA ba to z O F z o x ° O0-.4 a C4 y o a�i a�i w w 'F" w cn W v b�A b�A bbD txo b�A U U U U Q CAA C17 UW N U Ho z Wns 4« aW 04 x c� W 0 ° z °' Ch o b ao EA >, o o N 3 ZW a W a wbo 3o off a oCd y wa d N 0.0 r o o a H A a 3 O Lo d Y C O m w W Z Q a k w � /o Q� k� w o» Qu cn En cn En § § Q �� ƒ k / k U q K § ? 2 w � § u w m to U # t c� � ( Q § a U Q U m 0 7 /d ./ 2 k ® q � / U \ / / 09 ) d -0 w « d \ Q -o •3 0 \2 /( k2 ®§ �\ k o A m \ c / •� ! / \ 2 § ] 1=4 4-4 b § a / A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PRINCIPALS AND GUIDELINES FOR A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-058 MARVIN INVESTMENTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Marvin Investments for approval of Specific Plan development principals and guidelines for a commercial complex, located on the south side of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive, more particularly described as: APN's: 770-121-001, 770-121-002, 770-121-003, 770-123-001, and 770-124-005 WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-450), and determined that the proposed Specific Plan will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan: 1. The Specific Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property proposed for the commercial project is designated as Village Commercial which is consistent. 2. The Specific Plan, subject to conditions, will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the commercial development allowed under the Specific Plan is compatible with existing uses and surrounding zoning, and development standards and infrastructure proposed in the Specific Plan will ensure high quality development. p:\stan\sp 2001-052.frm Resolution No. 2002- Specific Plan 200-058, Marvin Investments Adopted: Page 2 3. The Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility with zoning on adjacent properties in that the project principles and guidelines ensure that the proposed adjacent uses will not be negatively impacted. 4. The Specific Plan project is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the property has been designated for commercial use and development will comply with applicable City requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be certified for this project. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 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 pAstan\sp 2001-052 pc res.frm Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan, or any other application pertaining thereto. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Specific Plan, and any related Final Map submitted thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQM C") . The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www:la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ . P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 1 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 2 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the related Final Parcel Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 11 Avenida Bermudas - The applicant shall dedicate right of way to accommodate the existing bus stop turn out or modifications to the bus turn out as a result of the proposed development. The proposed right of way shall extend a minimum of 10 feet behind the bus turn out curb or even with the bus stop pad, whichever is greater. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the related Final Parcel Map all private street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. 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. 11. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved related Tentative Parcel Map are necessary prior to approval of the related Final Parcel Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 12. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the related Parcel Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, common areas on the related Final Parcel Map. 15. 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 related Final Parcel Map. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 3 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 17. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of- way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the related Tentative Parcel Map and the date of recording of any related Final Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. RELATED FINAL PARCEL MAPS 19. Prior to the City's approval of a related Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the related Final Parcel Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a related Final Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such related Final Parcel Map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 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 City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to P:\STAMsp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 4 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal B. Site Development Plans: 1 " = 30' Horizontal C. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal D. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal E. Off Site Street Improvement and Striping Plans: 1 " = 40' 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. 22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 5 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 24. Prior to the conditional approval of any related Parcel Map, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 25. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Specific Plan, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 26. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 27. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on - site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, storm drain improvements, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 28. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any conditional approval of the related Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. PASTAN\sp 2002-058 pc coampd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 6 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the related Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the related Parcel Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by the City Council until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service to all lots within the development. 29. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 31. 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. 32. 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. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 7 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the related Parcel Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 36. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 37. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the related approved Tentative Parcel Map or Village Use Permits, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coampd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 8 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 39. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations), LQMC. If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met. DRAINAGE 40. The applicant may discharge run off generated from the development to the existing storm drain system. 41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site in an acceptable manner. 42. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 43. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTI LITI ES 44. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 45. 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. 46. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 9 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 47. 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 LOT/STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCESS POINTS 48. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry: Mid Block on Calle Tampico - Right turn in, Right turn out. B. Primary Entry: Mid Block on Avenida La Fonda - Right turn in, Right turn out. C. Primary Entry(s): Two entries are allowed on Avenida Bermudas - Full turning movements. D. Primary Entry(s): Two entries are allowed on Desert Club Drive - Full turning movements. 49. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting on public streets is not required. However, if provided, it shall match the existing light fixtures found elsewhere in the Village. 50. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 51. The applicant shall modify/relocate the Avenida Bermudas bus turn out as necessary to accommodate proposed driveway(s). The bus turn out modification is subject to approval by the City Engineer and SunLine Transit Agency. 52. The applicant shall construct a six foot wide concrete sidewalk along the perimeter of the project on Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive. The perimeter sidewalk improvements shall be completed as part of the Phase I improvements as shown in the Specific Plan. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 10 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 53. The applicant shall construct the backbone drive isles and parking areas in Phase I as shown in the Specific Plan. 54. The applicant shall design and construct a traffic calming style mid -block raised curb pedestrian refuge complete with landscaping and complementing raised crosswalk on Desert Club Drive and on Avenida Bermudas. The pedestrian refuge and crosswalk area shall have safety lighting to match the existing light fixtures found elsewhere in the Village along with other appurtenant equipment and signs associated with this type of mid -block crosswalk improvement. The design of the refuge area and crosswalk shall conform to the requirements of the City Engineer. The approximate location of the refuge area is as follows: A. Desert Club Drive - Approximately 175 feet north of the centerline of Avenida La Fonda. This raised refuge area shall be constructed as part of the Phase II parking lot area on the east side of Desert Club Drive as shown in the Specific Plan. B. Avenida Bermudas - Approximately 120 feet north of the centerline of Avenida La Fonda. This raised refuge area shall be constructed as part of the Phase I parking lot area as shown in the Specific Plan. CONSTRUCTION 55. 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. 56. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and parking lot improvements and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings, parking lot striping and signs. If drive isles and parking lots are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of any building within the development. P:\STAIN\sp 2002-058 pe coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 11 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 LANDSCAPING 57. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13-24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 58. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 59. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 60. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 61. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 62. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 63. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 64. 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 P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 12 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 65. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 66. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 67. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, private streets, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 68. 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. 69. Within 10 calendar days of City Council approval of this specific plan, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, a check made out to the "County of Riverside" in the amount of $64.00 to permit the filing and posting of Environmental Assessment 2002-450 (De Minimus finding). FIRE DEPARTMENT 70. Approved super 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. 71. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 6 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify the fire hydrant locations. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 13 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 72. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2000 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 73. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 74. 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. 75. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 square feet or larger to be fully sprinkled (NFPA 13 Standard). Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 76. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a hood/duct system for fire protection (restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.). 77. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 78. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 1 T-6" clear and unobstructed. 79. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial suite (Contact the Fire Department for an application). 80. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. MISCELLANEOUS 81. All conditions of approval shall either be included in the specific plan text or attached, as appropriate. Five copies of the final approved specific plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of final approval by the City Council. 82. As required by the Zoning Code, parking lots shall be screened from street view adjacent to public streets with a combination of short decorative walls and landscaping. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 14 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 2002-058 May 28, 2002 83. Parking lot lighting shall use fixtures at a 12 feet high maximum. 84. A minimum of two additional trash enclosure areas shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. All trash enclosure locations shall be approved by Waste Management prior to issuance of the first building permit. 85. Bicycle racks shall be provided per Zoning Code requirements for each phase. 86. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the first Village Use permit, a sign program per Zoning Code requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The program shall provide diversity so that adjacent buildings have signs of different styles, colors, etc. 87. Comments of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department in their letter dated May 8, 2002, on file in the Community Development Department, shall be considered during development of the project. 88. Building pad "E" or "F" (Phase II area) shall be planted with turf and irrigated in conjunction with Phase I and provided with a minimum two driveways for an overflow parking area. Driveway locations to be approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. P:\STAN\sp 2002-058 pc coa.wpd Printed May 23, 2002 Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 EISENHOWER DRIVE z z 'LA QUINTA CALLS TAMPICO SITE J. LAvmlok ONDA ww m G! CASE No. CASE MAP S P 2002-058 MARVIN INVESTMENTS ORTH SCALE: NTS PH #F STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 2002 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-441 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30378 REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2) SUBDIVIDE 9.13 ACRES INTO 8 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND OTHER COMMON LOTS APPLICANT: ROD VANDENBOS PROPERTY OWNERS: ROD VANDENBOS LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 51 AND MADISON STREET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-441 WAS PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 30378 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), UP TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ZONING: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) SOUTH: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) EAST: CITY OF INDIO EL DORADO POLO CLUB) WEST: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) BACKGROUND: The 9.13 acre relatively flat site located at the southwest corner of Bonita Trail (alignment of Avenue 51) and Madison Street is currently a citrus orchard (Attachment 1). Tentative Tact 30378 proposes 8 single family lots, drainage and common lots, and private street lots for a total of 19 lots (Attachment 2). All 8 residential lots are proposed to have driveway access from a 60' width internal cul-de-sac road with an intermittent landscaped median. Residential lot sizes range from .81 to 1 .01 . There exists a 50 foot right-of-way dedication for Madison Street; an additional 5 feet will be required to complete a full 55 foot of half street right-of-way for a Primary Arterial. Identified is the future Madison Street cross section that identifies the street right -of way, 20' landscape easement including a 14' multi -purpose trail, and a 25' dedicated drainage easement on lots G-K. On -site retention is achieved with the additionally dedicated 35' drainage easement on the front of each lot. A homeowners' association will be formed to maintain retention basins, common landscaped areas, private roads, perimeter landscaping. 11MAIROW The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 17,2002. All property owners within 500' feet the entire development were mailed a copy of the public notice. Written comments have been received are attached (Attachment 3) . The tentative tract was sent out for comments to City Departments and affected public agencies on January 30, 2002. Agency comments received have been made a part of the Conditions of Approval. Environmental Assessment Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2002-443 for the project. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The applicant's request to subdivide 9.13 acres of land for 8 residential lots and amenity lots is consistent with the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are met. Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2002-441; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 30378 subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tentative Tract Map 30378 3. Letter(s) received Prepared by; Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30378 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-441 APPLICANT: ROD VANDENBOS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-441 for Tentative Tract 30378 herein referred to as the "Project" for Rod Vandenbos; and, WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-441) to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. A:\PC RESO EA 2002-441.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-441 Adopted May 28, 2002 4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2002-441 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact upon the environment. 8. EA 2002-441 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-441 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. A:\PC RESO EA 2002-441.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-441 Adopted May 28, 2002 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO EA 2002-441.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30378 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Avenue 51 (extended) and Madison Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rod Vandenbos 74785 Highway 1 1 1, Suite 100 Indian Wells, CA 92210 6. General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 9.16 acres into 8 lots ranging in size from 0.81 to 1.01 acres in size. The subdivision also includes a central cul-de-sac, an access drive from the southern property boundary at Madison Street, and lettered lots for the provision of open space areas along Madison Street. The land is currently a citrus grove. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Very Low Density Residential (Polo Estates) South: Vacant Very Low Density Residential lands now in agriculture West: All American Canal, recently approved Specific Plan for low density residential and golf course. East: Polo Grounds 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable P:\FRED\TT30378EACk1st.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 Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 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. 101 IF ❑■ ---T1gnature PAFRED\TT30378EACkIst.WPD 2 Date �— Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance P:\FRED\TT30378EACkIst.WPD 3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan 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. III-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) 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) 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) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X X K4 FRED\TT30378EACk1st. WPD 4 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) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) J. 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.) r. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by CRM Tech, April 2002.) M X X X X X X X X E4 FRED\TT30378EACkIst.WPD 5 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)? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by CRM Tech, April 2002.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by CRM Tech, April 2002.) 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. III- 61 ff.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2002.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378... prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2002.) iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2002. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2002.) 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? ("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2002.) X X X X X X X X X X FRED\TT30378EACk1st. W PD 6 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 X water? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) I. 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) 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) ,III. 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.) M K4 X X M X X ,FRED\TT30378EACkIst.WPD 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? ('Hydrology Tentative Tract No. 30378," Daniel Ferguson, PE, April 2002) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? ('Hydrology Tentative Tract No. 30378," Daniel Ferguson, PE, April 2002) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? ('Hydrology Tentative Tract No. 30378," Daniel Ferguson, PE, April 2002) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.5) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.5) 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.) 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.) X X X M X X X X 9 FRED\TT30378EACk1st. WPD 8 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) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) 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) 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.) X X X X F�q X X X X M FRED\TT30378EACk1st. W PD 9 Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) ;IV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) V. 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.) 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) VI. 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.) X X t -1 X X X X X X X X X X FRE0\TT30378EACk1st. W PD 10 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.) (VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Vill. EARLIER ANALYSIS. X X X X X X X K9 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. \FRED\TT30378EACkIst.WPD 11 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. )URCES: aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. 'AQMD CEQA Handbook. ;neral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. ty of La Quinta Municipal Code storical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..., prepared by 3M Tech, April 2002. :otechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..., prepared by Sladden Engineering, April )02. , drology Tentative Tract No. 30378, prepared by Daniel Ferguson, PE, April 2002. FRED\TT30378EACk1st. W PD 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-441 II. a) The site is currently a citrus grove. The proposed project site is surrounded . by lands which have been developed on the north, south and west. Citrus groves occur to the south. The site is not mapped as locally significant farmland. The loss of 9 acres of citrus will not represent a significant impact to agriculture in the Valley. The impacts associates with agricultural resources are not expected to be significant. III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of motor vehicles. The 8 single family homes which could be built upon the proposed parcels could generate approximately 77 trips per day'. These 77 trips could, at buildout generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM 10 PM 10 PM 10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 2.78 0.11 0.57 -- 0.01 0.01 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 77 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. 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 vehicular emissions are not expected to be significant. III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the area. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition," for category 210. Single Family Detached Housing. P:\FRED\TT30378EA Adden.WPD at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 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. The landscaped parkway on Madison Street, the retention basins on the east side of the tract, and parkway landscaping on the north and south boundaries of the project (within and adjacent to the entry drive, and on the south side of Bonita Trail) shall be landscaped immediately following issuance of the first grading permit for the site. 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. V. b) A Phase I cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property2. "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378...," prepared by CRM Tech, April 2002. P:\FRED\TT30378EA Adden.WPD 2 The Phase I study did not identify any resources at the site. The study does, however, identify the potential for buried resources. In order to ensure that the impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1 . Monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during any trenching shall be done with a written report on the archaeological monitoring being prepared and submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for approval prior to final inspection for the first residence or approval of tract improvements, whichever occurs first. 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 evaluated the resource, and recommended mitigation measures. VI. a) i) & i0 The homes at the project site, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The homes 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. These requirements will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) The subject property is subject to severe wind erosion hazards. The City Engineer will require the preparation of PM 10 Management Plan to control the potential for blowing dust from the project site (please see mitigation measures under Air Quality, above). These mitigation measures will lessen the potential impacts of soil erosion to a less than significant level. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District from wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. Each of the homes at the project site will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts 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 subdivision is for lots of approximately one acre in size. The homes to be placed on these lots will not represent a significant loss of permeable land, since it is likely that the majority of each lot will be landscaped. In addition, retention basins have been designed for the eastern end of the site, the handle storm flows from the 4 eastern lots. The City Engineer will require that these retention basins, and the 1 acre lots on the west half of the subdivision retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. The tract's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These standards will reduce the potential P:\FRED\TT30378EA Adden.WPD 3 XI. a) impacts associated with surface water to a less than significant level. The proposed project occurs in an area with lower levels of traffic, which are not expected to exceed the City's noise standards at buildout of the General Plan. Further, the proposed houses will occur more than 100 feet west of Madison Street, with the proposed retention area providing additional buffers. A wall or walls will be constructed along the eastern property lines of the eastern lots, providing further noise reduction. It is expected that impacts to the residences from noise generated on Madison will be less than significant. XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary high noise levels from construction equipment. The project site is located in an area which is either undeveloped, or developed in very large lots subdivisions. The distance between the proposed tract and structures on surrounding lots should provide sufficient buffer to result in less than significant impacts to the neighbors from construction noise. XIII. a) The proposed homes will have a limited impact on public services. The homes will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will generate property tax, which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as each home is constructed. 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. XIV. a) The addition of 8 homes will have the potential to require additional recreational space. However, the size of the proposed lots, between 0.8 and 1 .01 acre each, will allow each homeowner to construct on -site recreational amenities to a higher degree than a standard subdivision. The impacts associated with the subdivision of the proposed parcel into 8 lots will not have a significant impact on recreation in the City. PD 0 b 0 a� 0 U 3 0 U) 0 0 H °a a N 0 0 N cri U 0 a g s . z a F1-+ A U W d W d A U� QA a� �w ox UU Q N V F CAU bo o V 0 a a CD bq � b b Cd � O Ur O 0 U N U O Cd � Ems•" p � 0 .O+- 0 O yU.., O V ., ° U U a ° , z z00 �. C (s7 - OA Ei O �,, ... U U U m U Q CAA N o H Z a A � 0 Cd.7 Q 0 0 0 3 • w Iti a ° cd 0-4 ►.r CL 0 0 m a w W Lo 0 m F- uj w cr LL IL W Q A W }� A � x � W U U 0 a� W o U b R U cn ts. V bA � .o z H � Q oZ � 0 �o zz00 Q Fi Cd a UQ o. 0 z O W bn � � W ado N 40, U 0. 3 C 0 Q w OD f7 O m F 0 cc LL a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 30378 TO ALLOW AN EIGHT LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS COMMON LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.13 ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 30378 APPLICANT: ROD VANDENBOS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May , 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and recommended approval to the City Council, to subdivide a 9.13 acre site into 8 single family lots and other common lots, generally located at the southwest corner of Avenue 51 and Madison Street, more particularly described as: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 772-270-011, 772-270- 012, & 772-270-013 WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment was completed for this project. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said Tentative Tract Map 30378: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan. The project is a Very Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the 2002 General Plan Update. Tentative Tract 30378 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and mitigation measures pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2002-441 . The density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance. Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Tentative Tract Map 30378 Adopted May 28, 2002 All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on - site streets will be private (60-feet wide right-of-way). Access for the single family lots will be provided from an internal north/south street planned under tentative tract map. C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. Therefore, this project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures d. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. F. The design of the lot, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the Fire Marshall, Sheriff's Department, and the City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate. G. The design of the lot, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that the proposed internal streets will be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly - owned improvements within the tentative tract map. Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Tentative Tract Map 30378 Adopted May 28, 2002 WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 30378 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 30378 - ROD VANDENBOS MAY 28, 2002 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www:la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. AAPC COA TT 30378.wpd A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Madison Street - Primary Arterial, 1 10' ROW 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Private Cul-de-sac - 60 foot right of way with 2-20' lanes and a raised median as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. B. CUL DE SACS 1) Cul-de-sac, 50' right of way at the Cul-de-sac bulb. 11. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 12. 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. 13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd A. Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the Right of way or 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 on the Final Map. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 17. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access points shown on the Final Map. 18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 19. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of- way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 20. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 20. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster - image file of such Final Map. A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd 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. 21. 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. 22. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' D. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical E. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal F. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 23. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. AAPC COA TT 30378.wpd 24. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 25. Prior to the conditional approval of any Final Map, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 26. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 27. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 28. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: (1) construct certain off -site improvements, (2) construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, (3) reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map, (4) secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others, or (5) to agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd 29. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 30. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 32. 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. 33. 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. A:1PC COA TT 30378.wpd A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 37. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 38. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 39. 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 40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 41. The applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24.120 (Drainage), sub -section "K.", LQMC. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basin(s) as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. Individual lot basins or other retention concepts may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 1 acre in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. A drainage easement shall be conveyed to the Homeowners Association for the individual lot retention areas to insure that the integrity and size of each basin is maintained 42. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 43. Nuisance water shall be retained on site through an acceptable manner as approved by the City Engineer. 44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 45. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet. 46. 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. 47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 48. 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. 49. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd UTILITIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 51. 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. 52. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 53. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 54. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 55. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 56. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - 1 10' R/W: Widen the west side of the street along the frontage adjacent to the Tentative Tract Map boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. These improvements may be deferred to be completed with future Madison Street Improvements. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject Fight of way include: (a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The 6 foot wide meandering sidewalk shall be completed with the Tract Improvements. (b) 14-foot wide meandering trail. The 14' wide trail shall be completed with the Tract Improvements. (c) 18' foot wide landscaped median along the frontage adjacent to the boundary of the Tentative Tract Map (deferred improvement to be constructed by others). The applicant shall complete the following improvements with the Tract Improvements: a) Landscape the parkway area up to the existing edge of pavement. b) The existing overhead electrical system shall be undergrounded along the Tract frontage. c) Interim street improvements including asphalt tapers and signing/striping is required to tie Beth Circle into Madison Street. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Beth Circle and Cul-de-Sac Street - Construct full improvements within a 60-foot right-of-way, which shall be divided into two 20-foot traveled ways with a 10-foot center landscaped median (Entry Street) and an 18-foot center median (cul-de-sac street) as shown on the Tentative Map. The median island on Beth Circle at the Madison Street entrance shall be designed to direct traffic to the right to facilitate a right turn only movement. Appropriate signing and striping shall be provided. The design of the median island and associated signing and striping shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) Private Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to Riverside County Standard 800 for symmetrical Cul-de-sacs and Standard 800A for offset Cul-de-sacs, and both shall be constructed with a 50-foot curb radius, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line. AAPC COA TT 30378.wpd 58. All gated entries shall provide for a two -car minium stacking capacity for inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -entry accepted vehicles.) Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a "U" Turn back out onto Madison Street. The applicant shall submit written authorization from the property owner to the south of •wd• • and consenting to placing the proposed gate on Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 59. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5"/6.00" 5.5"/6.50" or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 60. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Beth Circle): Right in, right out and left in, only. Left out turning movement is prohibited. The entry median on Beth Circle and Madison Street shall be designed to direct traffic to the right to facilitate a right turn only movement as outlined in Condition No. 57. 62. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 63. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City AAPC COA TT 30378.wpd Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 64. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 65. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 66. 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. 67. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 68. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 69. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 70. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works 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. A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 71. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 72. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 73. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 74. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 75. 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. 76. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 77. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 78. 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 79. 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 A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. FIRE MARSHALL 80. Approved standard hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 81. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 82. Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel lanes, serving that gate. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40-foot turning radius shall be used. 83. Gates shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. Contact the Fire Department for an application. 84. Provide to the Fire Department, 2 sets of water plans for plan check prior to recordation. 85. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior tp any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MISCELLANEOUS 86. Privacy walls (minimum of 5' in height) shall be constructed around the entire perimeter of the project. 87. At a minimum, at least two rows of existing citrus trees shall be preserved in place along the Madison Street perimeter of the project. A:\PC COA TT 30378.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 W 0 W A VENUE 1 50 W 0 eonrira 4 TRAIL 0 0 A VENUE ' 52 A VENUE 51 8 1 T J' PROJECT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT #3 oa2- 011 N T.a 7.0- y9S Ca_ 2c� ,ia� o lA�►y 2a '� C 3a 3 y8 /Q crvr+.c.�.�� ,. �'`�, g" - t»-� a..oCea'e-ycJ aQ _.Qe-�• 'Zc.l.�"`'"``�+`,�-' io° ,a`�, ;� ''"�i� `%�✓e. �a�x.d�ns.Ga-a.. ,l��casu� �✓. .lL,� �z.�c�-cam ..-a�..l� --�-- �S.e°�a`ocL .a��-.�. `�li�rr��.e®i' ` <o�.c, ...t!-/%c. � �'J.!-? �O..�ia...o� o-s.�g •.tirt,t,�ry ^��-ccC,. —12 �a•��e ?l.at� t3'"XP,eje yf- i tom cell, rz,�► .e �. v ..� F '4 �m e' Qa2 �cz '`� va"t � e . C„L -/ ! URA-�-Cad� n ) .[� Aii .Ad. W6 w ✓GI�C-/ «-t4-rl �� ..%��u-��i.�'/�.�/re.%9-t� .!i .�Gv-�-�i _.�e�-�✓YYta�c_ �a-rf-r�.C��ryy7/i's�L�7� .�v� rCr%-�t. /'C�� cz-►'t-c+G �,y ea-a.a.�s' c.��t. �' . ..G.�_..ett.t�z.e-- cam. ✓rz..cs.�-.-c-�*..sii o-� � ' .e.rrt.v�rc�.,c�, �erucL .1re�.�v�� ' `-2t/..e.i .�_ -Via'-u.�a� � , ✓t--ct�¢F�zaz� -^ � ..l�eje�.u. c�C e��s A � o'er- � / 3 ��t.�.�• ors -tea• �� o-u� �J v c. D �d �G�� .�.�..z.��.e �•,�.� a..�=��r .a.�•�,.-yam. r,�� f,.�. / ��,e-r...�'` ✓rater ��,a..�..�-�-u..��C ,�oiz-�v-� --�='�-Q�--�.tl�t-C-Z `--Cre� `/'e•'c- 'c.�'z`� `�[..�-• ��;..ttte�C -f.��,�...�e.ri-e..�..t_. ��'�'r� `.k-r�-se.. `�.�.� �ia.�3•t.aClC.ix�Ga.-et..l�c� .�,vy,�ti ,.� Mary--�Za�rrc�• •� "cQ�'� ✓tf.�dt�-� .--Lie-'`--��y''�-�G�Q.G.� �ZP.,+ e�C�t�"G�L.sa/�--.►'t_L/IBC .� .. �G�' l , .C't�Gi •-..G�--C-• � � . � �.--Gt1G1..iii O�'l.t� �aC�i� �1�.�."`_ — `_ PH #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 2002 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-451 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-451, AND REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A 25,486 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL FACILITY LOCATION: 2.92 ACRES PARCEL ON THE EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 47 AND 48 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. REPRESENTATIVE: RTKL ARCHITECTS ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-451 WAS PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: LAKE LA QUINTA LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) WEST: LA QUINTA ARS FOUNDATION A:\PCstaff rpt 2002- 736 Tenet.wpd BACKGROUND: The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a medical surgical outpatient facility on the 2.92 acre site located on the east side of Washington Street between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 (Attachment 1). Site Plan The proposed project consists of a 25,486 square foot, one story 21 foot high facility, with 147 parking spaces (9' X 18' with a 1' overhang), (Attachment 2). Access into the site is proposed to be taken on Caleo Bay, and Washington Street as a shared access with the property to the south. Also proposed is a shared parking lot driveway with the property to the north. A fifteen foot wide one-way drop off driveway aisle on the north side of the facility is proposed. A parking lot Illumination Study was not submitted. Landscape Plan The Conceptual Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters. Trees are proposed along the entire perimeter of the site and include: Sweet Acacia, Chilean Mesquite, Yellow Oleander, and California Pepper. Proposed at the northeast corner of the building is a fountain/water feature providing an attractive element for the outdoor waiting area. Architectural Design The rectangular shaped structure is proposed to be a steel frame cast -in -place concrete panel facade with various openings for windows and doors. The principle facade will be a textured concrete painted in a light earth tone. The primary vertical feature, near the entry of the project, is proposed to be a lighter, off white to draw attention to the entry. The protected walkway and driveway canopy at the main entry is a natural cedar with parking shade designs that will match the building's main entry canopy. The vertical feature supporting the shading devices on the left of the main entrance is reddish brown concrete panels. Green insulated window glass provides a complimentary color to the pallette. Exposed and painted aluminum frames on doors and windows are proposed to accent the building. R • M ' • •__._•. A:\Kstaff rpt 2002- 736 Tenet.wpd The conceptual sign plan proposes a 20 square foot building mounted and a 50 square foot monument sign with script to read "TenetCare". The building mounted sign is proposed to be a neon lamp reverse channel letter. The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of May 1, 2002 (Attachment 3). The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2002-016, recommending approval. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on April 25, 2002, requesting comments be returned by May 10, 2002. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on May 8, 2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made incorporating the recommended Conditions of Approval per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution with the exception of the following: 1) Sign Program The proposed Sign Program is not consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Staff recommends the following Condition of Approval: "Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall submit a Sign Program, for review and approval by the Community Development Director, providing a detailed design for the Monument Sign and Building sign, to be consistent with Section 9.160.040 of the Zoning Code." 2) Illumination Study Staff recommends the following Condition of Approval: "Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall submit an Illumination Study, for review and approval by the Community Development Director to be consistent with Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code." A:\Kstaff rpt 2002- 736 Tenet.wpd RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- certifying Environmental Assessment 2002-451; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , approving development plans for a 25,486 square foot medical facility, subject to the Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Exhibit 2. Plans and Elevations 3. Draft Minutes of the ALRC meeting of May 1, 2002 Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner AAPCstaff rpt 2002- 736 Tenet.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-451 APPLICANT: TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-451 for Site Development Permit 2002-736 herein referred to as the "Project" for Tenet Care California, Inc; and, WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-451) to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact can be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. A:\PC RESO EA 2002-451.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-451 Adopted May 28, 2002 3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed Project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2002-451 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact upon the environment. 8. EA 2002-451 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-451 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. AAPC RESO EA 2002-451.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-451 Adopted May 28, 2002 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO EA 2002-451.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Site Development Permit 2002-736, Medical Clinic and Outpatient Surgery Center 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: East side of Washington Street, between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tenet Care California, Inc. 13737 Noel Road Dallas, TX 75240 7. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial Zoning: Current: Community Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The applicant proposes the construction of a 25,486 square foot single story medical clinic to include examination and diagnostic facilities (MRI, Cat Scan, X-ray and similar services), operating rooms and recovery facilities for out- patient surgery. The project is located on the east side of Washington Street, between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48. Access will be taken from Washington Street and from Caleo Bay. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Commercial (bank under construction) South: Vacant lands, Community Commercial West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation East: Single family units, Low Density Residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable PAFRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. N I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. u 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. 1-1 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. Signa � a e PAFRED\TenetEAChklst. WPD 2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance P:\FRED\TenetEAChk1st.WPD 3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan 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. III-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) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. 111-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (Aerial photographs) 11. 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) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X K9 X X X 9 X \FRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD 4 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) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) V. 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.) X X F7 X X X X X X \FRED\TenetEAChklst. WPD f. 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? (General Plan EIR p. III-116 ff., General Plan MEA P. 126 ff.) 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)? (General Plan EIR p. III-116 ff., General Plan MEA p. 126 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 126 ff.) (I. 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. III- 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) M9 FN X X X X X X \F RE D\TenetEACh klst. W PD 6 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) ✓II. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (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) 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) X X X X X X X X X X \FRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD 7 fill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. 111-87 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 substantially 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 hazard 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) X. 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 X X X X X X X X AFRED\TenetEAChkIst.W PD 8 1. 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.) 11. 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., Application materials) 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? (Application materials) 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) (II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) 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) X X Q X X X X X 91 \FRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD 9 ;III. 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.) [IV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) (V. 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.) 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) X X X X X X X 0 X X X 11 \FRED\TenetEAChk1st. W PD 10 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) (VI. 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.) KVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? X X KI X 94 17 X X X X \FRED\TenetEAChkIst.W PD 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly? Will. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. No earlier analysis were used in this review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. OURCES: taster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. CAQMD CEQA Handbook. ieneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. ity of La Quinta Municipal Code :\FRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-451 I. d) The land on which the proposed medical facility will be constructed is currently vacant. Any development will therefore create new sources of light on the site. The City has adopted a dark sky ordinance which requires that all light be contained on -site for any project. Further, the applicant proposes the use of Chilean mesquite trees along the property line at Caleo Bay. These trees develop a relatively large canopy, and will act as an effective screen to the residential properties across Caleo Bay to the east. City standards and the project design will lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of motor vehicles. The medical clinic could generate approximately 802 trips per day'. It has also been assumed, based on the land use proposed, that the distance traveled would be an average of 10 miles, since the proposed project will serve a regional patient pool. Based on this trip generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM 10 PM 10 PM 10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 41.43 1.59 8.5 -- 0.18 0.18 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 802 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. 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 PM 10 concentrations in Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition," for category 630, Clinic. P:\FRED\TenetEA-Add451 IV. f). the Valley. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit a PM10 Management 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. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street, perimeter landscaping on the north and south property lines, and landscaping on Caleo Bay shall be installed as soon as possible after site grading. 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. 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 a less than significant level. P:\FRED\TenetEA-Add451 2 V. b) The site has been previously graded, and has a low potential for surficial archaeological resources. It is possible, however, that buried resources could occur on the site. As a result, the following mitigation measure shall be required: 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 IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. 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 subject to severe wind erosion hazards. The City Engineer will require the preparation of PM10 Management Plan to control the potential for blowing dust from the project site. The Air Quality section above also lists specific mitigation measures designed to reduce wind erosion hazards at the site. The PM10 Plan and the mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. VII. a) All medical facilities use and generate materials classified in California as hazardous. The medical clinic will, however, be subject to considerable regulation by the state, the Riverside County Health Department, and the Fire Department. These regulations will ensure that the potential impacts associated with the use and storage of hazardous substances at the project site will be less than significant. Vill. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District from wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The medical clinic 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. As a medical facility, the project will use less water than P:\FRED\TenetEA-Add451 3 residential development. 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. Vill. d) The construction of the proposed building and parking lot will result in less land being available for the percolation of water into the ground. The City Engineer will require that these retention basins retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on - site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated with surface water to a less than significant level. XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary high noise levels which could impact existing residential development to the east. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located in the northwest corner of the site. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XIII. a) The medical clinic will have a limited impact on public services. The facility will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed building will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. 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:\FRED\TenetEA-Add451 4 0 0 0 O N M N O 0 N 0 U o N E••� ox A U W d w Q A Um zA Q� aU �W O� UU b U •U r U U a o O a Q v) Q a rn on °A b Ei O O O U O O U U I:L•U U U U �O �O to t U U Inc% a o 00 Q Q o U U U CCA U L1 Gq N z F a�i • ° � Ln •� •� a 0 N FJ a N U N Cd Cd CA 0 LO C O 0 Ir LL a p A U 0 u m QW QW �W �W OVU OU W ° F •ti •y a�i a�i a"i cn rA y U U U oz o cwo z a v Ts z0-4 rA o�n z0 o U d� �� a� a �w Ha o to��, Ha o 0 c � Qn :3� �� o Z �"w a rz c° 3 to a 3 6 w cc LL a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 25,486 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL FACILITY CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 APPLICANT: TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 28th day of May, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 25,246 square feet medical facility, on 2.92 acres generally located on the east side of Washington Street between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 27892, PARCEL NO. 7; and, WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 1st day of May, 2002 hold a public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 25,246 square feet medical facility, on 2.92 acres generally located on the east side of Washington Street between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48; and, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment was completed for this project. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit. 1 . The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial (CC). The Land Use Element of the 2002 General Plan Update allows commercial office. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2). 2. The proposed commercial office building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. AAPC RESO SDP 2002-736.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-736 Adopted May 28, 2002 3. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic. 5 The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar in scale; the building materials provided are durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, with a blend of materials, surfaces and textures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2001-736 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC: 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. AH of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). .06. . cm—M 5. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 7. Unless the ultimate developed right-of-way can be documented, the public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) None - All off site street dedication is in place. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. 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. 10. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit. 1 1. 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. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur. 13. 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 14. 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. 15. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. "Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 17. 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. 18. 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 retrievabVe through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. 19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 20. 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. 21. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. The building pad elevation of the proposed lot shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 25. 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. 26. 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 27. Stormwater shall be directed to the approved drainage system for Tract 24230/Tract 26152 (Lake La Quinta). Nuisance flows from the subject SDP 2002-736 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 A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 carry any or all of the developed run off from this development, the applicant shall retain the incremental difference on site. 28. 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. 29. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 30. 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. 31. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.UTILITIES 32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 33. 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. 34. 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 35. 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. AAPC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 36. 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. 37. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: D. Primary Entry (Washington Street) shared access located on the southerly property line. This driveway shall be a shared access drive/road with the adjacent landowner to the south (see SDP 2001-731) and shall be centered on the southerly property line. This driveway shall have right in/right out turning movements, only. Nothing in this condition requires the adjacent landowner to pay for sufficient improvements to implement the shared access requirements in a manner that serves the development proposed by SDP 2002-736. However, reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. 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. E. Secondary Entry on Caleo Bay located roughly at the center of the parcel. The driveway should be located sufficiently south of the existing catch basin to avoid interfering with the catch basin. 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 lanes at the driveway. Signing and striping plans which detail the left turn lanes and centerline striping shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for approval. 38. 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. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 CONSTRUCTION 39. 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. 40. 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 41. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 42. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 43. 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. 44. 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. AAPC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 45. 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 46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 47. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such 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. 48. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 49. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 51. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 FIRE MARSHALL 53. 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. 54. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify the fire hydrant locations. 55. Minimum fire flow 2250 GPM for a 4-hour duration. Fire flow is based on type VN construction and a complete fire sprinkler system. 56. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 57. Submit a hazardous materials commodity list with the building plans. Show types and quantities. 58. 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. 59. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. Ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 60. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed in an individual lot. 61. 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. 62. Install a KNOX key box on the building. (Contact the fire department for an application) 63. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736 TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. MAY 28, 2002 MISCELLANEOUS 64. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall submit a Sign Program, for review and approval by the Community Development Director, providing a detailed design for the Monument Sign and Building sign, to be consistent with Section 9.160.040 of the Zoning Code. 65. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall submit an Illumination Study, for review and approval by the Community Development Director to be consistent with Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code. A:\PC COA SDP 2002-736.wpd ATTACHMENT # lu T H A v E. LAK;E Ll-,00'r,17'A Q U-1 < PROJECT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT I Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 1, 2002 A. Mechanical equipment to be hidden and not seen from the street. B. Vines to be planted along the interior planter wall in lieu of shrubs along the perimeter walls on every fourth parking stall. C. Add shrubs to the interior islands. D. If possible use steel on carports in lieu of wood as an options. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2001-736; a request of Tenet Care California, Inc., for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 25,486 square foot medical facility located on the east side of Washington Street between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48. 1. Committee Member David Thoms withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest and withdrew from the meeting. 2. 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. Mr. Dan Kilabrew, RTKL Architects for the project, gave a presentation on the project and introduced Margo Thibeoult, Mainiero Smith, engineers for the project and TGA, landscape architect. 4. Committee Member Cunningham asked if this project had been presented to the homeowners at Lake la Quinta. Mr. Kilabrew stated it was and had been well received. They are trying to reflect the use of the building as being user friendly. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is fresh and dynamic look and gives regional architecture to the site. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the introduction of the different architectures approved for Washington Street, has added to the eclectic look of the street. It is an excellent presentation and the landscaping plans looks good. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by G:\WPDOCS\AR1,C\5-1-02.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 1, 2002 Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-016 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-736, subject to the conditions as submitted. Unanimously approved with Committee Member Thorns being absent. Committee Member Thorns rejoined the Committee. C. Commercial Property Improvement Program 2002-012; a request of Scott Wilson for funding of landscaping/hardscape improvements for the property located at 78-150 Calle Tampico; and D. Commercial Property Improvement Program 2002-013; a request of Denise DeBerry-Hay for funding of landscaping/hardscape improvements for the property located at 78-140 Calle Tampico. 1. Management Analyst Debbie Powell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Ray Martin, landscape designer for the project, gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if a sign would be constructed at the corner. Mr. Martin explained what was there and how it would be difficult as they wanted to remove the center island. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the parking stall sizes met City standards. Staff stated they would when constructed. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the micro -drip systems do not work and he has a problem with over -watering done by drip systems. They need a water conservation system. He would prefer individual drip emitters and no spaghetti tubing. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the plant pallet it fine; maintenance is more of a concern. 5. Committee Member Thorns stated the planting between the walls and cars decreased. On Season Way the streetscape needs something planted on the wall. The gravel is all right. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that planting right up to the curb line gets trampled by the cars. 7. Committee Member Cunningham stated he has a problem with the amount of City funds that has already been spent. Now with a G:\WPDOCS\ARI,C\5-1-02.wpd 4 PH #G STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 2002 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-721 APPLICANT: COACHELLA PETROLEUM INC. PROPERTY OWNER: COACHELLA PROPERTIES REQUEST: CONSIDERATION T� FO AESTABLISH V HICLE SERVIOC.E UARE AREA FOOT SHADE STRU LOCATION: 78988 US HIGHWAY 111 (JIFFY LUBE) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ACCESSORY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1STRUCTURES ARE 05303(E)Y GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Jiffy Lube was initially approved as the Lube Shop on January 26, 1993 (Plot Plan 92-494). The parent corporation which operates Jiffy Lube franchises acquired this location in 2000. The current operation involves the use of the rear of the property as an area to do diagnostic evaluation of vehicles. Most of the work requires that the vehicles be running, hence it is conducted outdoors. The applicant wishes to put up a, more or less, permanent metal shade structure to provide some protection for the technicians against the sun. The structure proposed is approximately 20 feet x 20 feet, and will be placed against the north wall of the site (Attachment 1). The framework is constructed of metal tubing, and the actual shading is provided by a nylon mesh material, a sample of which will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. The proposed colors are off-white (frame) and tan (shade material). ANALYSIS: A. The proposed structure will cover approximately two parking spaces. These spaces are rarely utilized by the business, except when cars are not immediately picked up by their owners. The spaces do not come into use by patrons of the adjacent self -serve car wash, as they are not related to that use and do not extend to the vacuum service area. B. There is not perceived to be an expansion of use, as the structure is non -permanent and no stationary equipment is used in this aspect of the operation. If permanent facilities were to be established, additional review and requirements would be triggered. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- approving Site Development Permit 2001-721, as submitted. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1 . Site plan PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ±400 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY SHADE STRUCTURE CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-721 COACHELLA PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Site Development Permit 2001-721, for a ±400 square -foot accessory shade structure at Jiffy Lube, more particularly described as: 78988 HIGHWAY 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit is exempt under Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1 . The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of Mixed/Regional Commercial and other current City standards. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the project contemplates an accessory structure which relates to the existing on -site use, and does not involve an expansion of such use. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that the Site Development Permit is exempt from CEQA as an accessory structure. CAW rkg rp\PCrpt\pereso01721.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 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 constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-721 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 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 C:\W rkg rp\PCrpt\pereso01721.wpd 6 o g j b r 9�4�333 PAP ;. ATTACHMENT#1 aid BI #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 2002 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-616 - SIGN PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR CHAMPION CADILLAC (FORMERLY SIMON MOTORS) APPLICANT: GRAPHIC RESOURCES (MR. SKIP BERG) PROPERTY OWNER: DESERT AUTOMOTIVE, LLC REQUEST: REVISE EXISTING SIGNING TO REFLECT NEW OWNERSHIP AND NEW SIGN TYPES LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIMON DRIVE/HIGHWAY 111 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL), WITH A NON- RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site Background The previous dealership, Simon Motors, was established prior to City incorporation. An overall Sign Program for the dealership was submitted in 1998 (SA 98-418), but was withdrawn prior to City action on the request. There has been a change in ownership, and the applicant wishes to establish the on - site signs for the new owner. Currently, the signs on -site are primarily cabinet -style signs with colored plexiglas facing, mounted onto metal cabinets which house the lighting/electrical components. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted an inventory of the sign changes they wish to modify (Attachment 1). It is stated that the overall area of the new signs is less than that of the existing signs by just under 88 square feet. ANALYSIS: 1. The sign criteria proposed under the program graphically address the conditions which apply to sign design, location and installation; there are no text -based criteria proposed beyond that graphically illustrated. The signs addressed relate to advertising and do not include required or recommended warning or directional signs, such as the "CUSTOMER PARKING" and "SERVICE" signs proposed. Staff is of the opinion that these signs can be permitted under the sign program. 2. The sign program shows two options for the sign construction: Option 2 utilizes exposed raceways, which are not permitted under Zoning Code Section 9.160.030.M., unless designed as an integral part of the background or wall upon which it is mounted. The Community Development Director has ultimate determinating authority under this provision, and recommends Option 1 (direct building mounting). 3. The existing can signs were established prior to the current Sign Regulations and therefore are grand -fathered. The existing signs cannot be modified in their current condition except for copy changes. However, the applicant is asking for adjustments to eliminate the can signs and replace with individual letter signs. Those adjustments are: A. North (Hwy 1 1 1) face - Three existing signs currently exist on this elevation. They are Oldsmobile, Cadillac, and Simon Motors. The applicant is proposing Chevrolet, Champion and Cadillac. The Chevrolet sign is less than the existing Oldsmobile sign. The Champion sign is less than the Simon Sign, and the Cadillac logo is less than the existing Cadillac sign. These signs are more aesthetically pleasing than the existing can signs. The sign adjustment provisions allow for alternative type of signs to facilitate compatibility with the architecture of the structure on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. Therefore, staff supports the modification. B. Tower parapet above showroom area - The existing Simon sign is larger than the Champion sign on the logo. Again, staff supports the alternate type of sign. This sign is more aesthetically pleasing than the existing can signs. The sign adjustment provisions allow for alternative type of signs to facilitate compatibility with the architecture of the structure on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. Therefore, staff supports the modification. C. West elevation - The proposed Champion sign is smaller than the existing Chevrolet sign. This sign is more aesthetically pleasing than the existing can signs. The sign adjustment provisions allow for alternative type of signs to facilitate compatibility with the architecture of the structure on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. Therefore, staff supports the modification. D. East elevation - The "CUSTOMER PARKING" and "SERVICE" signs proposed are considered directional in nature and would not be counted against the aggregate square foot allowance for advertising signs. Currently there exists the Truck and Used Car can sign. These are being replaced with smaller signs that say "CHEVROLET TRUCKS" and "PRE- OWNED AUTOMOBILES". These signs are more aesthetically pleasing than the existing can signs. The sign adjustment provisions allow for alternative type of signs to facilitate compatibility with the architecture of the structure on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. Therefore, staff supports the modification. E. The wall above the parts department facing southwest, currently has a 14 square foot sign and the applicant is proposing a 35 square foot sign saying "Champion". This additional sign area is warranted because its location is to overcome a disadvantage as it is set back from the street. F. The applicant is proposing a 70 square foot monument sign at the southwest corner of Simon Drive and Highway 1 1 1. It is proposed to be 12 feet in height and 8 feet wide. This is a new sign. The Sign Regulations allows a 50 square foot sign not exceeding 8 feet in height. FINDINGS: • Sign Application 2002-616 with the sign adjustments, and as conditioned complies with the Sign Regulations in that: A. The alternate type of sign modifications have been made to facilitate compatibility with the structure on the site and improve the overall appearance of the signs. B. The additional sign area granted is to overcome a disadvantage as a result of the large setback and the sign. - RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2002- , approving Sign Application 2002-616, subject to compliance with the following requirements: 1. The applicant shall utilize Option 1 as shown on the plans submitted, for construction design of all approved signs under this Sign Program. 2. Exhibit A, Sheets 1, 2, and 3 - Approved as submitted 3. Exhibit A, Sheet 4 - The monument sign shall be reduced from 12 feet to 8 feet in height, as measured from finish grade at the base of the monument. Total sign area, as measured in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, shall not exceed 50 square feet. The Champion sign is approved as submitted. Attachments: 1. Proposed dealer signs with large exhibits ATTACHMENT #1 :)F LA QUINTA 4UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR CHAMPION ;ADILLAC / CHEVROLET LOPOSE TO REMOVE ALL EXISTING CABINET SIGNAGE AND REPLACE WITH INDIVIDUAL LETTERS SIGNS MAKING OUR MASTER SIGN RAM COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT SHOPPING CENTER SIGNS. ILL NOT ADVERSELY EFFECT SURROUNDING LAND USES OR LIRE ADJACENT CONFORMING SIGNS. 3OAL IS TO IDENTIFY THE DEALERSHIP WITH A SIGN PROGRAM THAT 9SISTENT WITH THE CADILLAC / CHEVROLET IMAGE AND REMAIN IN IONY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. RE ALSO REQUESTING A SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW PENNANTS, IERS AND BALLOONS FOR EVERY DAY USE. BY APPROVING THIS EST WE WOULD BECOME COMPATIBLE WITH THE LA QUINTA AUTO ER. :RELY; HIC RESOURCES ICY 11C ic)OU[CES ... a sign company BOX 1770 c LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 a 760.863.0865 PHONE o 760.863.0875 F/ MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMYv1UN P RTU/tN�Pr�FNT -I: JERKY BERMAN, DIRECTOR YOUR REQUEST, COMPARISON OF EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE ;US NEW INDIVIDUAL LETTERS SIGNS. HIGHWAY III V CHEVROLET & BOW TIES = 76 SQ FT STING OLDSMOBILE SIGN = 88 SQ FT HIGHWAY III V CHAMPION = 57 SQ FT FING SIMON MOTORS SIGN = 126 SQ FT HIGHWAY 111 I CADILLAC & LOGO = 57 SQ FT LING CADILLAC SIGN = 88 SQ FT TOWER I CHAMPION LETTERS & LOGO = 75 SQ FT LING SIMON = 129 SQ FT WEST FACING WALL V CHAMPION LETTERS = 38 SQ FT [ING SINGLE FACE SIGN = 56 SQ FT ENTRANCE TO SERVICE AREA RANCE TO SERVICE AREA = 13 SQ FT SERVICE - CAD - CHEVY LETTERS = 40 SQ FT ;: ALSO REMOVING 9 SQ FT POLE SIGN T WALL ALONG SIMON DR. EXISTING TWO SIGNS = 48 SQ FT LETTERS = 35 SQ FT UN BUH DING NORTH SIDE OF SERVICE DRIVE 3T1NG CABINET - 9 SQ FT LETTERS = 9.1 SQ FT ...a sign company DX 1770 a LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 a 760.863.0865 PHONE o 760.863.0875 FAX WALL ABOVE PARTS DEPARTMENT FACING SOUTHWEST * EXISTING =14 SQ FT NEW LETTERS = 35 SQ FT *SIGNS TO BE REMOVED = 580 SQ FT NEW INDIVIDUAL LETTER SIGNS = 422 SQ FT DIFFERENCE =158 SQ FT PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN = 70.25 SQ FT ADD TO NEW TOTAL = 492.25 STILL A DBTERENCE = 87.75 SQ FT GRAPHIC RESCUPI(IS ... a sign company P.O. BOX 1770 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - 760.863.0865 PHONE - 760.863.0875 F, NEW & ]EXISTING SIGNS HIGHWAY 111 _=_:-:_- -- _ � ----- •— —.asJ .moo•--- sy-,�•�-r—.—^-_-_--- � � —in ed I i J ^�.•�•'- .. cal. _•' 1 '--r i - 1..'- _ r � __ � I I •s.ra:Aaa+ ..cf.t� I I I � tK. t•.. Y R - �� . H Or.w.a� •.. : L-- r -- I ' �`(�� - F _'- .• it I I, _ _ �-" ^t11 I _ _..... 9 _.�r-.uu� � _. ll-,' � i I I i i I I i � I �• 1 �ni...�:-..-r� �! � I {� _� -� w L-1::: - a• , 1 ;A`• ITIGN fLRJG ij � I 1 i si' �.. 4 >�.. - •-mac_ > ` �.> "s .-. _ w..�, ' � ......_.vc so-.•[+• t' .. � ...•.. _..� ...,_- �w•�! OR+�t SWON MOTORS INCR Plb7 PLAN: • .F �.'r '? �i ^ '"P-''•'1�.'x' a '.f'�1.f/•'a� '>:i'.�!•o ,A�-.--T��---\/I � s..iwuowe(�w:ra.rai•%�..�i�.•s.c.;e. ��i _ .• r1r,/�•,•, �J//)p P• vT PLAN ' l 1 F t • •' A+r. .. •,:q'F.T l:. -. 1�•�' •1 MAY 7 2002 COMh9UNIIfYIDEV�j ENT OEPAIITMENi