2002 06 11 PCT4t!t 4 1w4"
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JUNE 11, 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 2002-064
Beginning Minute Motion 2002-01 1
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
I1. 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.
111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on May 28, 2002.
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PRESENTATIONS:
A. Presentation by Community Safety Manager John Hardcastle on
Emergency Preparedness
B. Presentation by CVWD on well sites.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item ................
Applicant ..........
Location ............
Request .............
Action ...............
B. Item .................
Applicant ..........
Location ............
Request .............
Action ...............
C. Item ................
Applicant ..........
Location ............
Request ............
Action ...............
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
Summit Team, Inc. (David B. Israelsky)
The west side of Washington Street, north of Calle
Tampico
Review of architectural and landscaping plans for a
single story commercial building of 5,839 square feet
in the La Quinta Village Shopping Center (Pad Site
„D „)
Resolution 2002-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-738
Affiliated Construction
Southeast corner of Washington Street and 471h
Avenue
Consideration of development plans for construction
of a 4,500 square foot commercial office
Resolution 2002-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
ADDENDUM, SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040, AND
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION
#1/AMENDMENT #1
Cornerstone Development
Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson
Street
Recommendation for Certification of an Addendum to
Environmental Assessment, Repeal of Specific Plan
99-040, and first extension of time and an
amendment request for the Tentative Tract Map
Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- ,
Resolution 2002-
A. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2002-618
Applicant .......... Stamko Development Company
Location ............ South side of Highway 1 1 1, east of La Quinta Drive
Request ............ Review of a sign program for the Centre at La Quinta
Action ............... Minute Motion 2002-
PC/AGENDA
B. Item ................. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW
Applicant .......... Jai Nettimi
Location ............ 79-390 Paseo Del Rey (Aliso at La Quinta)
Request ............ Compatibility review for a deck in the rear yard of an
existing two-story home
Action ............... Minute Motion 2002-
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of June 4, 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 28, 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 Butler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal
Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit
and Martin Magaria, 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
May 14, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 5, Item 2 be
corrected to read, "The Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Association...";
Page 9, Item 4, change the word "march" to match". There being no
further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved
with Commissioner Kirk abstaining.
B. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2002-448 Specific Plan 2002-056, and Site
Development Permit 2002-731; a request of WG Properties, LLC for
consideration of development plans for construction of a 8,792 square
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
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 opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked if most of the site plan landscaping
consisted of decomposed granite. Staff stated yes.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the turf was only for the future office
building, or will it be used elsewhere. Staff stated the turf along
Washington Street will be retained for the retention basin; the turf
for the future building is for dust control and aesthetics.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the Specific Plan is a requirement in
the Regional Commercial District. Staff stated no, the applicant
did so because they exceeded the 22-foot height requirement.
Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any other mechanism that
would allow them to acquire the height limit without a specific
plan. Staff stated there are provisions to allow an element to
protrude beyond the height limitations, but this did not fall within
that provision.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the Architecture and Landscaping
Review Committee challenged the height of buildings. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated it is not within their
purview.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked where the 150 foot setback line was on
the plans. Staff indicated what page in the staff report and
indicated the location on the site plan. Commissioner Tyler stated
he was unable to find where the applicant had specifically
requested to exceed the 22 foot height limit. Staff stated there
was no specific verbiage in the plan; it is part of the site plan
request. Staff asked if the Commission would like this clarified in
the conditions for the Specific Plan. Commissioner Tyler asked
that it be written into the Specific Plan. He asked about the three
access points off Caleo Bay, if one was omitted it would give
more parking. Discussion followed regarding the access points
and parking spaces.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Robert Ricciardi, architect representing the
applicant, gave a presentation on the project.
6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler stated he thought the trash trucks
would have a difficult time getting in and out. Mr. Ricciardi stated
it is a minimal impact as they would be in and out before the
tenants arrived. To relocate it would require losing parking
spaces.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if he had any concerns about changing
the architectural style on the second office building. Mr. Ricciardi
stated they would like to keep the Spanish style.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked if the second building could go to 30
feet. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated no
and staff would condition the height limits.
9. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission regarding this project.
10. Mr. Chuck Patelli, general contractor for the project, explained the
purpose of the two driveways on Caleo Bay was to allow for the
future second building and to give additional fire access.
11. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter
up for Commission discussion.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Fire Department had requested the
second access. Staff stated they did not. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the applicant could have applied for a zone change, or
was a specific plan required in order to obtained the additional
height. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the
Zoning Code requires the 22 foot height limit unless, there was a
hardship to allow a variance, and in this case there was none.
Commissioner Kirk stated he supported the project as it is a nice
design. He stated Commissioner Tyler's comments regarding
access and parking orientation are fair. He will vote "no" on the
Specific Plan even though he will vote "yes" on the rest of the
project because he is not in favor of a specific plan being used to
change the height requirements.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the approved restaurant to the south
had any height variations. Staff stated no, it was 22 feet.
Commissioner Tyler questioned why there was a statement in the
conditions regarding how long it took to go through plan check.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the process. Commissioner
Tyler stated it was a valid point, but did not belong in the
conditions. Staff would remove the statement.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-050 recommending certification of a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2002-448, as submitted:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-051 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2002-056, subject to findings and
conditions as amended:
A. The future building pad elevation shall be a maximum 22
feet in height.
B. The Specific Plan shall be changed to reflect that the
building closest to Washington cannot exceed 30 feet as
indicated in the site plan.
C. Condition 20.E.: Eliminate the sentence regarding the time
required for plan checking.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Kirk/Robbins. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-052 recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2002-731, subject to
findings and conditions as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
A. Zoning Code Amendment 2002-072; a request of the City for a
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.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman 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 staff to explain "excluding dormers".
Staff stated the purpose was to exclude dormer windows and
explained why. Commissioner Tyler asked why not allow any roof
changes within five years. Staff explained this was to prevent a
homeowner from changing their roof structure to allow room for
the second story unit. Commissioners asked that Section "C" be
deleted. Commissioner Tyler questioned allowing access from the
garage as it would require a different set of fire regulations and
should not be allowed.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the roof's were altered would it not
have to come back to the Planning Commission for a compatibility
review. Staff stated yes, that would be a compatibility issue.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Kirk supported the request with the deletion of
Section "C".
6. Commissioner Butler agreed.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked that the option for a garage access be
deleted.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-053 recommending to the City Council approval
of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-072, as amended:
A. Section A: Dormers are prohibited
B. Section C: Deleted
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
C. Section H: Delete "or garage"
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
D. Addendum to a Certified Riverside County Environmental Impact Report
No 232 (SCH #9164450613444. Environmental Assessment 2002-447.
and Zone Change 2002-107; a request of Dave Twedt/Shea Homes for:
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 Residential), RM (Medium Density Residential), GC
(Golf Course), and OS (Open Space) for 640 acres in Riverside County.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magaha 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 why the City was not requesting
agricultural zoning for the date farmer. Staff explained he is
grandfathered in and would be allowed to continue farming for as
long as wants to.
3. Commissioner Butler clarified it was a preannexation request.
Staff stated yes.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on why the Planning
Commission was certifying two environmental analysis. Staff
stated the Addendum was completed because an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was completed for the original project. Staff
did an Addendum for the area not included in the first project.
Commissioner Kirk asked if an agency could approve an
Addendum to an EIR that was completed by a different lead
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
agency. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated it has been
done before on advice of the City Attorney. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated this was done for the
Coral Mountain project that has been annexed and for the area
that is currently before LAFCO for annexation.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked if the entire section being considered
was a part of the Zone Change and environmental before the
Commission. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Robbins stated he
would have to excuse himself due to a possible conflict of interest
and withdrew from the dias.
6. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Rich
Nowland, representing Shea Homes, gave a presentation on the
project.
7. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler questioned the property to the
west as it did not look buildable due to the levy. Mr. Nowland
stated there are two property owners in this area and they have
plans for the property.
8. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this project. There being no further public
comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion
of the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission
discussion.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-054 recommending certification of an Addendum
to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 232
prepared for Specific Plan 218 Amendment No. 1, pursuant to the
findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Abels. NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-055 recommending
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-447, pursuant to the
findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Abels. NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-056, recommending
approval of Zone Change 2002-107 subject to the findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Robbins rejoined the Commission.
D. Environmental Assessment 2002-450 and Specific Plan 2002-058; a
request of Marvin Investments for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and review of development
principals and guidelines for a 127,517 square foot commercial complex
in nine buildings on six acres located on the south side of Calle Tampico,
between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive and the southeast
corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if Calle Tampico had a height restriction
of 22 feet. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated
it does have that designation; however, the Planning Commission
and City Council adopted a General Plan policy that states this
height limitation is not applicable to Calle Tampico. Commissioner
Tyler asked staff to review the locations for the shared parking
areas.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
3. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to characterize the use of the
parking lot. Staff noted it is used very sparsely. Commissioner
Kirk asked why the City built this parking lot. Staff noted it was
intended to be supplemental parking for downtown uses.
Commissioner Kirk asked about the final street improvements for
La Fonda. Staff stated they are budgeted for the next fiscal year.
Commissioner Kirk stated he had met with the applicant and had
several informal discussions regarding the project.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if staff was comfortable with the
parking being provided on site. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated the last projects reviewed and approved by
the Planning Commission/City Council were approved with the
shared parking policy.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked that the last sentence of Condition #21
be deleted.
6. Chairman Abels noted he too had met with the applicant in regard
to the project.
7. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Wells Marvin, applicant, gave a presentation on
the project and discussed conditions he would ask the Commission
to modify or delete. Ms. Margo Thibeault, Mainiero Smith and
Associates, asked for clarification on Condition #12, as they
believe it will compromise their street -scene and street design and
would like to request that no specification be required on the size
of the width. They would like to work out the width of the utility
easement with Imperial Irrigation District. Condition #51, there is
an existing bus turnout on Avenida Bermudas and they are not
proposing any changes or relocation to the bus stop so they are
asking for clarification on the purpose of the condition. Condition
#52 there are existing sidewalks on most of the perimeter of the
site and clarified that where there are no sidewalks on Avenida
Bermudas they will be installing sidewalks. On Avenida La Fonda
the City will be completing the improvements and the sidewalks
are complete on Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive. Condition
#54 there is no room for pedestrian refuse. Condition #59 there
are no retention basins on site and would like any reference to a
retention basin deleted. Condition #61 refers to the bus turn out
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
again and they need clarification as to what is being required of
them. Condition #88 they believe one driveway is sufficient for
the overflow parking area.
8. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant to explain the
use of the palms for the primary street trees as they will not be
providing shade. Mr. Marvin stated they are the same palms used
in the center islands on Avenida La Fonda. They are providing 12-
14 foot arcades to provide shade to pedestrians on every elevation
on the north side. The parking areas will have shade trees.
Commissioner Kirk asked if there was an access point between the
Arts Foundation and his project. Mr. Marvin stated there will be
a space at this location, but not sure it will be an access point.
Commissioner Kirk asked if Mr. Marvin was concerned about the
mid -block crosswalk on Desert Club Drive because of the traffic
speeds. Mr. Marvin stated he agrees with the sidewalk, but
without the refuge and not at the location indicated by staff, as
the road is not wide enough to make it practical.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to address the concerns raised.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that due to the applicant's
reliance on parking that is on the far side of the street and not on
its own site, the City parking lot takes up a significant amount of
space on the west side of the street. Staff believes this will cause
a lot of mid -block crossing if crosswalks are not defined. The City
has installed it's first mid -block sidewalks on Calle Estado. The
City is proposing the same on Desert Club Drive to create the
same street scene where the pedestrian only have to cross 14-feet
of street and then the refuge and 14 feet to the other side.
Parking would not be allowed on either side of the street in this
area. The crosswalk would also be raised to create a slight speed
bump to slow traffic down. The same crosswalk design would be
installed on Avenida Bermudas. Commissioner Kirk asked if it
would not be better to direct pedestrians down the main street
rather than to the parking lot. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
the location was chosen to not impede any left turns. Discussion
followed as to crosswalk designs and locations.
10. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain a "pedestrian refuge".
Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained it is a raised median with
raised planters and a 45-degree cut -through between for the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
pedestrian traffic and would be approximately 10 feet wide. In
regard to the other concerns raised, they would remove Condition
#55 as it is covered in the specifications. Staff would not require
a specific number of the trash receptacles until the site plans was
submitted (Condition #84). In regard to the Imperial Irrigation
District (IID) easement, staff will work with the applicant and IID
in regard to the width for the public easement (Condition #12).
Condition #52 is appropriate as written. In regard to the bus stop
(Conditions #51 and #61), the City is asking them to work with
Sunline in regard to their requirements. Condition #59, the
"retention basin" would be deleted.
11. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #87 which references
a letter from the Sheriff's Department, it was not contained in
their packet. Mr. Marvin stated they would work with the
Sheriff's Department in regard to any of their concerns.
12. Commissioner Kirk noted that on Exhibit 13, on the north side of
Main Street, there are two covered arcades, one with the arches
which is outstanding and the other with a tiled pitched roof, where
the parapet walls does not work. Mr. Marvin stated the look is to
resemble the La Quinta Hotel shops. They want a variety of
building styles with arcades to resemble the Santa Barbara look.
In regard to the location of the crosswalk on Desert Club Drive he
would prefer to have it at the end of the Main Street and again he
does not think it would be appropriate to have a refuge at this
location. There is no room on Desert Club Drive. In regard to the
utility easements, this site is surrounded by existing street and
they could have built it out without putting any streets through it.
They can service with water and power all the buildings from the
perimeter. If they have to put a five or ten foot easement on
either or both sides of the street, it eliminates their ability to make
the tree well sizes adequate for the palm trees. They are
requesting they be able to work this out with IID In regard to the
Sunline, if the City owns the street and accommodates Sunline, it
should remain within the City's purview as to where the bus stop
should be placed and not be up to Sunline.
13. Chairman Abels commended the applicant on his proposal and
asked if there was any other public comment. There being no
further public comment, the public participation portion of the
public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
14. Commissioner Robbins stated it is what the Village needs and he
is generally in favor of the shared parking.
15. Commissioner Kirk agreed and stated he looks forward to the site
plan. The applicant has made some strong points on the
conditions and the applicant should be able to come to a
compromise with staff on the conditions.
16. Commissioner Butler agreed it has been a long time coming and he
is glad to see the project in process.
17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-057 recommending to the City Council
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment 2002-450, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-058 recommend
approval of Specific Plan 2002-058, subject to the findings and
conditions as amended:
A. Condition #12: Delete
B. Condition #21: Delete the sentence referring to the time for
plan check.
C. Condition #51: Delete the word "relocate"
D. Condition #54: Delete as it will be reviewed during the site
development permit process for Phase II and III.
E. Condition #55: Delete
F. Condition #59: Delete the word "retention basin".
G. Condition #61: Delete as it will be reviewed during the site
development permit process for Phase II and III
H. Condition #84: Delete
I. Condition #88: Provide one driveway rather than two.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
E. Environmental Assessment 2002-451 and Site Development Permit
2002-736: a request of Tenet Care California, Inc. for Certification of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and 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 48.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked why the access on Caleo Bay is not
aligned with Dulce Del Mar. Staff explained it was for shielding to
the accesses to their project.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Jim Henry, representing the applicant, gave a
presentation on the project. In regard to the off -set driveway they
would like to shield the traffic so those exiting would be able to se
into the other development. Following discussion, it was
determined to line up the two access points.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated it was a great addition to the
neighborhood, meets the heights limits, the parking is adequate,
but he would like the driveways aligned.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-059 recommending to the City Council
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-451, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-060 recommend approval
of Site Development Permit 2002-736, subject to the findings and
conditions as amended:
A. Condition #16: Delete the sentence regarding plan check
timing.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
F. Environmental Assessment 2002-441 and Tentative Tract Man 30378
a request of Rod Vandenbos for Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and approval to subdivide 9.13 acres
into 8 residential lots and other common lots located at the southwest
corner of Avenue 51 and Madison Street.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked why he was responsible for the full
width and not the half width of the street in Condition #8, #56.
Staff would correct the conditions to only require 55 feet on the
west side. Commissioner Tyler asked if "Beth Circle" was the
proposed name for the access off of Madison Street. Staff stated
that is the existing name of the street. The applicant will be
applying for a street name change at a later date. The site is
mapped and recorded but there are no streets. Commissioner
Tyler asked about the issues raised in the letter from Mrs.
McGinty. Staff stated some of the issues are at the Commission's
discretion. In regard to the partially finished building, it is a
permitted storage building. Commissioner Tyler asked if the
property is rezoned, is the second building permitted. Staff stated
the applicant intends to convert the building to a guest house or
garage.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
3. Commissioner Kirk asked what justification does the City have to
require the applicant to retain the citrus. Staff stated the applicant
has stated his desire to do so, therefore staff conditioned it. The
first row and maybe the second row is intended to be integrated
into the setback landscaping. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City
could do this if it was not a mitigation measure. Staff stated yes.
4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Rod Vandenbos, 79-110 Christian Court, the
applicant, gave a presentation on the project.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the trees abutting the Green Valley
Ranches development would be retained. Mr. Vandenbos stated
the gcal is to keep as many of the trees as possible, but several
are damaged and not worth retaining. He is working with the
neighbors to resolve the issues. The "agricultural building" is
being finalized and will be used for farming equipment and
supplies.
6. Mr. David Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers, questioned
Conditions #8 which has now been addressed by staff. Condition
#22. A., B., & C they would like to request "bonded for" rather
than "prepared". Condition #36 they need some flexibility in
regard to the pad heights to allow them to retain as many of the
trees as possible. Conditions #42 and #45 they would like to
request the maximum percolation rate be four to six inches per
hour rather than two inches and the retention depth not exceed
four feet. Condition #56.A.1.a.b. if a six foot meandering sidewalk
and 14 foot multipurpose they would not be able to retain as many
trees. They would like to request waiting to see what the City of
Indio requires for across the street and work in conjunction with
them. Condition #56.13 and #60 they would like to request the
same, see what the City of Indio requires across the street. They
would like some flexibility in regard to the turning movements.
Condition #66 they would like to have deleted.
7. Commissioner Butler asked if the street improvements would be
bonded for future construction of the streets. Mr. Turner stated
yes. Commissioner Butler asked the reason for the right turn
restriction. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is required by
the General Plan. In regard to the turning movement, staff would
be willing to wait to see what develops on the other side of the
street.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 15
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
8. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was any conservative effort
with the City of Indio to design this street. Staff stated there was
none not at this time.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked about the retention basins and
percolation rates. Staff stated the percolation rate, size, and
depth are determined by City Ordinance. If you do on -site, on -lot
retention, the Ordinance calls for the lots to be no smaller than
two and one half acres. The intent is to keep it shallow to keep
it safe.
10. Commissioner Tyler asked about the pad height. Staff stated
there are no pads. Discussion followed regarding the pad
elevations. Mr. Vandenbos stressed the need to have a full
movement. Staff stated the only way it can be changed is with
a General Plan Amendment
11. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
12. Commissioner Tyler stated at this time this street is not a major
street. He asked if a General Plan Amendment could be applied
for to address the entry. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated it would require amending the General Plan.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-061 recommending to the City Council
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-441, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-062, recommend
approval of Tentative Tract Map 30378, subject to the findings
and conditions as amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 16
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
A. Condition #8: the applicant shall construct 55 foot half
width
B. Condition #22.A.: The applicant shall contribute to the
design cost.
C. Condition #22.B: Delete.
D. Condition #22.C: The applicant shall construct the
perimeter landscaping
E. Conditions #36 & 37: Delete
F. Condition #56A.1.a.b.: The applicant shall construct a 10-
foot multipurpose trail.
G. Condition #87: Preserve one row of existing citrus trees on
the north perimeter of the project.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
H. Site Development Permit 2001-721; a request of Coachella Petroleum,
Inc. for consideration of a shade structure for a vehicle service area
located at 78-988 Highway 111 (Jiffy Lube).
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit 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 shade structure would be visible
from Adams Street. Staff stated yes.
3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-063, approving Site Development Permit 2002-
721, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 17
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A Sign Application 2002-616; a request of Graphic Resources for
Champion Cadillac (formerly Simon Motors) for review of existing signage
to reflect new ownership and new sign types located at the southwest
corner of Simon Drive and Highway 1 1 1
1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman 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 staff to explain the disadvantage in
Finding "B". Staff explained the location.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Skip Berg, Graphic Resources, representing the
applicant gave a presentation on the sign program. He requested
maintaining the 12-foot sign at the corner of Simon Drive and
Highway 111.
4. Chairman Abels asked the height of the other monument signs on
Highway 11 1. Staff stated they are all eight feet. In regard to the
pennants, banners, and balloons, additional height can be allowed
if there is a disadvantage. In this instance, there is no
disadvantage.
5. Commissioner Robbins stated he was not opposed, but did not
know what mechanism could be used. Staff stated they can
appeal it to the City Council, but it will require a specific plan.
6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation and opened the matter for Commission
discussion.
7. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was a provision to allow the
pennants. Staff stated if pennants were determined to be an
alternative sign, they could be permitted.
8. The Commission determined that the requested pennants and flags
are not alternative signs and that the applicant needs to apply for
a specific plan.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 18
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-010,
approving Sign Application 2002-616, as recommended.
Unanimously approved.
Vill. 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 May
21, 2002.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held June 11, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. on May 28, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-28-02.wpd 19
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 11, 2002
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
APPLICANT: SUMMIT TEAM, INC. (DAVID B. ISRAELSKY)
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS
FOR A SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF 5,839
SQUARE FEET IN THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING
CENTER (PAD SITE "D")
LOCATION:
PROPERTY OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET,
APPROXIMATELY 532 ± FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO
ROSETTE CADRY
FLEMING ASSOCIATES
WILSON ASSOCIATES
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/CN (NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL)
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 91-187) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR PLOT PLAN 91-456 ON APRIL 18, 1991,
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. THERE
ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS OR
NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
G:\SRPCSDP739 Summit.wpd;Greg - page 1
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: ACROSS THE ACCESS DRIVEWAY, EXISTING 116 UNIT VILLA
CORTINA APARTMENT COMPLEX
SOUTH: EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES (TAQUERIA GRILL
RESTAURANT AND VILLAGE VIDEO) AND AFFILIATED PARKING
AREAS ON PAD SITE "C"
EAST: ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET, EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSES
WEST: ACROSS A DRIVEWAY AISLE AND PARKING LOT AREAS, THE
VILLA CORTINA APARTMENT COMPLEX
BACKGROUND:
Site History
The vacant pad is within the La Quinta Village Shopping Center, a partially completed
commercial development that was approved by the City in 1991 under Plot Plan 91-
456 for the northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. A Spanish
architectural design motif was chosen for the center utilizing exterior cement plaster,
ceramic the accents, wood trellises, and Mission -style clay roof tile. In 1992, the size
of the shopping center was reduced in size from 11.8 ± acres to approximately 9.25
acres thereby lowering the center's projected size to 85,645 square feet from
116,000 square feet. Amendment #2 of Plot Plan 91-456 in 1994 reduced the size
of the center to 79,333 square feet. Under this change, Pad "D" showed a future
building of 5,000 square feet (58.82' wide by 85' long) for this project site with
perimeter building setbacks of 30' on the east, 10' on the north and 1 1.5' on the west
(Attachment 1).
The Ralph's Supermarket (Store #195) was completed in November 1994, along with
development of the adjacent shop buildings, perimeter site landscaping, parking lot
areas and a 0.7 acre retention basin. Perimeter freestanding pad buildings were built
in 1996 (Pad "B") and 1995 (Pad "C"), respectively. Building heights within the
shopping center typically range from 20' to 30' high, excluding tower elements that
are up to 42'-0" high. Existing buildings in the center make up 67,570± square feet
oriented around 455 parking spaces, a ratio of one stall per 148.5 square feet or 6.7
spaces/1000 square feet. Currently, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the center is 0.16.
Parking within the center is a combination of angled and 90 degree stalls and the
predominate shade tree is the Chilean Mesquite. Decorative carriage -style lanterns are
used to light front building facades.
G:\SRPCSDP739 Summit.wpd;Greg - page 2
On June 28, 1994, the Planning Commission approved the La Quinta Village Sign
Program establishing design standards and guidelines for freestanding and building
signs. In -line shopping center tenants are allowed under canopy internally illuminated
cabinet signs measuring 18-inches wide by 10'-0" long (15 sq. ft. surface area) by 12-
inches deep. A copy of the approved exhibit is attached (Attachment 2). The program
specifies that each tenant is "... limited to one sign only with corner tenants allowed
a second sign on the second frontage. Sign cabinets shall be aluminum and have a
brown painted finish while face plates are %2-inch thick #6 density foam with Plexiglas
lettering. At night, only the graphic lettering is visible as the background area is
opaque. Sign copy can be single or double line format. A deviation to the Sign
Program was allowed for the Dyson/Dyson Real Estate building (previously Sesame's
Restaurant) on Pad "B" and a channel lettering sign is permitted for development of
a bank on Pad "A". The Planning Commission approved these exceptions because
they were single tenant buildings and architectural design elements were slightly
different than existing shop buildings. Also, corporate signs were allowed for Ralphs
and Pizza Hut (east bldg. elevation only). Freestanding center ID signs exist on both
perimeter streets and were installed in 1995.
Recordation of Parcel Map 27984 in 1995 created seven parcels in the La Quinta
Village Shopping Center. Parcel 4, the project site, is listed at 32,734.76 square feet
(0.75 acres) and is overlayed by common parking areas and driveways for the
shopping center. The center shares a signalized driveway access on Washington
Street with the Villa Cortina Apartment complex.
Only two vacant pad sites remain in the development. First Bank, the owner of Pad
"A", plans to built a bank on its Calle Tampico property. The Planning Commission
approved the conceptual architectural plans for a 5,710 square foot one story bank in
1995 under Plot Plan 95-551, but this permit expired on May 2, 1997.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to build a one story commercial building for three business
tenants on portions of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 27984 (Attachment 3). Future tenants
are anticipated to be a donut shop, dry cleaners and sandwich shop restaurant in
suites ranging in size from 945 square feet to 3,686 square feet. The rectangular
building of 5,839 square feet measures approximately 62'-4" wide on Washington
Street by 93'-0" long on the north and south sides and is sited 30'-0" from the
Washington Street property line. Storefronts typically face to the south onto the
proposed parking lot and are shaded from the sun by a roofed pedestrian arcade.
Outdoor patio seating is planned on the east side of the building for the donut shop
(Suite C).
G:\SRPCSDP739 Summit.wpd;Greg - page 3
A California -Mediterranean architectural design, utilizing smooth troweled exterior
stuccoed surfaces and multicolored red clay the roofing, is proposed. The building
varies in height from 22'-0" to 23"-9" using a mansard style roof to screen mechanical
equipment. Exterior facade treatments have been designed to match the existing
buildings in the shopping center through the use of decorative arched columns, roof
covered building entrances, raised storefront windows, and exposed roof trusses.
Building facades are finished using Merlex stucco (P-100 Crystal White/Santa Barbara
Spanish texture) and exposed wood roof eaves will receive a dark brown stain.
Variegated Mexican stone the is to be applied to the lower portions of each building
column to match existing structures. An exterior material and color sample board will
be available at the meeting.
Minor modifications are planned to the existing parking facilities on Parcel 4 which are
located to the south of the building pad. This parking area is connected to existing
parking facilities on Parcel 5. Six new parking spaces measure 9'-0" wide by 20'-0"
long are planned, including two additional spaces designed for the physically
challenged employees and patrons. Existing 24' high parking lot security lights will be
used to light the parking surfaces at night.
A conceptual landscaping plan has been submitted consisting of perimeter shrub
hedges around the building (north and east sides only), two shade trees and
miscellaneous groundcover. Plant and tree sizes have not been provided. The
applicant's plan notes that existing shopping center landscaping adjacent to the project
will be retained, including five mature palm trees on the north side of the building that
flank the existing four lane access driveway. A low level decorative stucco wall is
proposed on the east side of the outdoor dining area to screen the southerly portion
of the dining area to match the perimeter walls in the center. The applicant is
proposing a four foot wide pedestrian sidewalk that will connect the building's
pedestrian arcade sidewalk to the sidewalk on Washington Street.
Building elevations exhibit internally illuminated sign cabinets measuring 20-inches
wide by 12'-0" long (20 ± sq. ft.) for each tenant space in a similar design style to the
shopping center. Since each business has multiple building facades, multiple signs per
tenant have been proposed. As an example, Suite "C" has a sign on the south, north
and east building elevations.
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC)
The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed this request at its
meeting of June 5, 2002, and on a 3-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2002-023
recommending approval, subject to Condition #30 being imposed (Attachment 4).
G:\SRPCSDP739 Summit.wpd;Greg - page 4
Public Notice - This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on May 30,
2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. To date,
no correspondence has been received.
Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public
agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the
Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been
included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.
MANDATORY FINDINGS:
As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, all
findings can be met with the exception of the following:
1 . Landscape Design: The applicant's site plan proposes a small landscape planter
on the west side of the building.
Response: Existing buildings in the shopping center have landscape planters
around their perimeters. This project proposes a small two foot wide landscape
planter on the west side of the building which is not consistent with the
conceptual site plan drawings for the center. Therefore, Condition #31 requires
a minimum 3.5' wide landscape planter on the west side of the building that
provides a buffer between the driveway aisle and the building. This condition
requires the developer to reduce the size of the building to accommodate this
requirement because the building cannot be shifted to the east into the
Washington Street setback of 30 feet. One option the developer may consider
is to reconstruct the drive aisle on the west side of the building to increase the
pad site to accommodate the proposed building. Should the developer wish to
consider this design option, staff can evaluate the change during plan check
consideration, subject to review and approval by the Public Works and
Community Development Departments.
2. Sign Program: The applicant has requested internally illuminated under canopy
signs (20" wide by 12'-0" long) for each tenant space.
Response: Under the existing La Quinta Village Shopping Center Sign Program,
the developer is limited to cabinet signs measuring 18-inches wide by 10'-0"
long for each tenant space. Condition #50 addresses this issue. Corner units
are allowed a maximum of two signs unless the Planning Commission
determines a sign adjustment is warranted to allow one per facade. Staff is
discouraging signs on the north side of the building due to view blockage by the
existing Date Palm trees and the fact that the primary storefronts are on the
south side of the building.
G:\SRPCSDP739 Summit.wpd;Greg - page 5
CONCLUSION:
The current Zoning Code requires buildings within 150 feet of Washington Street to
have a roof height of not more than 22'-0". This Code provision was enacted in 1996
to insure low profile building were construction adjoining Image Corridors and
Major/Primary Arterial thoroughfares. However, the Code permits architectural
projections to exceed this height based on the following statement: "... architectural
features not containing usable floor space, such as chimneys, towers, gables and
spires, are permitted to extend fifteen feet above the maximum structure height set
forth in Table 9-6 if approved as part of a site development or other permit (Section
9.90.020)." Staff has reviewed the original design concepts for this shopping center
and variable roof heights were envisioned in 1991 when the project was initially
approved. Therefore, Condition #49 is recommended to allow the roofline for the
project to vary from 22'-0" to 23'-9" to retain the architectural integrity of the
shopping center.
Regarding the change in size of the proposed building, the Planning Commission has
the authority to deviate from the original conceptual plan size of 5,000 sq. ft. for Pad
"D" as long at the square footage size for the center does not exceed 79,333 square
feet. Discussion of the size of the center and related parking facilities will be revisited
at such time as development is planned for the First Bank property, the last pad site
in the development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Site Development Permit
2002-739, subject to findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Plot Plan 91-456 (Amendment #2) Site Plan
2. Sign Program Exhibit
3. Proposed Site Plan
4. ALRC Minutes of June 5, 2002 (Excerpt)
5. Large Exhibits (Commission only)
4y
Prleparl bY
:
Greg Trb isdell,kAssociate Planner
G:\SRPCSDP739 Summit.wpd;Greg - page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE, SITE, AND LIGHTING
PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIPLE TENANT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON PAD "D" IN THE LA QUINTA
VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
APPLICANT: SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 1 111 day of June, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Summit Team, Inc. to approve the architecture, landscape, site, and lighting
plans for a one-story retail building of 5,839± square feet on a portion of a 9.25-acre
shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zone District located at the
northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico, more particularly described
as:
Assessor's Parcel Number: 770-020-018 (Parcel #4 of Parcel Map No. 27984)
Portion of the SE 1 /4 of the NW 1 /4 of Section 6, T6S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, on June
5, 2002, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the architectural and
landscaping plans, subject to conditions; 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 the Community Development Director
has determined this request has been previously assessed in conjunction with
Environmental Assessment 91-187, prepared for Plot Plan 91-456, for which a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified by the City Council on
April 16, 1991, and that no changed circumstances, conditions or new information has
been provided that would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental
assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code:
GAResoPC Sdp739Summ1t.wpd-Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Site Development Permit 2002-739
Team Summit, Inc
June 11, 2002
Page 2
1. Consistency with General Plan. The proposed commercial building is in a
Neighborhood Commercial designated area which encourages retail and office
uses in close proximity to Arterial thoroughfares and residential neighborhoods
on 10- to 20-acre sites. This project, as designed, complies with the shopping
center's development concept and with the City's General Plan Land Use
guidelines. With development of this project, the shopping center's Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) will rise to 0.18 where 0.25 is authorized.
2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed commercial building is consistent
with the development standards of the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
District with regard to setbacks, building height, exterior lighting, and parking
requirements based on the proposed Conditions of Approval. The proposed
building height is varied and consistent in design with existing on -site
commercial buildings. Future business tenants shall be consistent with Table
9.5 of the Zoning Code before an occupancy permit is granted by the City.
3. Architectural Design. The proposed architectural design of the one story
building reflects the design guidelines for the La Quinta Village Shopping Center
through the use of smooth stucco, barrel -tile roofing, stone veneer, raised
storefront windows, columns and arches, and other architectural elements
matching existing structures. The proposed building height is varied and
consistent in design with existing on -site commercial buildings, ensuring a low -
profile appearance from Washington Street, a Primary Image Corridor. A roof
projection of 23'-9" for the building entrance will not adversely impact views
in the immediate area as apartment units to the west are multistoried and
comparable in overall vertical height.
4. Site Design. As conditioned, the proposed project site is designed to be
consistent with the circulation pattern for the existing shopping center.
Hardscape surfaces have been provided for pedestrian access into each building
suite and new parking spaces will augment existing common parking facilities
between Pads "D" and "C", providing a ratio of one parking space per 161
square feet of lease area for the entire shopping complex. The proposed project
GAResoPC Sdp739Summit.wpd-Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Site Development Permit 2002-739
Team Summit, Inc
June 11, 2002
Page 3
is physically suitable for the freestanding pad site as conceived under Plot Plan
91-456.
5. Landscape Design. As conditioned, the proposed landscape plan is consistent
with the landscape guidelines for the La Quinta Village Shopping Center. A
variety of plant materials will provide screening of parking areas and building
facades to lessen the impact of the building mass. The proposed project is
compatible with the existing commercial business and residential projects in the
immediate area.
6. Sign Program. Internally illuminated cabinet signs are proposed for each tenant
space in compliance the La Village Shopping Center Sign Program, provided
sizes are limited to 18-inches wide by 10'-0" long (15 square feet) by 12-inches
deep. Each tenant is required to obtain a sign permit before a sign can be
installed as required by the proposed Conditions of Approval. Tenant signs shall
be limited to east, west and south facing building facades, ensuring no more
than one sign per storefront is allowed.
7. Lighting Design. Exterior building lighting is to match the existing shopping
center in compliance with City requirements.
8. Infrastructure. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental
to public health and safety, in that the site is in a developed urban area where
services exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That the project is in compliance with the provisions and conditions of Plot Plan
91-456 and Environmental Assessment 91-187 as designed;
3. That public hearing notices were mailed to adjacent property owners by the
Community Development Department and posted in the Desert Sun Newspaper
on May 30, 2002 as required by Zoning Ordinance provisions; and
GAResoPC Sdp739Summit.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Site Development Permit 2002-739
Team Summit, Inc
June 11, 2002
Page 4
4. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-739 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 11 tl, day of June, 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
GAResoPC Sdp739Summit.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant and/or property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees
from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the
approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in
selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of 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 (DSUSD)
• 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.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
3. 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.
G:\condS DP739Summit. wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 2
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
( is\condSDP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 3
be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to
improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Site Development Plans: 1 " = 20' Horizontal
B. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal
C. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' 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.
"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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
G:\condS DP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 4
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format,
or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer
will accept raster -image files of the plans.
GRADING
12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
13. 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.
14. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit.
15. 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.
G:\condSDP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 5
16. 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.
17. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
18. 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.
19. 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 Vots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation
certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met.
DRAINAGE
20. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report for Parcel Map 27984.
UTILITIES
21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
( I:\condS DP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 6
22. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all aboveground 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.
23. 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/ACCESS POINTS
24. 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.
25. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Entry locations currently exist for the shopping center. No additional access
points are proposed.
26. Sidewalk access shall be provided from the proposed building through the parking
lot area to Pad "C" as depicted in Plot Plan 91-456.
LANDSCAPING
27. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development
Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC.
G:\condS DP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 7
28. The applicant shall provide landscaping in parking islands and open areas within
this parcel. Landscape and irrigation plans 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.
29. 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.
30. The landscaping plan shall indicate the following design elements:
A. The trees used throughout the site shall be eight to ten feet in height with
a minimum container size of 24" box and a minimum trunk caliper size of
1 .0-inch measured four foot above the ground once installed.
B. A dense hedge of five gallon shrubs shall be planted on the east side of the
parking lot to screen parked vehicles and outdoor dining areas.
C. Concrete surfaces for the outdoor patio shall be irregular in design and
colored. Small portions of the patio may extend into the 20' wide
landscape buffer along Washington Street, subject to review and approval
by the Community Development Director.
31. A minimum 3.5' wide planter (back of curb to building facade) shall be provided
on the west side of the building. The size of the building shall be reduced to
accommodate this greater planter width, unless changes to the site plan are
allowed by the Community Development Director and Public Works Department
during plan check.
( 3:\condS DP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 8
QUALITY ASSURANCE
32. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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
36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
37. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance
of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
( 3:\condSDP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 9
FEES AND DEPOSITS
38. 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.
39. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Conditions are subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve (12) months. Final conditions will
be addressed when architectural building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must
be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions
regarding the meaning of the Fire Department conditions should be referred to the Fire
Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886.
40. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run
concurrent with the City plan check.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Any operation that produces grease-ladden vapors will require a hood/duct
system for fire protection.
44. The 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.
(i:\condSDP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 10
45. Install a Knox key lock box on the building. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards.
46. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code.
MISCELLANEOUS
47. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking processes.
48. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by roof parapets so
that they cannot be viewed from adjacent properties. Prior to occupancy of the
proposed building complex, a visual inspection shall be made by the Community
Development Department from all sides of the building from a distance of 800
feet to confirm that the parapets conceal any roof mounted equipment.
49. Roof elements shall be limited to a height of 22'-0", excluding the roof structure
over the main entrance which is allowed to be up to 23'-9" high.
50. All proposed building signs shall comply with the La Quinta Village Shopping
Center Sign Program, including size, location, number and materials. Tenant
signs shall be restricted to east, west and south sides of the building with Suite
"A" limited to two signs, Suite "B" limited to one sign, and Suite "C" limited to
two signs, ensuring no more than one sign per storefront facade. A Sign
Application shall be filed to install any building signs, subject to approval by the
Community Development Department.
51. Trash receptacles for this development shall not be visible from Washington
Street.
52. Exterior building lights shall match those used in the shopping center.
53. Minor amendments to the plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Director. Major changes to the overall design of the development
shall required Planning Commission review.
( ;: \condS DP739Summit.wpd/greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-739
SUMMIT TEAM, INC.
JUNE 11, 2002
PAGE 11
54. In the event that the permittee violates or fails to comply with any of the
Conditions of Approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals,
certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Comments from the Riverside County Sheriff Department are on file with the
Community Development Department. The following safety issues shall be addressed
during plan check consideration:
55. Internally illuminated building address numbers shall be 12-inches or larger.
56. Security hardware shall be installed on access doors and any skylights.
57. Roof access ladders shall be installed inside the building.
Q \con dSDP739Summit.wpd/grog
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
;:#.,,>:,:.. �,• Attachment 2
"r 7 tA,
. 4'�•`
•lN'/Y �y��ii•, a
e ram,
� r
�p�to�Qcar P
•TP'�T T..hr�' �V7
r A
4,4
3f u
SCALE: V-1W
SINGLE FACED, INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED UNDER CANOPY CABINET SIGN a .
CABINET: FABR. FROM ALUMINUM, PAINTED MATT£ .BmwN "f SH TO MATCH BE" - FAAZEE ! S WM -BOURWW
FACE: 1 /r THICK, 80 DENs" = SON WAM AOt7TW O4JW ',00P►' 4
BACKED WITH PLEMLAS, ^00GLA8, 0LOR
• FOAM FACE W(TH'MMSKW.f NW4T0 MATCH MONUMENt $K* - FRAZEEak S78D-W VHR'E SHADOW '
INTERNAL ILLUMINATION WITH FLUORESCENT LAMPS
MOUNTING: FROM ABOVE W/ 1' SG. ALUMINUM TUBING
Attachment
old
1. 0
LL
Ll
FY
lv7
I II
PH #B
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 11, 2002
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-738
APPLICANT: AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION
(PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS)
PROPERTY OWNER: AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A ±4,500 S.F. COMMERCIAL OFFICE
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
47T" AVENUE (ATTACHMENT #1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES SECTION 15332
(INFILL DEVELOPMENT)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
• • •
The 4.9 acre project site was approved for a 53,500 square -foot commercial office
complex in April 2001, referred to as La Quinta Professional Plaza. That approval
included a Specific Plan for the entire site, along with a Site Development Permit for
the existing temporary Palm Desert National Bank, and the permanent facility
currently under construction. All additional structures for the site must be in
compliance with the approved Specific Plan, and must be reviewed via the Site
Development Permit process.
• • - 0111MI
The applicant proposes a ±4,500 square foot commercial/office building on Pad 4 of
PM 29889, along 47th Avenue at the north edge of the site (Attachment #2). This
office space will ultimately attach with the proposed buildings on Pads 3 and 5, and
although all three will be separately held properties, the spaces will give the
appearance of one building.
ALRC Action - On June 5, 2002, the ALRC reviewed the project landscaping and
building architecture for the project (Attachment #3, ALRC minutes). No significant
issues were raised by the Committee, which unanimously recommended approval of
the Site Development Permit as recommended by staff.
Building_ Height - The Specific Plan proposes building heights up to 35 feet (tower
features may extend up to 40 feet). The proposed office building has a peak roof
height of 32 feet. The CR district allows building heights of four stories, up to 50
feet, but limits building height to 22 feet for structures within 150 feet of any Primary
Image Corridor and Major and Primary Arterial, as designated in the General Plan. The
proposed structure is not within 150 feet of any such roadways.
Building Arrangement - The Specific Plan indicates three separate buildings in this
area; however the developer will be arranging these buildings to attach or be adjacent
to one another, creating an appearance of one building. Staff has determined that this
arrangement is consistent with the Specific Plan siting, as the three building spaces
will be separate and the architectural style has not been compromised.
Relation to Lake La Quinta residential - The project lies just west of existing residential
areas of the Lake La Quinta project. Home sites along Via Orvieto back up to Caleo
Bay, with the rear yards facing toward the project site. During review of the Specific
Plan, the adjacent residents were consulted on this project by the developer, and their
input was considered. As a result, conditions were approved to limit building heights
along Caleo Bay to 28 feet, specifically on Parcel 5 just east of this proposal.
Lighting - The Specific Plan states that light pole height will not exceed 20 feet, with
18 feet the maximum along Caleo Bay. The developer has installed the pole light
fixtures at a height of 18 feet for all poles. This is in compliance with the applicable
zoning code sections on lighting of parking lots. The lighting has been accepted as
installed by the City.
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 31, 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 responsible and concerned public
agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development
Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval,
as appropriate.
Findings necessary to approve this proposal can be found in the resolution to be
adopted for this case.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , confirming the
environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and
granting approval cf Site Development Permit 2002-738, subject to conditions
as recommended by staff
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. On -site building location
3. ALRC minutes of 06/05/02 (2 pgs.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-738, TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A ±4,500 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDING
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-738
AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 11th day of June, 2002, consider a Site Development Permit application for
a ±4,500 square -foot commercial/office building, located near the southeast corner
of 47th Avenue and Washington Street and more particularly described as:
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 29889
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development
Department has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit is exempt
from CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development); and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site
Development Permit:
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 M/RC and other current City standards when
considering the conditions to be imposed.
2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning
Code, 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 and approved
under Specific Plan 2001-049. Specifically, development of existing CC land
is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan.
3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\peresosdp738.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that the
Site Development Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section
15332 (Infill Development), and that a Notice of Exemption should be filed.
4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will
be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake
La Quinta tract, the approved Specific Plan 2001-049, and with the overall
design quality prevalent in the City.
5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be
compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake
La Quinta tract, the approved Specific Plan 2001-049 and with the overall
design quality prevalent in the City.
6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been
designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed project with
the surrounding development, and is consistent with the landscape concept
approved for Specific Plan 2001-049.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case,
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-738 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 11 th day of June, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDPO2738\peresosdp738.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
C:\W rkg rp\Cased ocs\S P049\SDP02738\peresosd p738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-738
AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION
JUNE 11, 2002
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Site Development Permit 2002-738 (SDP 2002-738) 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 2002-738 the conditions shall take
precedence.
2. SDP 2002-738 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation
measures for the following related approvals:
• Environmental Assessment 2000-405
• Specific Plan 2000-049
• Tentative Parcel Map 29889
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of
these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine
precedence.
3. This approval shall expire 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.
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.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Riverside County Fire Marshal
• La Quinta Building and Safety Department
• La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading/
Improvement/Encroachment Permits)
• 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
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 2001-691 .
7. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases, operations,
etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring
Program and Negative Declaration (EA 2000-405), as certified by the La Quinta
City Council.
8. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance
with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the
Zoning Code.
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
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction
of essential improvements.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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. Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
B. Site Development Plans: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
C. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 ° = 40' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
"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.
14. 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.
FIRE PROTECTION
15. Specific fire protection requirements for each occupancy will be determined
when final building plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be
addressed when building plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to
the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
16. Depending on timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map
and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be
required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements
subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct
improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the
improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these
methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by
the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other
development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those
improvements.
17. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish
an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy
obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or
issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with
Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of
improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates
shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City Resolution or
ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V.
cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be
agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the
telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone
service to lots within the development.
19. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative
approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common
improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall
be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each
phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or
occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases
unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
20. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement
agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
22. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
23. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
D. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, and
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
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.
24. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
25. 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.
26. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
27. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the
site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown
on the approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed
grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
28. 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.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
DRAINAGE
29. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report for Lake La Quinta. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved
manner.
UTILITIES
30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
31. 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.
32. 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
33. 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.
34. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue during street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall
be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent
building(s) on the lot.
35. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
LANDSCAPING
36. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development
Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC.
37. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
38. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
CONSTRUCTION
41. 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. The final asphalt lift and
parking lot signing and striping shall be completed prior to final inspections of
habitable buildings.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
QUALITY ASSURANCE
42. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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
46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
47. 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
48. 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.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
Site Development Permit 2002-738
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 11, 2002
49. 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.
50. 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 permits).
MISCELLANEOUS
51. The applicant shall submit a detailed building lighting plan to include exterior
fixture details. The lighting plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the
building permit.
52. 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.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SDP02738\coapcsdp738.wpd
ATTACHMENTS
fiENT
Dudek &
DR4WING TIRE:
Vicinity Map
PREST
UKSIC
Q9
ARCHITECTS
&ASSOCIATES
A FROIE4KHILOO iVM1 Q1
FGURE NO
NOT TO SCALE `A, 2
��w
N
� U
n
�� W
ATTACHMENT M
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
June 5, 2002
B. Site Development Permit 2001-738; a request of Affiliated
ConstructioniPrest Vuksic Architects, for review of architectural and
landscaping plans for a 4,500 square foot two story office building in the
La Quinta Professional Plaza located at the southeast corner of Avenue
47 and Washington Street.
1. Committee Member David Thorns withdrew due to a possible
conflict of interest and left the meeting.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the dark brown wall on
the east elevation was offset on Building 4. Mr. Vuksic stated no.
It is set up as a property line wall. Committee Member
Cunningham stated the east elevation will eventually have another
building attached; Parcel 3. Until that is built it has around
element and relief metal to soften it.
3. Committee member Bobbitt asked if there were any provision that
something could be installed to soften the wall if Parcel 3 is not
built for a long period of time. Mr. Vuksic stated not at this time.
Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has no issues.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion
2002-021 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001-743, subject to the conditions as submitted. Unanimously
approved with Committee Member Thorns being absent.
C. Site Development Permit 2001-743; a request of Mel Rudman/Prest
Vuksic Architects, for review of architectural and landscaping plans for
a 5,063 square foot two story office building in the La Quinta
Professional Plaza located at the southeast corner of Avenue 47 and
Washington Street. Parcel 5
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Mr. John Vuksic, Prest/Vuksic Architects gave a presentation on
the project.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this was two different
buildings. Mr. Vuksic explained the site construction as being
individual lots that will eventually be joined together. Committee
Member Bobbitt asked if there were any setbacks. Staff noted
GAWPDOCS\ARI.C\6-5-02.wpd 4
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 11, 2002
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION 1 /AMENDMENT 1
REQUEST: 1. RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY AN ADDENDUM TO EA
99-389, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 15, 2000;
2. REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040, AND;
3. FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME AND AMENDMENT REQUEST
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323.
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND
JEFFERSON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEER: MAINIERO SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT 29323 ON FEBRUARY 15, 2000 (RESOLUTION 2000-12).
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 99-389 AND THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. BASED UPON THIS
ADDENDUM, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT NONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET
FORTH IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21166 HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TO EXIST AND, ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDENDUM TO
THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED.
GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), 0-4 UNITS PER ACRE
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\reports\perpt29323.wpd
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract Map 29323 was originally approved for 379 lots on 117 acres
Attachment 2). A Specific Plan was also approved, which included reductions in
development standards of the Zoning Code, pertaining to lot size and dimensions,
setback requirements and lot coverage. Existing approved lot sizes range from 4,493
to 15,263 square feet.
Subsequent to this approval, the property has been annexed to the City of La Quinta
effective April 17, 2001. No grading or other disturbance, beyond numerous trespass
violations, have occurred on the site.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the original 117 acre site into 349 lots
(Attachment 3). The proposed lots range in size from approximately 8,052 (residential
Lots 163 and 179) to 25,124 (Lot 345) square feet, with the average being ±9,500
square feet. Minimum lot widths would be 60 feet, with a 115 foot depth. The
proposed tract density is 2.98 units/acre, as opposed to the current 3.23 units/acre.
Essentially, the tract is being amended so as to meet the Zoning Code requirements
without the need for a Specific Plan. No unit types have been proposed for the lots,
but will be reviewed by the ALRC and Planning Commission at the appropriate time.
This proposal was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 21, 2002. All
property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice. As of the date this report was finalized, one written comment has been
received beyond the public agency comments (Attachment 4). All correspondence
received prior to the meeting will be presented to the Planning Commission.
Staff mailed a copy of the applicants request to responsible public agencies on May
21, 2002. All written comments received are on file with the Community
Development Department. All agency comments received have been made part of the
Conditions of Approval for this case, to the extent they are applicable.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision
Ordinance, the following overview of the project is provided:
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\reports\perpt29323.wpd
Ordinance, the following overview of the project is provided:
General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency
The General Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential (Up to 4 units per
acre) which allows single family uses (e.g., attached or detached housing units).
Tentative Tract 29323 decreases the existing lot count by 30 lots, or about 8%, and
decreases overall density from 3.23 to 2.98 units/acre.
With repeal of the Specific Plan, any issue of consistency reverts to the General Plan
document. Based on the proposed design, no General Plan issues have been
identified.
Tract Design/Improvements
The design of the private interior streets and the proposed residential and lettered lots
are similar to those in the existing tract approval. The overall tract design is
consistent with standards of the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance, with a
few minor adjustments to the tentative lot dimensions. Street and other infrastructure
improvements will be installed to service the proposed subdivision. Impacts
associated with development of the project shall be mitigated through adherence to
the recommended conditions.
Building heights along the north and west property boundaries could be a concern,
particuarly with respect to the significant on -site undulation of the property. In
addition to grading consistency requirements of Public Works, staff recommends a
building height limit of one story at a maximum of 22 feet around the entire project
perimeter, for a distance of 150 feet into the site.
Health and Safety
Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be required during
development of TT 29323. These include water, sewer, streets, and other necessary
improvements. The health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be
assured based on the recommended conditions, which serve to address the previous
assessment of these issues in the Environmental Assessment previously certified for
the tract.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending certification
of the Addendum to Environmental Assessment 99-389, subject to findings;
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\reports\perpt29323.wpd 3
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending repeal of
Specific Plan 99-040 (Sand Harbor); and,
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , confirming the
environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and
recommending approval of Extension #1 for TT 29323, Amended #1, subject
to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Approved TT 29323 map
3. Proposed Amended TT 29323
4. Comment letter from area resident
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
4
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\reports\perpt29323. wpd i
RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 99-389, FOR AN AMENDED SUBDIVISION OF
349 LOTS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED
WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 11 th day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider adoption
of an addendum to Environmental Assessment 99-389, for Extension #1 of Tentative
Tract 29323, Amended #1; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the
15th day of February, 2000, certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined under
Environmental Assessment 99-389, prepared for Specific Plan 99-040 and Tentative
Tract 29323, as set forth in said Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies 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 Director has conducted an Initial Study, and
has determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code 21 166
have been shown to exist; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 99-389, by Resolution No. 2000-12, prepared for SP 99-040 and TTM
29323, for Wade Ellis; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts
to justify certification of said Addendum:
1. The Revised Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the addendum prepared for the Revised Project did not identify
any significant impacts beyond the existing project approval.
2. The Revised Project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the addendum prepared for this Revised
Project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The Revised Project will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as those impacts identified for geologic, water, air quality,
biology, hydrology, noise, utility systems and cultural resources were addressed
P:\Wally\casedocs\Current\TT29323\Resos\eaaddreso.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Addendum to EA 96-328
September 25, 2001
as part of prior environmental review, with no significant new impacts being
identified with the Revised Project.
4. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, as the addendum prepared for
this Revised Project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the public
health, safety, or general welfare.
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 in this case;
2. That it does hereby affirm the environmental determination and recommend to the
City Council certification of an Addendum to EA 99-389 for Extension #1 of
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 1 1" day of June, 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
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 2002-446
1. Project Title: Cornerstone Development
Specific Plan 99-040
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1 /Extension #1
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: 117 acres on the Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive
and Washington Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cornerstone Development
5005 Calle San Raphael #B-1
Palm Springs, CA 92264
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (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.)
Repeal of the approved Specific Plan design guidelines and development
standards to allow revision of an existing tentative map approval. The tentative
map is being extended, as a new map is not being filed in lieu of amending the
existing map.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
South: New LDR development (Monticello)
East: Country Club development (City of Indio)
West: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.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. F1
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
Printed Name
May 21 2002
Date
Community Development
Department
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389. wpd
2
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that
are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside
a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project
will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must account for the whole action involved, including off -site as
well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct,
and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.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? (General
Plan MEA)
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)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: (In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland) Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? (LQGP MEN
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; MEN
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; MEN
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, EA 99-389)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1990
PM10 SIP, EA 99-389)
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)?
(SCAOMD CEQA Handbook/PM10 SIP)
F3
X
FC
X
X
E3
Kq
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis)
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials)
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? (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? (MEA, site
assessment)
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)
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)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP, EA 99-389)
X
X
X
X
X
X
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?
(EA 99-389) X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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)?
(EA 99-389)
X
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?
X
vl. 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)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR )
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan 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? (General Plan 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? (General Plan 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? (MEA,
General Plan EIR)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Site/project assessment)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Site/project assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Site/project
assessment)
e) For a project located within an airport Band 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? (MEA, La Quinta General Plan)
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 wildiands? (EA 99-389; Site assessment)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (MEA, General Plan)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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)
X
W
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
X
X
XI
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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)
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (General
Plan EIR, Project drainage data)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
to control? (EIR; Project drainage data)
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? (General Plan MEA)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (MEA, CVFTL HCP)
MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state? (MEA)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? (MEA)
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? (EIR,
EA 99-389)
X
X
X
X
P
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitiaated Impact Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -
based vibration/noise levels? (EA 99-389)
X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (EA 99-389)
X
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)
X
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)
X
: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, Project assessment)
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)
KIII. 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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA)
Schools? (General Plan MEA)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
9
Potentially
Issues land Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
(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 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)
KV. 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)? (EA 99-389)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Riverside County
CMP; General Plan Circulation Element)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Not applicable)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (Project assessment)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment, EA 96-328)
XVi. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (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? (CVWD).
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (CVWD)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
10
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
X
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)
X
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (MEA, page 4-28)
X
XVII. - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
FN
X
X
M
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA 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\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
11
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-446:
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #99-389
(CEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
FOR REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
Presented to the Planning Commission for Recommendation
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
June 11, 2002
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389. wpd
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
Assessment #99-389, cert6fied on February 15, 2000, by the La Quinta City Council
for Wade Ellis.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document a modification of a portion of the
project, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals:
REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures
included in EA 99-389 are incorporated into this document by reference.
The Revised Project consists of a 349 lot single family subdivision proposal on Parcel
± 117 acres, which would replace the existing approval for 379 lots. The current
approval includes a Specific Plan approval to allow reduced lot sizes and other
development standard variations. The City has determined that the Revised Project
will be consistent with the intensity of development and character of the adjacent
residential properties, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives
of the City's General Plan, as approved by the City in March 2002.
The Revised Project does not propose any significant change to the land uses as
approved in Specific Plan 99-040. The Specific Plan currently allows for 379 lots
(3.24 units/acre). The approvals requested as part of the Revised Project are:
1) Repeal of the existing Specific Plan to allow changes to the site layout, lot
siting and design, and total unit count within the framework of the Zoning
Code as currently existing;
2) An extension of time for the existing tentative map approval;
3) An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to the degree that the originally approved Specific Plan is no longer
required.
The City has compared the impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist prepared
for the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the adopted EA 99-389 and
finds as follows:
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389. wpd
Water - Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The Revised
Project will create drainage
impacts similar to those
identified for the original
proposal under EA 99-389. As
such, the map provides for
several smaller retention areas,
interconnected through a linear
facility traversing the site
northwest to southeast.
Biology - Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
development of the Revised
Project will result in a similar loss
of habitat for the Coachella
Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
(CVFTL). However, this site is in
an area approved for mitigation
under an existing 10A permit,
pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. A
focused survey for Giant Sand
Treader Cricket must be
undertaken.
Cultural Resources - Impacts no
greater than previously analyzed
The project proponent shall
submit for review and approval ,
a comprehensive Phase II
archaeological investigation. An
archaeological monitor shall be
on site during any grubbing,
earth moving or excavation
activities.
Air Quality - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. The Coachella
Valley has in the past
been a non -attainment
area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10
microns or smaller), and
is currently in danger of
losing it's attainment
status. In order to
control PM10, the City
has imposed standards
and requirements on
development to control
dust. This project will
be required to comply
with the PM10 Fugitive
Dust Control Plan
(FDCP) currently
approved for the entire
project area.
Noise - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. Development
of the site will create
construction noise
impacts of a short-term
nature. Long term
impacts relate to
roadway noise. A revised
acoustic study will be
required to address the
effects of such noise on
the Revised Project.
Geology & Soils -
Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
site is not located in any
Earthquake Fault zones
as designated by the
State but is mapped in
Ground Shaking Zone IV
meaning seismic events
can cause damage to
building under certain
occurrences. Impacts
involving potential
seismic activity also
relate to possible risk
associated with upset of
hazardous substances
(i.e. fuels and auto -
related chemicals and
wastes) and potential for
upset/explosion/fire. The
project will be required
to adhere to seismic
reinforcement and other
requirements as called
for by the UBC.
Transportation/Traffic -
Impacts slightly less than
those previously analyzed.
Development of the
Revised Project reduces
overall unit count from
379 to 349 (8%). A
corresponding reduction
in generated traffic can be
anticipated.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389. wpd
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the
preparation of a subsequent EA 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 EA 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 EA; or
3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant
effects on the environment not analyzed in the EA, or substantially increase the
severity of previously identified impacts.
EA 99-389 has been incorporated with this addendum. A copy of the complete EA
document is attached.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1.
2
K
4
A
Project Title: Sand Harbor Specific Plan (SP 99-040)
General Plan Amendment 99-064
Change of Zone 99-092
Tentative Tract 29323
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Christine di lorio
760-777-7125
Project Location: Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Wade Ellis
41-865 Boardwalk, #212
Palm Desert, CA 92211
General Plan Designation: Riverside County: 2B, 2-5 units per acre
Proposed La Quinta: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Riverside County: R-1/9,000
Proposed La Quinta: RL, 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.)
Pre -annexation application to establish General Plan designation, Specific Plan and
Tentative Tract Maps for vacant lands located at the northwest corner of Fred
Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Specific Plan will establish standards for the
development of 379 dwelling units on 117 acres.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
Lands to the north and west are developed single family residential neighborhoods.
The Bermuda Dunes Golf Course is also located to the north. Lands to the south
are vacant, and lands to the southwest are developed as single family dwellings.
Lands to the east are partially developed with a golf course and single family
residential.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
p:\CHRISTI\envirAIist sp 99-040.wpd
is
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.
Land Use and Planning
X
Transportation/Circulation
Public Services
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
X
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Hazards
X
X
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
X
X
X
Air Quality
X
Noise
Mandatory Finds of
11
I Recreation
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.
X 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 the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a
potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case 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.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
\CHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
0 •
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) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than 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 XVII, "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 XVII 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. See the
sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a.suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different
ones.
1ACHRISThenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
3
0
Sample question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is
a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (General
Plan Land Use Map)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General
Plan EIR, P. 4-1 ff.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General X
Plan Land Use Map, Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific
Plan)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 2-32 ff.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly X
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or
major infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1)
ACHRISTI\envincklist sp 99-040.wpd
IV
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) 1 1 1 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan X
EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page X
4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading, or fill? (Southland Geotechnical,
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Southland Geotechnical,
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
h) Expansive soils? (Southland Geotechnical, Geotechnical
Investigation, June 24, 1999)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7) X
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and X
amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 19 ff., Tract Map
29323)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X
as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
\CHRISTI\envirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
Issues (and SupportingInformation Sources):
�
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
Significant Impact
Significant Mitigaessted
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
X
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
X
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
X
movements?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General X
Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4- X
57 ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X
available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
57 ff.)
V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X
projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171
ff.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (General Plan EIR,
page 4-171 ff.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Specific Plan project description) X
1ACHRISTI\envirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
0 9
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (RKJK & Assoc., X
Traffic Impact Analysis, November 23, 1999)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (RKJK & Assoc., Traffic Impact Analysis,
November 23, 1999)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? I I I I X
(Specific Plan Site Plan)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan, I I I X
p. 17)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific X
Plan, p. 17)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan
p. 17)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) X
lll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and
birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-
71 ff. ) _L
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (General X
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.)
\CHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
•
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
Issues (and SupportingInformation Sources): Significant unless Significant Impact
) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-
69, and page 4-71 ff.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
mmm
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, X
page 4-71 ff.)
fill. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General X
Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of
X. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
(Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X
(Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description)
ACHRISTI\envinckiist sp 99-040.wpd
9
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or X
trees? (Specific Plan Project Description)
C. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & X
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & X
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
ICI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General
Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 X
ff.)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26)
b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29)
':\CHRiSTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24)
e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page X
4-20)
(111. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit X
CIR-5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General
Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan p. 26)
(IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X
Determination Study, Community Development Department)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Archaeological X
Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
c) Affect historical resources? (Archaeological Associates,
Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999)
\CHRISTI\envincklist sp 99 040.%vpd
0
L J
CV.
(VI.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Archaeological
Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X
impact area? (Archaeological Associates, Archaeological
Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999)
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan,
Exhibit PR-1)
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 to
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
K4
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to X
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 projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directory or indirectly?
ACHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
0. 0
VII. 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.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site -specific conditions for the project.
"HRISTBenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
0 0
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-389
I. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction. The County
General Plan designation, however, and that sought by the applicant as part of this
application, are consistent. Differences between the two general plans relating to
the intent of the land use designations are insignificant. Through the annexation
process, the project will be assigned a City designation, which is compatible with
existing development both under County and City jurisdiction.
II. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction, nor was it
analyzed for future annexation in the existing General Plan. As such, the project
area, and the 948t people it will generate at buildout were not previously analyzed
by the City. However, the land use designation assigned this site by the County is
compatible with the proposed land use designation, and the additional population
would therefore have been analyzed under County plans. The project is not likely
to significantly impact population projections for the region.
Ill.a), b) & c)
The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed project is located in
a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The project site is not within a liquefaction hazard
area. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for
seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards.
A geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed project'. It
recommends specific foundation and soil compacting requirements which will
mitigate the impacts of seismic activity. These mitigation measures will ensure that
impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Ill.f), g) & h)
The project falls within a blowsand hazard zone, and is composed of potentially
unstable soils. Construction of the project will be subject to City Engineer review,
the preparation of dust control plans, and the mitigation measures contained in the
geotechnical study cited above. The recommendations contained in this study, and
continued City review of the project, will reduce the potential impact from erosion
of soils to a level of insignificance. All earth moving activities shall be coordinated
to ensure that the mitigation measures contained under section XIV (Cultural
Resources) of this addendum shall be properly implemented.
IV.a) & b)
The construction of structures on currently vacant lands will reduce the amount of
land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to
increase surface runoff. The City will require the retention of the 100 year 24 hour
storm on -site, and the Tentative Tract Map has been prepared to reflect the
"Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract 29323 La Quinta, California, Southland Geotechnical,
June 24, 1999.
\CHRISTI\envir.ck1ist sp 99-040.wpd
13
0 0
construction of a number of retention basins. Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, the project proponent shall submit hydrologic analysis to the City Engineer
for review and approval which will demonstrate that the planned retention basins are
sufficient to retain the 100 year storm. This will reduce the potential hazard
associated with increased runoff to a level of insignificance.
V. a) The Coachella Valley is currently in a non -attainment area for PM10 (particles of 10
microns or less). The proposed project will result in 379 single family dwelling units.
The primary long term air quality impact caused by these units will be from the
operation of automobiles; short term impacts are also likely from construction
activities. The proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures
to mitigate impacts to air quality.
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. Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic interference.
5. Construction of improvements on Fred Waring and Jefferson shall be
scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of
through -traffic lanes.
6. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
7. The project shall submit a PM10 Plan to the City which includes adequate
provisions for fugitive dust and wind erosion control, both during and after
grading operations. The PM1 G Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the
issuance of any grading permit on the site.
8. Any portion cf the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three
feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
9. 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.
,CHRISMenvincklist Sp 99-040.wpd
14
0 a
10. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
11. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
12. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
13. Construction roads other than temporary access roads shall be paved as
soon as possible, and once paved shall be cleaned after each work day. All
unpaved roads shall be posted with a 15 mile per hour speed limit.
14. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
15. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
16. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations.
VI. a), b), d), & e)
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plane. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic
volumes. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 3,627 daily trips,
of which 284 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 382 during the
evening peak hour. The improvements required with or without project
implementation include the signalization of Jefferson Street at both Country Club
Drive and Miles Avenue, and the widening of Fred Waring and Jefferson to their
ultimate rights of way in the vicinity of the proposed project. The traffic impact
analysis includes the following mitigation measures, which shall be implemented as
part of the development of the project site:
1. The project proponent shall improve both Jefferson Street and Fred Waring
Drive, along their entire property boundary, to their ultimate 120 right of way
(half width) in conjunction with the first phase of development.
2. Sight distances shall be reviewed to conform with City of La Quinta
standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping and street
improvement plans.
"Tentative Tract Map No. 29323 Traffic Impact Analysis (revised)," RKJK & Associates, November 23,
1999.
CHRISTBenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd
15
a
0
3. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee
program.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned
improvements associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all
project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or
better) at project buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant
impact on the circulation system.
The Specific Plan includes an interior trail system. The trail system interfaces with
the interior street system at a number of locations. In order to ensure that no
significant hazard occurs to pedestrians using the trail system, the project proponent
shall be required to install stop signs and crosswalks at all intersections between the
trail and a paved roadway. The stop signs shall be for pedestrian traffic.
VII. a), b) & c)
The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Giant Sand
Treader Cricket in the General Plan. In conjunction with the first application for Site
Development Permit; the project proponent shall submit a focused survey for Giant
Sand Treader Cricket to the City for review and approval. The survey shall include
mitigation measures, if necessary, and a mitigation monitoring program. The project
also occurs in the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
The project proponent shall be required to pay the fee in effect at the time of
issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts to this species. Should the project,
or any portion of the project, occur after implementation of the Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, any mitigation required by that plan shall be applied to the
project, or any portion of the project.
X. a) & b)
A noise analysis was prepared, and subsequently amended, for the proposed
project3. The project area lies in a currently impacted noise corridor. Residential
dwelling units are considered sensitive noise receptors. The City's General Plan
requires that exterior noise levels for any portion of a residential lot not exceed 60
dBA CNEL, and that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The study
found that varying heights of walls were needed to mitigate exterior noise levels
along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The study also recommended the
elevation of certain pads to mitigate noise levels. Finally, the study requires the
preparation of additional analysis to recommend mitigation measures for interior
noise levels for any home to be constructed with a second story which has a full or
partial view of either Fred Waring or Jefferson. In order to ensure that noise levels
are mitigated to meet City standards, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
"Acoustical Analysis Report," Douglas Eilar & Associates, August 15 & November 29, 1999.
"HRISTRenvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
16
0 0
In conjunction with Site Development Permit application for any phase of
development which includes homes with a partial or full view of Fred Waring
or Jefferson, a noise analysis based on final pad elevations shall be
prepared which demonstrates that both exterior and interior noise levels shall
meet or exceed City standards.
2. The design and location of the outer perimeter wall shall conform to the
recommendations of the November 29, 1999 amendment to the noise
analysis, and shall combine a six foot block or slumpstone wall, constructed
to City standard, with adequate berming to achieve the needed heights
shown on the table labeled " Barrier and Berm Heights at Perimeter Lots to
Achieve 60 CNEL."
XI. a) - e)
The proposed project is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to
public services. The residences within the project will impact the school system, and
such an impact must be mitigated through the imposition of school fees.
XII. a) - g)
The proposed project is served by local utilities and water and sewer districts. Prior
to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall be required to
demonstrate, through "will serve" letters, that all services are available to the site.
No significant impact to service providers is expected from this project.
Xlll.a) The proposed project occurs along one of the City's Primary Image Corridors. The
General Plan requires a setback of 20 feet, which the project has proposed on its
map. The implementation of the setback requirement will lower the impact to scenic
resources to a less than significant level.
XIV. a)
The site occurs above the recorded shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, as mapped
on City maps. No significant impact to paleontologic resources is expected from this
project.
XIV.b), c), & d)
A site specific Phase I cultural resource study has been completed for the proposed
project". The study found a potentially significant sites within the project boundary.
Site CA-RIV-6349 was found to be potentially significant, and necessitate further
study. The following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented:
"An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29323...," Archaeological Associates, August 31, 1999.
ACHRISTRenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
17
1. In conjunction with the first Site Development Permit application for the
project, the project proponent shall submit, for review and approval by the
City, a comprehensive Phase Il archaeological investigation, performed in
conformance with City standards. The Phase II study shall include mitigation
measures, and a mitigation monitoring plan.
2. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving
or excavating activity. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he or
she shall be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the
resource is properly identified and studied. The monitor shall file a report with
the City of his or her findings, including disposition of any resource identified.
CHRISTRenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
18
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SPECIFIC PLAN 99-
040, FOR THE SAND HARBOR PROJECT
REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
SAND HARBOR
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 1 1 to day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation to repeal Specific Plan 99-040; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, the Planning Commission did in fact
recommend that the City Council repeal Specific Plan 87-009; and,
WHEREAS, said application 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 2002-446); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
the repeal of Specific Plan 87-009 will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment; 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 the repeal of said Specific
Plan:
1. The recommended Specific Plan repeal will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that
no significant impacts have been identified.
2. The recommended Specific Plan repeal will not have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, as the repeal action does not involve physical
development, nor is it anticipated to significantly affect existing patterns or
trends in the project area's development.
3. The recommended Specific Plan repeal does not have the potential to achieve
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\Resos\resorepeal99040.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, as the repeal will not appreciably alter the types or intensity of the
residential uses currently contemplated for the site.
4. The recommended Specific Plan repeal will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as repealing the Specific Plan
will not create any physical environmental impacts. The Revised Project is a
consistent representation of the project type desired in Low Density Residential
Land Use category, as long as the current General Plan land use designations
are applicable.
5. The recommended Specific Plan repeal will not have environmental effects that
will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as the
Revised Project encourages uses similar to those already assessed under
ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were addressed
in the EIR previously certified for the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Specific Plan repeal action.
2. That it does hereby repeal Specific Plan 99-040 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11th day of June, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\Resos\resorepeal99040. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\Resos\resorepeal99040.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 A TIME EXTENSION AND TRACT
AMENDMENT FOR TT 29323, TO DIVIDE 117
ACRES INTO 349 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323
APPLICANT: CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 11' day of June, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request
of Cornerstone Development to subdivide 117 acres into 349 single family residential
lots and several lettered lots, generally located on the northwest corner of Fred
Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as:
Portion of the SE 1 /4 of Section 17, TSS, R7E, S.B.B.M.
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 approve said time
extension and tract amendment for Tentative Tract Map 29323:
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with CEQA
The La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared
Environmental Assessment 2002-446, an addendum to Environmental
Assessment 99-389 for TT 29323, which was certified on February 15, 2000.
Based on this addendum, the Community Development Department has
determined that none of the circumstances or conditions which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21166, have been shown to exist.
Finding Number 2 - Consistency with the General Plan
The proposed Tentative Tract Map amendment is consistent with the City's
General Plan with the implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide for
adequate stormwater drainage, and other infrastructure improvements. The
project is consistent with the Low Density Residential land use designation of
Up to 4 dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan.
Finding Number 3 - Consistency of Design and Improvements
PAWally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\Resos\resopcamen d29323.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Extension #1 Amended - Proposed
Cornerstone Development
June 11, 2002
The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with
the City's General Plan, with the implementation of recommended conditions
of approval to ensure proper street widths, perimeter walls, parking
requirements, and timing of their construction.
Finding Number 4 - Consistency of Public Easements
As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and type of improvements,
acquired for access through, or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision will not conflict with such easements.
Finding Number 5 - Public Health and Safety
The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in
Environmental Assessment 99-389 and Subsequent Environmental Assessment
2002-446, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for
the proposed Revised Project.
Finding Number 6 - Suitability of Site
The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the proposal as
natural slopes do not exceed 20%, and there are no identified geological
constraints on the property that would prevent development pursuant to the
geotechnical study prepared for the subdivision.
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 require compliance with those mitigation measures required
for Tentative Tract Map 29323;
3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 29323, Extension #1
Amended, to the City Council 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 Planning Commission held on this 11th day of June, 2002, by the following
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\Resos\resopcamend29323.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract 29323, Extension #1 Amended - Proposed
Cornerstone Development
June 11, 2002
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:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\Resos\resopcamend29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "All
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1 - 1ST EXTENSION OF TIME
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
JUNE 11, 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
("LQMCI .
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Approval of this Amended Tentative Tract 29323 hereby nullifies the approval for
Specific Plan 99-040 (Sand Harbor), and said Specific Plan shall be void and of no
further force or effect, upon City Council adoption of these conditions.
4. 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)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coaoc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
• 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.
5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management
and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside
County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order
No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land
that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5)
acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses
more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a
Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All 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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
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.
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - The remainder of applicant's 60 foot
half of a 120 foot right of way.
2) Fred Waring Drive (Primary Arterial) - The remainder of applicant's 55
foot half of a 110 foot right of way.
10. 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.
11. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
-une 11, 2002
A. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Residential: "Looped" Streets - 41 foot width.
2) Residential: Non -Looped Streets - 37 foot width.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 for symmetrical
Cul De Sacs, or 800A for offset Cul De Sacs and a 38-foot face of curb
radius.
1 1 . 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. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-feet from the Right of Way/Property
Line.
B. Fred Waring Drive (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet from the Right of Way/Property
Line.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final
Map.
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
21. 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.
P:\W ally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coa pc293 23. wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
22. 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.
23. 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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc 29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits,
or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"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.
"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. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the Building Official
and the City Engineer.
24. 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.
25. 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--buill 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
26. 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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
27. 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.
28. 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.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common
on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the
issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development,
or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant
to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all
permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the
development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
29. 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,
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of
such improvements.
30. 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.
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
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
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 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 be higher 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
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323. wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
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.
40. 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
41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend
to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3
hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
42. 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 Parcel Map. Individual lot
basins or other retention concepts may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2
1/2 acres 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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
.une 11, 2002
43. 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.
44. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the
City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of
up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
45. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
46. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. In developments for
which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety
Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be
visible from adjacent street(s).
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
50. 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.
51. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323. wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
..une 11, 2002
UTILITIES
52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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
56. 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.
57. 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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323. wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
58. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 120 foot Right of Way:
Jefferson Street is scheduled to be improved as part of a City
sponsored improvement project. The applicant shall reimburse the City
for the cost of the outside 20 feet of improvements, including the curb
and gutter. In addition to the reimbursement, the applicant shall
construct the following:
(a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk along the project frontage.
(b) Interim intersection improvements at the project entry as it
connects to the existing Jefferson Street section, including
required transition tapers and signing and striping.
2) Fred Waring Drive (Primary Arterial) - 110 foot Right of Way:
Widen the north side of the street to a 43-foot wide half section along
the frontage adjacent to the Tentative Tract Map boundary.
Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as
necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design
standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street
widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such
as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and
signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements
required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way
include:
(a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk along the project frontage.
(b) 18-foot wide landscaped median from Jefferson Street to the
westerly boundary of the Tentative Tract Map. (The landscape
median improvements are eligible for reimbursement from the
City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies
established for that program.)
PAW ally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coaoc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
(c) Traffic signal Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street.
Necessary modifications to accommodate the improved roadway
sections.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
11 "Looped" Streets - Construct full 40 foot wide improvements within a
41 foot right-of-way.
2) Non -Looped Streets - Construct full 36 foot wide improvements within
a 37 foot right-of-way.
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 38-foot curb radius,
measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line.
59. All gated entries shall provide for a two -car minium stacking capacity for inbound
traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -entry accepted
vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a "U" Turn back out onto Jefferson
Street and Fred Waring Drive, from the gated entry.
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.
60. 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
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
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.
61. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Jefferson Street Entry (Located approximately 1,050 feet north of Fred
Waring Drive): Left turn in, right turn in, right turn out. Left turn movements
out are prohibited. The median island on the Entry Street 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.
B. Fred Waring Drive (Located approximately 1,250 feet west of Jefferson
Street): Left turn in, right turn in, right turn out. Left turn movements out are
prohibited. The applicant shall design and construct the Fred Waring Drive
median to facilitate the left turn in, only, turning movement to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. The median island on the Entry Street 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.
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
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coaoc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
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 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
67. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
68. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
69. 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. Prior to CVWD review, the
applicant shall provide calculations that meet the requirements of Chapter 8.13 of
the Municipal Code -Water Efficient Landscaping.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
P:\W ally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coa pc 29323. wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
70. 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
71. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
72. Specific fire protection requirements will be determined when final maps/building
plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be addressed when building
plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the
time building and water system plans are submitted.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
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
P:\Wally\CasedOCS\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323. Wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
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
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
80. 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.
81. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
82. Building heights shall be limited to one story/22 feet around the perimeter of the
tract, for a distance into the site of 150 feet.
83. Prior to submittal for building plan check, the developer shall update the acoustic
analysis on file dated August 5, 1999 and prepared by Douglas Eilar and Associates.
The update shall include consideration for limiting building height along Jefferson
Street and Fred Waring Drive to one story/22 feet, and shall address revisions to
sound barrier requirements and CNEL levels due to redesign of the tract map.
84. In conjunction with the first permit application on the site, the project proponent
shall submit for review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, a
comprehensive Phase II archaeological investigation, to be performed in
conformance with City standards. The Phase II study shall include recommended
mitigation measures and monitoring plan.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323.wpd
Tentative Tract 29323
Conditions of Approval - Proposed
June 11, 2002
85. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving or
excavation activities. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he/she shall
be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the resource is properly
isolated. For identification and study. The monitor shall file a report with the City on
his/her findings, including the disposition of any resource identified.
86. Prior to any grading activity, the developer shall undertake a focused survey to
identify potential Giant Sand Treader Cricket habitat. The survey shall include
mitigation measures and a monitoring plan, if necessary. The survey shall be
submitted to the City for review and acceptance prior to a grading permit being
issued, and any mitigation required by the City shall be in place.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\coa\coapc29323. wpd
ATTACHMENTS
I
En 40TH AVENUE
coy �iyT£R�T 100
y qTE 0
c�Ue ®R 10 FRf Z
�qY �
i
Z 42ND AVENUE
i o
' FRED WARING DR
i F-
�� Z
1 N
i cr-
w
I ti
w
MILES AVE
SIT
INDIO
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
w
0
tr
0
m
ATTACHMENT 1
CASE MAP
NORTH
cnserb. TT 29323 AMENDED #1
EXTENSION OF TIME scnLe: NTS
REPEAL OF Sp 99-040
a ge as u L s`d ae ap yg$i SE
il
qggq F I §¢ aG �h§ $>� # v§§ €�§� �sga � §�1 agaa39§E
,A g � a g S K axa §§§ E �a IL
k9§ 3
.Y+�, •, rc b'- , r� I����,
%;��y_
/r
3 l � .i.—�lyykrr..��,. -Ii-�• ,.,. , 'n' � ,,s. 'j
~ �i?'mi' ~" .A• !> .'/, :' i' •7 'i.l'! , � ,�, q /., , � �s T".�/„i 3.T:3 r4 j.' �:1 <i.% ?.A
'`�� •��` �.� - ..1�' ,..,1. w�. S' i I'tta . 4- � . ' � Bali 2
'i �``_-�` I, ;( N°'..6� _ rl. .y �.��: I v �"_�_ _-�.��`� N1 i�10\,Y ^• ,O�V
>�,:'', ••• I.,- I •i° /t::.f"' pL Ngg b �a l � � I -, •r �, `'.3 ' ' 1' a;1 ��./' I� �� ��$
�w _s�e �• � 7 .��,,�� �_` \` �\� I\, �. (•l,;-� r , 1.1�� � i._J .., \ir' �' -'"t` � Y� Al I'
.4, / % \'� - 1°2, `>iO11 ' fiii -30 _J �r%1 n , _ i! '� / •+, i-,� 'r-+„via
MIX
CM
_ _ I�• A ' 1 1 M , :.-1,'Z mob:; py �! • . rg b' '� �j�/ U a 1t
O '�'o,�'\ o, y ,/ ',�,���, :K:•E 'FP��`- ��: j � !� ,_ / == s- „„ - _- 1� C��:�_� •F tt �' � $ 7 £@&�
CV
O •, .f�u}: 1.N '.� F V \�� •� ..i; \nQ gip' _ m`�" _ :?n�C�r _ - r \' '.:•+il,,l�,\ -' i��' � � i� . \.. , @ f"@�, .\ � � �wt� 'f•' I� f! \ `\�1, � i�
��. �pc�Q'f11 ,1 1 r/�F ri° - II �a�, •Y *1�a':n �.� •r �i\ `\••a, _ �� '.J 3I', �, :i�X- ia!(R7�_R in s _ Y w • A
1'� -�•. 1' r� f®p �IaC li; .,M / �' ` ` \-� - '� .`4 — �.� ,',ter �,..
uj
�' i C _ � i t' s~� '''' t '.i',. ': pia . �' �-�i'\\ • ',� i fl i L
i._ ,�/,: �•I �. 1 \r•_- -_'\,����l�atta.;;.} ��' \'��\gf� _ ,\ ^� .�',1W 1�' fir/
Q<- ''�_�F '� ,y�'' '.I� J a7 .°�! ; m.,� - ��`�s�_ __ %:�-_ .(n, • c ' ix- \ •` i, �, rl�r 41
pig_ _ +��'R�, � �i��"�f'c_°':. 'y$; ��, 1(r,.�.:�;.1'"�::a , ,;�t ,_ `- ; t�.,. .,f•;i. Q
�"'J'"� t� ^ '�.\ 'gcxEM + ,x , J I . J>;r .-�_� °^- `�?i.•; i . •\� +'x� c a. .•i f ', f i
i� �• •;\I�� � �: �,1��x j�� '4a � -- a, - �/ \ `\� ,\I1 - — �• - �y i ` 1�l ryj/'' �i�;.
L.W., k;an: Il1,6i�I a' j �.�3 •� 1 , I •' _ f! �,.'+t-r
r\' ��, � �,Ilw' I! �� a -- r `'` ` 'i•'�'- - `x... - - . �,' rA'w � f • 1 :l;f Q
Al
_ �"ii t " !n s � .�.`j �(7•,� Sits �/,
'i-�,):`' ae' :r rr, rat\ - x •r, : k I \ `�� i\k�C� ' a
`'i \\�\ • . 1 y t ' ,^�{§ j r ._l _ -�j.., .0 , �), - y �� a - '. �� \ ;� ., :.. �, l�l�q,vl t�.
ir
t�j
'� �J% „ram r.�....�. �.� . � -- r-�t �_-_ -_'= •--"1""-= `s `�.' I ��
q
e§ q 9 9
9w OW
V1 VON Put zoour
a x ;gig I x�§g� �o Y o y� oa sit
WIZ
a1 =�
—
�'
a! al ,
fill
al as
►,V
s
May 26, 2002
f
i RECEI','ED
l _
Community Development Department ! o; 2 8 20u,
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Proposed Public Hearing on June 11, 2002 re: amended TT 29323, division of 117 acres into
349 single family lots on a Portion of the Southeast V4 of Section 7, T5S R7E, S.B.B.M.
Dear Sir or Madame:
We live directly backed up on the North end of the subject property. We, further are quite
concerned how the development of the subject property will affect both the enjoyment of our
home and its value which will or could be negatively impacted by the following:
1) Will the subject property be graded to a consistent level prior to laying out the lots?
2) What height of homes are planned or permitted for the subject property?
3) Will the property be part of a "gated community" surrounded by a wall? If so, of what will such
wall be constructed and what will be its height?
Since moving into our home three years ago, of particular enjoyment has been the privacy we
have enjoyed. Having homes directly behind us which would afford someone the ability to look
directly into our backyard or swimming pool would certainly detract from the enjoyment of our
home and its resale value.
,-%
While I anticipate an answer in writing to my concerns, we will be at the June 1 lth meeting.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Short
79725 Kingston Drive
Bermuda Dunes
Indio, CA 92201
ATTACHMENT 4
B I #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 11, 2002
CASE NO: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: JAI NETTIMI
REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR A DECK IN THE REAR YARD OF
AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOME.
LOCATION: 79-39�0 PASEO DEL REY (ALISO AT LA QUINTA)
ENGINEER: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: EXEMPT.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RL).
BACKGROUND:
Under Section 9.60.300.D. of the La Quinta Zoning Code, compatibility reviews are
subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The site is located within the Aliso
at La Quinta tract at 79-390 Paseo Del Rey.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval to allow a deck in the rear yard of an existing
two-story home (Attachment 1). Two windows will be removed and replaced with a
sliding glass door which would allow access to the deck from the loft within the upper
floor of the house. The applicant has submitted a letter of approval from the
Homeowners Association within the development (Attachment 2).
PCstfrptNettimi.wpd-MM
Page 1 of 2
Public Notice: N/A.
Public Agency Review: N/A.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request pursuant to Section 9.60.300.H of the City
of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained below.
1. General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code.
3. Architectural Design. The architectural design of the deck will be compatible
with and not detrimental to other existing units in the area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion No. _, approving the applicant's
request for compatibility review to allow the second story deck at his home.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion No. denying the applicant's
request for compatibility review to allow the second story deck at his home.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Letter from the Aliso Home Owners Association.
3. Schematics.
Prepared by:
Martin Magaha
Associate Planner
PCstfrptNettimi mpd-M M
Page 2 of 2
1 I400aUS-783a '
iN1S NU pAS PtVAim f01 ASSESSIAIN tBAfAStS WIT. NB LIABILITY
POR, SW 20 T , 5S , ,R.1E
u Astplzo roe INt AEcwtn a THE onu SNWe. ASSCSsm s Puat
BAT NOT —V rttN Tour tot -SPLIT m eunolxc slit BtoINANcts. CITY OF LA OUINTA
ATTACHMENT #1
T.A.A. 070-0I I 6 U 4- 4 4
6Al-AS
24 1
'_ 1 r . laB•
m,. a
7A
aA
l0
31
It
33
>,
is
Jfi
n
le
39
la
41
17
I
4
35
7s
w;
tfi SLERRA
VISTA
°
I.MAC /
m
4
N
74
56
55
w
O
SJ
37
SI
O
19
4A
47
45
14 c 43
B
A
a
y
®
it
°iM
81 e,o a+
A
72
�
T OD
t7
E 57
S9
w
®
e
fil
67
fiS
fi4
AS
66
s
68
e
6g 5 �
9 wo t *•.
716
aa
Ctl
R 71
G pA.
Az
.
y , e •'~ 3
.•nAnAA ^�
PASO
DEL
REY
neAaww
so
M• 79
(Q
Dfi
Ob
17
�
IB i] 16 t5
a
IS
It II
6
t0
9 8
7
fi
6'-
a
19
I
I
Dfi
ASSISSM'S WP RC604 PC.44 Y8 286/1-5 TR. NO. 27519 ATt 1999
Rj"(S AA c..11. CCliL AM �,IAN O � 1ODD
ATTACHMENT 2
I
f
1 �.. _ _�.w„�,..__._ .. _. S
k_..__ .,. _..._.... ...�
.......-..,_.�....-�.. _ .. ...i
��....v.�..�._�. .. _. _. ____._��
1
� r
1 �
4t
[ i
!! T
fY — . _.---._ _. - .._ ... . _ __ �
�— i
f �
f
��-_..___ ..._._-_,.d_.�._. _....,.,_....,�_... ,
-A-
7-N
ATTACHMENT #
A-
-S' ' �"r T ti -Uid�i TA HOMEOWNERS ASSO '�AnON
C10 Qujti�l 1v4i:AN)1,,'i UvED,,-u OF THE DESER 1
42-33 i Washington St., Ste #F-42 t
Palm Desert, LA 92211
(760) 200-9520
Matthew Piefenbach
President
May 21, 2002
Mr. Jai Nettimi
79- 190 Paseo Del Rey
La Quirtta CA 92253
FAX (760)200--959-1
RE: 79-390 Paseo Del Rev
Account # 167
Dear Mr. Nettimi:
Allison Knight
Vice President
Julie Grubada
Secretary/ i reasurer
Your Architectural request dated May 1, 2002 requesting approval for the construction
of a deck outside your second story loft (facing the rear yard) and the removal of the
two windows and installation of a slider was approved under the following conditions:
1. The slider frame must match the existing window frames.
2. Plant material at a minimum 8' height must be installed along the east
wall so as to provide privacy to the neighbors.
3. Plant niateE ial along the west and north walls must be sufficient to
provide privacy to the neighbors.
We trust that a licensed and insured contractor will be performing the work and that
all city required permits will be pulled prior to the commencement of the work.
We thank for your cooperation in following the guidelines set forth in the CC&R's by
filing for approval prior to commencing with the work. If you should have any
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Quality iJianagerrrent of the Desert
FOR ALISO AT LA QUINTA HOA
Martha A. Osborne
Property Manager
Niao
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 11, 2002
CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-618
LOCATION: THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1 EAST OF LA QUINT DRIVE
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
REQUEST: REVIEW OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA
RETAIL BUILDINGS
BACKGROUND
The applicant is submitting a sign program as provided for in adopted Specific Plan 97-
029, Amendment #1 and further conditioned in Site Development Permit 2001-728.
The request is for Building "A" (Super Walmart), shop buildings, and a gas station.
The requested signs are as follows:
Walmart - Phase I
Sign
Height
Area
Dimensions
Wal*mart
5 feet
189 sq. ft.
5' X 37'9"=188.75 sq. ft.
Always
9 feet
146 sq. ft.
9' X 16'2"=145.52 sq. ft.
Tires & Lube Express
5 feet
80.54 sq. ft.
5' X 16' 1 " = 80.40 sq. ft.
One Hour Photo
1'6" feet
16.50 sq. ft.
1'6" X 1 1' =16.50 sq. ft.
Pharmacy
1'6" feet
14.56 sq. ft.
1'6" X 9'8" =14.51 sq. ft.
Optical
1'6" feet
10.25 sq. ft.
1'6" X 6'10" =10.25 sq. ft.
Lube Express
1 ft. (2)
17.92 sq. ft.
1' X 8' 1 1 "X 2 =17.84 sq. ft.
Tires
1 ft. (4)
13.04 sq. ft.
1' X 3'3"X 4 =13.00 sq. ft.
TOTAL
12 signs
487.81 sq. ft.
G:\WPDOCS\ARI,C\Stamkosignprg.wpd 1
Walmart - Phase 2
Sign
Height
Area
Dimensions
Supercenter
2 feet
39.17 sq. ft.
2' X 197" = 39.16 sq. ft.
Always
9 feet
146 sq. ft.
9' X 16'2"=145.52 sq. ft.
Food Center
2' 6"
50.45 sq. ft.
2'6" X 20.2 = 50.43 sq. ft.
Low Prices
2'6"
44.38 sq. ft.
2'6" X 17'9" =44.38 sq. ft.
TOTAL
4 signs
280 sq. ft.
Retail "A"
Sign
Height
Area
Dimensions
Retail "A"
5 feet
195 sq. ft.
5'X39'X4 = 780 sq. ft.
TOTAL
4 signs
780 sq. ft.
Retail Shops
1. Length equals 70% of tenant storefront.
2. Area equals 1.5 square feet per lineal feet of building frontage, maximum of
100 square feet.
3. Maximum letter height 30 inches.
4. Signs limited to tenants trade name.
5. Logos for national chains permitted (3' X 3' = 9 sq. ft.)
6. Shops signs limited to storefront elevation.
7. Corner shops are allowed two signs (one per frontage).
General Signaae
1. Six ground -mounted tenant identify signs are allowed La Quinta Drive with a
maximum of 62 square feet each.
2. Shop tenants are not allowed to be included in these signs.
3. Unlimited directional signs.
Gas Station
1. Gas pricing sign - 13'2" X 7' 6 3/4" = 98.76 square feet
2. Canopy signs:
A. "Mirastar" -1'11" X 10'9" = 20.64 square feet X 2
B. Gold band and star - 18' 1 1 " X 2'9" = 52 square feet
C. Gas price sign - 4' X 4' = 16 square feet X 2
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\Stamkosignprg.wpd 2
The Specific Plan states that, "the appropriate signage for the ultimate use will be
determined upon the development of a detailed site plan. The signage concept shall
include a single sign allowance per main building entrance. Alternative locations may
be considered based upon the most effective use of graphic identification.
Multi -tenant buildings shall integrate a concept of graphics into the architectural
scheme which shall become the basis for the comprehensive sign program for the
complex. Freestanding signs may identify the building only and not the individual
tenants. Single freestanding user buildings may use freestanding monument signs
within the Centre and shall not be allowed along Highway 1 1 1 street frontage."
Further the Specific Plan allows two monument signs along Highway 1 1 1. One east
of the main entry and the second near the easterly entrance.
Recommended Conditions:
Based upon the applicant's request and staff's review of the Specific Plan, the
following conditions are recommended:
1. Walmart Phase 1
Sign
Height
Area
Dimensions
Wal*mart
5 feet
189 sq. ft.
5' X 37'9"=188.75 sq. ft.
Always
9 feet
146 sq. ft.
9' X 16'2"=145.52 sq. ft.
Tires & Lube Express
5 feet
80.54 sq. ft.
5' X 16' 1 " = 80.40 sq. ft.
Lube Express
1 ft. (2)
17.92 sq. ft.
1' X 8' 1 1 "X2 =17.84 sq. ft.
Tires
1 ft. (4)
13.04 sq. ft.
1' X 3'3"X4 =13.00 sq. ft.
Garden Center
2' 6"
42 sq. ft.
TOTAL
10 signs
488.5 sq. ft.
2. Walmart - Phase 2
Sign
Height
Area
Dimensions
Supercenter
2 feet
39.17 sq. ft.
2' X 19'7" =39.16 sq. ft.
Always
9 feet
146 sq. ft.
9' X 16'2"=145.52 sq. ft.
Food Center
2' 6"
50.45 sq. ft.
2'6" X 20.2 = 50.43 sq. ft.
Low Prices
216"
44.38 sq. ft.
2'6" X 17'9" =44.38 sq. ft.
TOTAL
1 4 signs
280 sq. ft.
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\Stamkosignprg.wpd 3
3.
0
Retail "A"
Sign
Square Footage
Facing Highway 1 1 1
152 square feet
Facing parking Lot
190 square feet
Facing Dune Palms Road
50 square feet
Facing Avenue 48
50 square feet
TOTAL
442 square feet
Retail Shops
D. Length equals 70% of tenant storefront.
B. Area equals 1.5 square feet per lineal feet of building frontage for a
maximum of 100 square feet.
C. Maximum letter height 30 inches.
D. Signs limited to tenants trade name.
E. Logos for national chains permitted (3' X 3' = 9 sq. ft.)
F. Shops signs limited to storefront elevation.
G. Corner shops are allowed two signs (one per frontage).
5. General Signage
A. Three ground -mounted tenant identify signs are allowed La Quinta Drive
with a maximum of 50 square feet each.
B. Shop tenants are not allowed to be included in these signs.
C. Unlimited directional signs.
6. Gas Station
A. 1 freestanding gas pricing sign - 5'4" X 8' 2" = 43.65 square feet
B. 2 Canopy signs - "Mirastar" with gold band and star - 2' X 10' = 20
square feet. The blue canopy as noted on the "Canopy Gradient Detail"
on the canopy fascia is not permitted.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Minute Motion 2002-
the conditions.
Attachments:
approval Sign Application 2002-618, subject to
1. Sign program
G:\WPDOCS\,A L C\Stamkosignprg.wpd 4