The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 06 25 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JUNE 25, 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 2002-069 Beginning Minute Motion 2002-012 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on June 11, 2002. B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PRESENTATIONS: A. Presentation by CVWD on reservoir construction in La Quinta. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................ Applicant .......... Location ............ Request ............ Action ............... B. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ............ Request ............. Action ............... C. Item ................ Applicant .......... Location ............ Request ........... Action ............... D. Item ................ Applicant .......... Location ............ Request ............. Action ............... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-741 Michael Shovlin The north side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Washington Street, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center Review of development plans for a 9,600 square foot commercial building for Big 5 Sporting Goods Resolution 2002- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 La Quinta Jefferson Fifty Northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 Second one year extension of time for a tentative tract map which creates 103 single family lots on 33 + acres. Resolution 2002- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-455, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2002-087 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 30521 Lido Equity Partners/Warner Engineering Northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue Recommendation for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, change of General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential for ten acres and subdivision of 43.6 acres into 147 single family and other miscellaneous lots. Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-743 Mel Rudman/ Prest Vuksic Architects Southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47 Review of development plans for construction of a 5,000 square foot commercial office building Resolution 2002- PC/AGENDA VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1lrj11I IX X. A. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ............ Request ............ Action ............... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-742 Toll Brothers, Inc. Northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 Review of architectural and landscaping plans for ten new single family prototype residential units with two different designs for each prototype and project perimeter landscape plans for Mountain View Country Club Minute Motion 2002- CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of June 18, 2002 ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 11, 2002 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by Chairman Abels who 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, Greg Trousdell and Martin Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 28, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 14, Item #7 be corrected to show a condition was to be added requiring the alignment of the driveways with Dulce Del Mar; Item #2 corrected to read, "Commissioner Tyler asked why the applicant was..." Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 3, Item #12 be corrected to read, "...a specific plan being solely used..." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: A. Community Services Manager John Hardcastle gave a presentation on Emergency Preparedness. Commissioners thanked staff for the presentation and the knowledge of knowing how well prepared the City G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 actually is for an emergency. They encouraged staff to get the information out to the public. Chairman Abels asked that the "wheel" be printed in Spanish and Commissioner Robbins asked that the local utility companies be encouraged to participate with the City's planning. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2002-739, a request of Summit Team, Inc. for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a single story commercial building of 5,839 square feet located on the west side of Washington Street, north of Calle Tampico within the La Quinta Village Shopping Center (Pad Site "D"). 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff thought the parking was adequate. Staff stated yes and confirmed that the center is over parked. 3. Commissioner Butler asked about the sign program. Staff noted the changes to the program. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked if any parking spaces would be lost. Staff stated one would be lost. Commissioner Tyler asked why the conditions regarding grading were not eliminated. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified the pad will be reworked and the conditions are needed for that purpose. Condition #16 could be eliminated. Commissioner Tyler questioned the caliper size of the trees in Condition #30.A. Staff stated the Commission could specify the tree height. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave Israelsky stated he was available to answer any questions. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant had any objections to the conditions as written. Mr. Israelsky stated he did not. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 7. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission regarding this project. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Sheriff's Department had an issues with the plan. Staff stated the Sheriff's Department has new personnel reviewing the plans and staff included only those comments that pertained to this project. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-064 approving Site Development Permit 2002- 739, subject to findings and conditions as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 2002-738; a request of Affiliated Construction for consideration of development plans for construction of a 4,500 square foot commercial office building located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47. 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 this was the theme of architecture for all the buildings. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there would only be an exterior stairwell. Staff stated yes, but there is an elevator. Commissioner Kirk asked to see the architecture illustrated in the Specific Plan to see the consistency. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Vuksic, architect for the project, stated he was available to answer any questions. In regard to the phasing, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 the building on Parcel 5 is owned by a different owner. Parcels 3 and 4 are owned by Affiliated Construction. He went on to explain the phasing of the stairwells and the other buildings. 5. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-065 approving Site Development Permit 2002- 738, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 99-389, Specific Plan 99-040, and Tentative Tract Map 29323, Extension #1 /Amendment #1; a request of Cornerstone Development for recommendation of Certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Assessment, repeal of Specific Plan 99-040, and first extension of time and an amendment request for a Tentative Tract Map for the property located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. 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 Robbins asked if the Specific Plan was being eliminated. Staff stated that was one of the actions before the Commission. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if this developer was responsible for the Jefferson Street improvements. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained this portion of the improvements was part of the Phase II Jefferson Street Improvements and will be funded for the Budget Year 2005-06, and will be publically installed. The applicant will be responsible for reimbursing the City for their portion of Jefferson Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 4. Commissioner Robbins asked if the north side of Fred Waring Drive would be widened. Staff noted there was a length of about half a mile that would not be completed as it is in the County. Staff also noted that Fred Waring Drive had been downsized to a four lane Arterial. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the strip of land to the northeast of this project was within the City limits. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted this piece and the right of way up to Country Club Drive were in the City. Commissioner Tyler noted that the water purveyors needed to be identified in the conditions and asked that the stacking lane at the entrance be increased to three cars. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Marvin Roos, engineer for the project, stated they concurred with most of the conditions. Some of the conditions they had issue with were: Condition #23, rough grading, they would like to request 6 inches. Condition #38, they would request 3/10's of a foot for the perimeter and up to one, or two feet for the interior to allow them to work with the utility companies. 7. Commissioner Robbins stated the grading plan would already have these issues resolved. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in this location there are elevations on a tentative map and staff is asking them to live with the perimeter elevations very precisely. Mr. Roos has noted that during the rough grading it is hard to pin down the interior grading and that is why they are asking for relief. Staff is allowing for this through the substantial compliance review to alleviate any sensitive issues that may be there on this project. 8. Mr. Roos asked about Condition #48 if it could be changed to read, "...be retained in the required landscaped parkways and required landscape setback..." Condition #65 clarification is needed as to the distance. Condition #69 clarified to be Myoma Dunes Water Company. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the 20,000 square foot lots would be amenity lots. Mr. Roos stated they would be estate lots. Commissioner Tyler stated he is very pleased with this new design and the larger lots. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 10. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this project. 11. Mr. Jay Steele, Kingston, stated his lot abuts this project and he would like to know what will happen to the wall that separates this project from the Bermuda Dunes Country Club to protect their security. He also asked if the access on Fred Waring Drive would be a right turn in only. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it would be a right turn in and out and left turn in. Mr. Roos stated they anticipate the phasing to be the south end first, and the wall would be built in Phase I and the rest of the wall in Phase II. 12. Ms. Chris Clarke, Stamko Development Company, stated she owns the triangular piece to the northeast of this project and she is very concerned about the grading. In addition, she asked who is paying for the Jefferson Street improvements. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the improvements would be publically funded. Ms. Clarke asked about the turning movement on Jefferson Street. Staff stated three movements would be allowed. Staff stated that in regard to the street improvements, staff has a hard time making an applicant reimburse for streets that are installed. The policy therefore, has been that if the street is installed prior to a project submitting application, no reimbursement can be required unless an assessment is done prior to the map. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if Ms. Clarke comes in with a project before the City lets the contract out for Phase II of the street improvements, she will be required to reimburse the City. Ms. Clarke stated she is very interested in the wall and grades as they are extreme in this area. 13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Robbins stated this is a vast improvement over the other project proposed for this site. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners /Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-066 recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 99-389, subject to the findings. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-067 recommending repeal of Specific Plan 99-040, subject to the findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-068, recommending approval of Extension #1 for Tentative Tract Map 29323, Amendment #1, subject to the findings A. Condition #4: Add Myoma Water District. B. Condition #23: Change to note all footings shall have a minimum six inches of cover except where there is a slope ratio greater than 2:1. C. Condition #38: Change to "3/10's of a foot on the perimeter and one foot on the interior." D. Condition #48: add the words "required landscape parkways or required landscaped setback." E. Condition #59: Change to require three car stacking. F. Condition #65: Add, "within professional standards." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:41 p.m. and reconvened at 8:47 p.m. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A Sign Application 2002-618; a request of Stamko Development Company for review of a sign program for the Centre at La Quinta Retail Buildings located on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, east of La Quinta Centre Drive. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 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 Kirk asked if the freestanding gas signs were discussed before. Staff noted the sign program was part of the Site Development Permit previously approved, but the applicant withdrew their request at that time. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City has ever approved a single use with this many signs. Staff noted different projects and the number of signs for each location. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked what staff was recommending for the gas station. Staff stated no pricing on the canopy, or at the corner of Highway 1 1 1. The requirement for gas pricing signs is that they be visible from the adjoining streets. Commissioner Tyler asked about the colors for the gas station. Staff stated they would be as they appear on the example and similar to Walmart. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on the amount of signage for Retail Building "A". Staff stated 442 square feet is recommended. 5. Commissioner Robbins stated the square footage does not agree either. Staff clarified the number of signs and total square footage. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City ever approved signs that indicated advertising for a tenant of this size. Staff stated no. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any legal issue. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated not usually in regard to content. You usually address size. Potentially it could raise issues. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Sign Ordinance stipulated anything in regard to the specified use and not allowing advertising. Discussion followed. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that in regard to banning the slogan, he does not have an answer at this time, except to say it will raise an issue and is subject to challenge. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 7. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms Chris Clarke, Stamko Development Company, gave a presentation on the sign program. In regard to staff's recommendation, they would only like to request a gas pricing sign closer to Highway 1 1 1. Mr. Bill Parrish, representing Walmart on their signage, stated they have reduced the number of signs and amount of footage. They agree with staff's recommendation on the gas station sign, but would like to keep the logo portion on each side as it is the corporate logo. Also, they would like to have the second pricing sign off of Highway 1 1 1. 8. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the gas station sign. Mr. Parrish stated he was requesting 40 square feet and for the logo to be included in that figure. Staff had no objections. Commissioner Tyler asked if the word "Always" was considered part of Walmart's normal signage. Mr. Parrish noted that for the expanded store, yes. 9. Commissioner Robbins clarified the expanded signage is 695 square feet. Mr. Parrish explained the request. 10. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant's request for a second monument gas pricing sign could be given. Staff stated it was at the Commission's discretion. Mr. Parrish asked that for Phase I they would like to have 481 square feet. The total square footage is 695 square footage. Phase I would have 12 signs and Phase 2 would be reduced to seven signs. 11. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2002-01 1 1, approving Sign Application 2002-618, as amended: A. Phase 1: Would have a total of 12 signs, or 487 square feet. B. Phase 2: The sign number will be reduced to a total of seven signs, or 695 square feet. C. Retail "A" as recommended. D. Retail Shops as recommended. E. General Signage as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 F. Gas Station: One price sign located at the corner of Auto Center Drive and La Quinta Drive; a total of two signs for a total of 80 square feet. Unanimously approved. B. Compatibility Review; a request of Jai Nettimi for review of a deck in the rear yard of an existing two story home located at 79-390 Paseo Del Rey. 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 Robbins stated it looks the same as a patio. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the adjoining property owners were notified. Staff stated no, but the applicant did have the homeowners' association approval. 4. There being no applicant present, Chairman Abels asked that the matter be continued, the adjacent property owners notified, and the applicant asked to address safety issues. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins move to continue the project to July 9, 2002, asking the applicant to submit a drawing to scale and notify the adjoining neighbors. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels gave a report on the City Council meeting of June 4, 2002. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2002 X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held June 25, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on May 28, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-11-02.wpd I I PIS #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 25, 2002 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-741 APPLICANT: MICHAEL J. SHOVLIN REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 9,600 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER (ATTACHMENT 1) GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89- 150 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 90020162, PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL 17, 1990. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. BACKGROUND: The project site is located east of Stater Brothers Supermarket, adjacent to the east side of the recently approved Ross Dress for Less building. The location is a graded area north of Carl's Jr (Attachment 2). The parking lot has been installed to the north and south of the proposed site. The land immediately to the east is a vacant pad site. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing a 9,600 square foot one story building to be used for Big 5 Sporing Goods (Attachment 3). The architecture of the building is similar to the existing buildings to the west. The building has a flat roof of heights varying from P:\STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc rpt ross.wpd 23'-4" feet over a stucco covered arcade at the front, to 29'-5" feet over the main part of the building at the arched entry tower. The recently approved Staples building, which is under construction, is primarily 24 feet high with the round entry tower 35'-6" high with roof tile behind the round tower. The approved Ross Dress For Less building next store has a 42 foot high pueblo style tower (Attachment 4). Architectural features from existing buildings include a detailed cornice with a diamond pattern, arched tower, wall light sconces and wood outrigger posts in the tower. The arcade columns use a treatment similar to that used elsewhere in the center. The side elevations will primarily be adjacent to other buildings and do not show any treatment other than stucco walls. The rear elevation shows the decorative cornice, light sconces, and scoring. Exterior colors consist of the same light earth tones used in the adjacent buildings. The plans indicate no landscaping proposed for this project. Because of the depth of the building, ten parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the building. This will increase the available parking in the center which complies with the specific plan approved for the center. SIGN PROPOSAL: The elevation plan shows a wall sign reading "BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS." The sign is designed in the corporate style of the company. The corporate blue internally illuminated channel letter sign is shown at 2'-9" high by 23'-6" long or 66 square feet. The sign for larger Ross Dress For Less immediately to the west was approved at approximately 64.5 square feet, with a maximum length of 17.5 feet and height of five feet. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of June 5, 2002, and recommended approval of the project by adoption of Minute Motion 2002-023, subject to conditions (Attachment 5). PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 14, 2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolution provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed. P:\STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc rpt ross.wpd RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2002- ,approving the development plans for Site Development Permit 2002-741, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site plan excerpt 3. Plan exhibits 4. Front elevation excerpt showing Big 5 and Ross Dress For Less 5. Draft minutes of the June 5, 2002, Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner P:\STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc rpt ross.wpd �j PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 9,600± SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-741 APPLICANT: MICHAEL SHOVLIN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 2511 day of June , 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request of MICHAEL SHOVLIN to approve the development plans for a 6,900± square feet commercial building in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, located on the north side of Highway 111, east of Washington street, more particularly described as: PORTION OF APN 643-220-002 and -003 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on June 5, 2002, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2002-023, recommending approval of the architectural plans for the new building, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the commercial designation of the property. 2. The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and signs. 3 The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 89- 150 (State Clearinghouse Number 90020162, prepared for Specific Plan 89- 014, which was certified on April 17, 1990. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review. p:\stan\sdp 2002-729 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Michael Shovlin - Big 5 Site Development Permit 2002-741 Adopted: June 25, 2002 4. The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The building is a well designed with articulation on the front and rear elevations, and is conditioned to provide additional treatment on the east side of the building. The project uses architectural features, colors, and materials to match the surrounding existing buildings. 5. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The proposed building is located on an area that is designated for a commercial building. 6. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. While there is not a lot of opportunity to provide landscaping, the recommended small planters around some of the arcade columns will soften the facade. 7. The one building sign will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and centers sign program, and will be in harmony and visually related to the proposed buildings, with the approval of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-741 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. p:\stan\sdp 2002-729 pc res.wpd (}� Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Michael Shovlin - Big 5 Site Development Permit 2002-741 Adopted: June 25, 2002 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 25th 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 p:\stan\sdp 2002-729 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-741 Michael Shoviin (Big 5) Adopted: June 25, 2002 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 3. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to 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. 5. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall provide documentation to assure that the parking lots have been or will be included within the previously recorded "Common Area Maintenance Agreement". w t :\STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc coa.wpd Printed June 21, 2002 Page I of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-741 Michael Shovlin (Big 5) Adopted: June 25, 2002 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, mailbox clusters, and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit. 7. 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. 8. 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. .. MMYAW11111111112WARM11 As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 9. 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. 10. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Site Development Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal B. Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal C. 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. :\STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc coa.wpd Printed June 21, 2002 Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-741 Michael Shovlin (Big 5) Adopted: June 25, 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. "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. 11. 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. PARKING LOTS 12. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). The applicant shall provide accessible parking stalls as required by Section 1 129B of the California Building Code. Parking lot and striping modifications may be required to provide additional accessible stalls and to provide proper accessible access in accordance with the ADA requirements. GRADING 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. J :\STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc coa wpd Printed June 21, 2002 Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-741 Michael Shovlin (Big 5) Adopted: June 25, 2002 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. IN; MAMMA 15. "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology, drainage report and drainage plans for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner." UTILITIES 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 17. 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. LANDSCAPING 18. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 19. The plans shall provide for pocket planters around the two end columns at the front of the building. The planters shall include shrubs and/or vines, and groundcover. 20. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, if applicable, prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. 21. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. :\STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc coampd Printed June 21, 2002 Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-741 Michael Shovlin (Big 5) Adopted: June 25, 2002 • 22. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 23. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such cr 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. 24. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the AutoCAD or raster - image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 25. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. 26. The applicant shall maintain the required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. Any permit(s) issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of said permit(s). A � :1STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc coa.wpd Printed June 21, 2002 Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-741 Michael Shovlin (Big 5) Adopted: June 25, 2002 MISCELLANEOUS 30. Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 89- 014. 31. Prior to issuance of a building permit, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. The drawings are to include an extension of the double decorative cornice treatment from the rear of the building to the east side of the building for at least 50% of its length. 32. A minimum clear 24 feet drive aisle shall be provided at the rear of the building. MIAMI 33. Final sign plans based on the plan approved shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for final approval and shall include all details, colors, and materials. 34. 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. LIGHTING 35. Rear elevation wall mounted lights for the building shall use non-adjustable shoebox type down shining light fixtures with recessed or flush mounted lenses. laftimpla 36. Approved super fire hydrants shall be installed not less than 25 feet, nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. Fire Department connection and post indicator valve shall be located at the front of the building. 37. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 01 \STAN�sdp 2002-741 pc coa.wpd Printed June 21, 2002 Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2002-741 Michael Shovlin (Big 5) Adopted: June 25, 2002 38. Minimum fire flow 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration. Fire flow is based on type VN construction and a complete fire sprinkler system. 39. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 40. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, FDC, PIV, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 41. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. Ft. or larger to be fully sprinkler, NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check. 42. The required water system, including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 43. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 44. Install a KNOX key box on the building. application. Contact the Fire Department for an 01 :1STAN\sdp 2002-741 pc coa.wpd Printed June 21.2002 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT #1 E CASE NEAP NORTH CASE NO• SDP 2002-741 SH®VLIN SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT #, 7:U :F5 J E C T) er` I Arl HMENT ATTACHMENT # Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 5, 2002 E. Site Development Permit 2001-741; a request of Michael Shovlin for Big 5 for review of architectural and landscaping plans for 9,600 square foot commercial building in the La Quinta Professional Plaza located at the southeast corner of Avenue 478 and Washington Street. 1. 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. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that even with the planters there is not enough room for the trees. They need to be careful with pockets/planters as they become trash containers. Pocket would be enough. 3. Committee Member Thorns stated the two outer columns should have the vines planted to enhance the look. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-023 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-738, subject to the conditions as amended. Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2002-742; a request of Toll Brothers for review of architectural and landscaping plans for Mountain View Country Club located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 within Tract 30357. 1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Forrest Haag, architect gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated his only concern is the maintenance facility, if it set back it would be better. He asked if there was enough difference between the elevation of the building and the road with the berming to not see it. Mr. Haag stated it is away from the six foot wall and will have 22 feet for berming to be 50 feet from the street. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\6-5-02.wpd 7 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 25, 2002 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY (PREVIOUSLY LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT) ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 50 REQUEST: SECOND ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WHICH CREATES 103 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 33 + ACRES. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-375 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 1, 1999, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-060, ZONE CHANGE 98-060, SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034 AND PARCEL MAP 29052 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT APPROVAL AND NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2-4 D.U./AC) p:\stan\tt 29053 ext 2 pc rpt.wpd SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: SOUTH: EAST: WEST: BACKGROUND: RL / GOLF COURSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) / PALMILLA PROJECT CC AND COMMERCIAL / SP 98-034 (COMMERCIAL SITE) / AND SHOPPING CENTER AND VACANT LAND IN THE CITY OF INDIO RL / RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION UNDER CONSTRUCTION The property, northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, is vacant with the southern portion previously used as a citrus grove and now demolished residence. Adjacent to the south and east of the property is the commercial site approved for a shopping center under Specific Plan 98-034. The City Council approved this Tentative Tract Map for 103 single family on June 1, 1999. At the same time a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Community Commercial to Low Density Residential was approved to allow this tract map. The first phase consisting of 34 residential lots and the retention and water well site has been recorded. No construction has taken place to date. A one year time extension was approved by the City Council on May 15, 2001, for this Tentative Tract Map. Project Request Proposed is a second one year extension of time to record the final tract map. The Tentative Tract has 103 single family lots varying from 7,704 to 11,857 square feet (average 9,009 square feet) at a density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre. The majority of lots are 80 feet wide and a minimum of 105 feet deep. The tract has unsignalized street access from Jefferson Street, with a signal allowed at the Avenue 50 access. These accesses are connected and act as a collector street for cul-de-sacs. Streets are to be private and gated at Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. A 3.9 acre irregularly shaped retention basin lot and .5 acre Coachella Valley Water District well site lot are shown at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the proposed shopping center. Other miscellaneous lots will be created for the private streets, and common area landscaping, including 20 foot deep lots adjacent to Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. p:\stan\tt 29053 ext 2 pc rpt.wpd Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on June 14, 2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comment, with any pertinent comments received incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of the one year extension of time can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City Council, approval of Extension #2 to Tentative Tract 29053, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 3. Tentative Tract Map 29053 (large maps for Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\tt 29053 ext 2 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SECOND ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ALLOWING 103 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 33 NET ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25T" day of June, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of La Quinta Jefferson Fifty for approval of a one year extension of time for a Tentative Tract Map which creates 103 single family lots (34 lots recorded) and miscellaneous lots on 33 net acres in the RL Low Density Residential Zone, located northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: Portions of Section 32, TSS, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15T" day of May, 2001, approve a one year extension of time for this Tentative Tract Map, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 ST day of June, 1999, adopt Resolution 99-74, approving this Tentative Tract Map, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-375 was certified by the City Council on June 1, 1999, for Tentative Tract Map 29053, General Plan Amendment 98-060, Zone Change 98-060, Specific Plan 98-034 and Parcel Map 29052 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. This request is in conformance with that approval and no changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and, pAstan\tt 29053 ext 2 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Tentative Tract Map 29053, Extension #1 June 25, 2002 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said extension to the Tentative Tract Map: 1. The map is consistent with the General Plan in that the lots are designated and to be used for Low Density Residential use. The development and improvements of the lots will comply with applicable development standards regarding setbacks, height restrictions, density, grading, access, streets, etc. 2. The design and proposed improvements of the map is consistent with the General Plan in that the development and improvements of the lots will comply with applicable development standards regarding setbacks, height restrictions, density, grading, access, streets, etc. 3. The design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, or wildlife, or cause serious public health problems since the project is surrounded by development, or other urban improvements, and mitigation is required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 98-375), including noise mitigation adjacent to Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. This will be provided by berming, lowering of the adjacent residential pads, and construction of garden and retaining walls. 4. The design of the map or types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the development of the land will require compliance with all health related requirements including provisions for sewers and water. 5. The design of the map will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the Map since none presently exist and new easements as needed will be provided and recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; p:\stan\tt 29053 ext 2 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Tentative Tract Map 29053, Extension #1 June 25, 2002 2. That it does recommend to the City Council approval of a second one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 29053 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 25T" 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 pAstan\tt 29053 ext 2 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 GENERAL 1. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Tentative Tract Map 29053 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, or approval of the final map by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent received from the CWQCB prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 1 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA OUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 4. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 61 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. Jefferson Street - 60-foot half of a 120-foot right of way. In addition, the owner shall make an irrevocable offer to grant an additional 17 feet of right of way, (not to exceed 250 feet in length), for future southbound turn lanes at the Avenue 50 intersection. B. Avenue 50 - 50-foot half of a 100-foot right of way C. Interior Collector Street - 41 feet undivided, 67 feet for divided sections. D. Other interior Street Lots - 37 feet plus additional for turn knuckle. E. Culs de sac radii - 38.5 feet. 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. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant interim easements to those areas within 60 days of written request by the City. 8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the concurrence of IID. , P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpc Page 2 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA O.UINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Jefferson Street - 20 feet B. Avenue 50 - 20 feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 10. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 11. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map.. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 13. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 15. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 3 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA OUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 16. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 18. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. .J P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 4 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA OUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 19. Depending on the timing of development of the parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to reimburse the City or others for the cost of the improvements, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. 20. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 21. 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 utilities and other 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. 22. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., a Site Development Permit), 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. 23. 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 k , 1 A. P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 5 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 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. 24. The applicant's obligations for portions of the required improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. ..-k 25. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is located within or immediately adjacent to a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all building pads, including basement and garage areas, are above the level of the project flood. Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall receive Conditional Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR/F) from FEMA. Prior to final acceptance by the City of subdivision improvements, the applicant shall have received final LOMR/Fs for all such lots. 26. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. The plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 27. 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. 28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 29. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd k t� Page 6 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 30. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by a civil engineer or surveyor. The certifications shall list approved pad elevations, actual elevations, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 32. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 33. Stormwater falling on site during the 24-hour peak period of a 100-year storm (the design stom) 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, 34. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 35. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 37. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 7 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 38. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 39. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leechfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 40. 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). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 41. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel or the Whitewater Drainage Channel, the applicant and, subsequently, the Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 42. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for aesthetic as well as practical purposes. 43. Existing and proposed wire and cable utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 44. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 8 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 45. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. Any property within this development which has not been subdivided in accordance with this tentative map 60 days after the program is in effect shall be subject to the program as determined by the City. 46. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - Construct 51-foot half of a 102-foot improvement (travel lanes plus median) plus a 6-foot meandering sidewalk. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 38-foot half of a 76-foot improvement (travel lanes plus median) plus a 6-foot meandering sidewalk. 3) Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 Intersection - Responsibility for 17.5% of the cost of signal improvements plus a proportionate share, with the remainder of the specific plan area, of any other improvements or modifications which may be warranted by the timing and traffic loadings imposed by development of the specific plan area. 4) Avenue 50/1-ot I Intersection - Responsibility for 50% of the cost of signal and other intersection improvements. This responsibility may be shared with the adjacent property on this side of the street if that property is allowed and utilizes shared access to this intersection. 5) In the event any of the above improvements are constructed by the City prior to the applicant recording a final map, the applicant shall reimburse the City, at the time the final map is approved by the City Council for the cost of that portion of the improvements constructed by the City that are required by these conditions of approval. B. ON -SITE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC (Private) 1) Collector Street - Divided sections shall have 20-foot-wide opposing travel lanes with an 18-foot median. The remainder shall have a forty -foot travel width. iJ P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 9 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 2) Cul de sac Streets - Thirty six-foot travel width plus additional for turn knuckle. 3) Cul de sac curb radius: thirty eight -feet. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 47. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Jefferson Street at Lot I - Right & left in/right out. B. Avenue 50 at Lot I - Full -turn access (with signal). C. Connection of Lot I with Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 29052 - As granted by the owner of that property and approved by the City Engineer 48. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 49. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. 50. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 51. Street right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 52. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 53. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated fj P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 10 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA OUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" Elf o fee 9 if :.MMi.MUZAL:.: [is to men F. Ims F-1-ALL00 IN lot s ae OR 55. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other 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 are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 56. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. Berming, of public street perimeter setback areas shall be provided per Zoning Code requirements. 57. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. ji P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 11 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #2 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 58. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 59. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements if and as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60. The applicant shall employ construction quality assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 61. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 62. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans and specifications. 63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement and private street plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 64. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site and perimeter setback improvements. This shall include formation of a homeowner's association or other enforceable arrangement acceptable to the City. The applicant shall maintain public improvements until expressly released from that responsibility by the City. P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 12 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION 42 LA QUINTA JEFFERSON FIFTY ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. 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. 66. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 67. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth moving activities, applicant shall pay a fringe -toed lizard mitigation fee of $600.00 per acre to the City of La Quinta. 68. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the property owner/developer shall comply with the Parkland Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13.48 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. FIRE MARSHAL 69. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD Standard W-33 shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage not more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual. 70. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 71. Prior to issuance recordation of final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 72. The required water system, including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. P:\STAN\tt 29053 ext 2 pc coa.wpd Page 13 of 13 PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 25, 2002 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-450 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2002-087 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 30521 APPLICANT: LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE REQUEST: CHANGE OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR TEN ACRES AND SUBDIVISION OF 43.6± ACRES INTO 147 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-455 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONING: RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) p:\stan\tt 30521 pc rpt.wpd SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RM / EXISTING AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SOUTH: RM AND TC / VACANT CITY OWNED LAND EAST: RL / SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: VACANT LAND IN THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS BACKGROUND: The site is vacant and consists of rolling sand dunes and typical desert shrubs. A previous Tentative Tract Map 23971 was approved in March, 1989, for 227 single family lots on this site along with the property immediately to the north (Attachment 1). The first phase of 76 lots (La Quinta Del Oro and Santiago) on the northern portion of the map was recorded in 1990, and is presently being completed by the third builder. The allowable time extensions to record the final map was approved for the remaining property, which consists of the current subject site. The time extensions expired in March, 1994. The 43.67 net acre property is presently zoned Medium Density Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre). The General Plan shows ten acres of Neighborhood Commercial at the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, with the balance of the subject property designated Low Density Residential. The current zoning permits the Tentative Tract Map at the density proposed. A zone change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential will be initiated by the City of La Quinta at a later date. Pro-ect Request The applicant has requested removal of the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Land Use designation and replacement with Low Density Residential. This will permit the residential development as proposed. The applicants are proposing 147 single family lots on 43.67 acres of land (3.37 dwelling units per acre) (Attachment 2). The lots vary in size from 7,283 to 17,001 square feet, with an average size of 8,737 square feet. The prevalent lot width is 70 feet wide and 115 feet deep. The tract is laid out with a main stem road parallel and next to Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue. Cul-de-sac and loop streets are provided from this stem road. A private gated access is shown near the east boundary to Miles Avenue. The tract's only other off -site access is a gated private street on the north to Via Sevilla near the west end. Via Sevilla connects to Washington Street at its west termination. Previous street connections under the expired tentative tract map to Bradford Circle on the east and Via Coronado on the north have been abandoned. The proposal p:\stan\tt 30521 pc rpt.wpd provides a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of existing Bradford Circle, with Via Coronado connecting in a "L" shape with the existing Forbes Circle to the east. Existing Via Caliente dead -ends into the subject property near the north end. Via Caliente was part of the original subdivision and intended to be extended into the subject property. It is now proposed that a cul-de-sac bulb be constructed on the east end of Via Caliente with six new residential lots created around the bulb. These six lots will only have vehicular access to Via Caliente in La Quinta Del Oro and therefore, not be a part of this project. A Coachella Valley Water District water well site is proposed at the southeast corner of the property adjacent to Miles Avenue. Six open space/retention basins are scattered throughout the west and south portions of the property. The largest basins are at the southeast and northwest corners of the project site. In addition to the perimeter streets (Washington Street and Miles Avenue) parkway and 20 foot deep landscaped setback, a 15 foot landscape area is provided next to the interior private street. Within the 15 foot setback area, the tentative tract map conceptually shows a meandering perimeter block wall. Four phases are proposed for build -out of the project, with the first consisting of the Miles Avenue and lots along the east portion of the site. The last phase is the northwest portion of the property, including access to Via Sevilla. Proposed finish pad elevations adjacent to existing residences around the perimeter will be even or lower than the neighbors, except on the east where the proposed finish pads for Lots 57 to 64 will be approximately 1.7 to .7 feet higher than the neighbors. These differences are based on the closest outside (front or back yard) grades submitted by the applicants. Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 14, 2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made, as conditioned, and are contained in the attached Resolutions. p:\stan\tt 30521 pc rpt.wpd V RECOMMENDATION: 1.) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-455; and, 2.) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2002-087, subject to the attached Findings; and, 3.) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 30521, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. TT 30521 map exhibit Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\ tt 24197 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-455 LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25T" day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS for Environmental Assessment 2002-455 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2002-087 and Tentative Tract 30521, located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: APN's: 604-032-009, -018, and -021 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-455) and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 30521, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigable impacts were identified. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, or animal community, reduce the number, or p:\stan\ea 2002-455.frm Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-455, Lido Equity Partners Adopted: Page 2 restrict the range of rare, or endangered plants, or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not result in impacts which are individually limited, or cumulatively considerable when considering planned, or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities. The fees will be paid at time of issuance of building permits. 7. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5 (d). 8. The Location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-455 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. p:\stan\ea 2002-455.frm Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2002-455, Lido Equity Partners Adopted: Page 2 3. That the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City of La Quinta. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th 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 p:\stan\ea 2002-455.frm Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Environmental Assessment 2002-455, General Plan Amendment 2002-087, Tentative Tract Map 30521 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lido Equity Partners. 111 West Ocean Boulevard, #1550 Long Beach, CA 91790 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Proposed: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current: Neighborhood Commercial and Medium Density Residential Proposed: Medium Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The General Plan Amendment is required to allow single family residential lots in the Low Density Residential land use category. The Tentative Tract Map is proposed to subdivide 43.81 acres into 147 residential lots and lettered lots for streets and retention basins. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Single Family Residential units South: Vacant, designated for Tourist Commercial West: Vacant land East: Single Family Residential units 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable PASTAN\LidoEACkIst.WPD Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature June 7, 2002 Date L0l u 0 PASTAN\Lido EAC kIst. W PD 2 .3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previouslV 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 PASTAN\LidoEACklst. W PD 3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a► Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (Aerial photographs) II. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X I \STAN\LidoEACkIst.WPD ! 9_ 4 c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) X Q fI f3 X X 9 X 91 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 X Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Letter Archaeological Associates, May 2002) \STAN\Lido EACklst. W PD 5 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (Letter Archaeological Associates, May 2002) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Letter Archaeological Associates, May 2002) /I. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR p. III- 61 ff.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) X Kq X X X X X X X X X ASTAN\LidoEACkIst.WPD 6 J 111. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a► Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) 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? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) 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? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 94 ff) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. 111-87 ff.) X X 91 91 X X 9 X X X ':\STAN\LidoEACkIst.WPD a 1 7 a c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.5) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.) �C. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) 91 X X 9 X 91 X KI KI \STAN\LidoEACkIst.WPD 'J 8 NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June 2002) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June 2002) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June 2002) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application materials) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map) (II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) Kill. 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 envoronmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) X X X X X X Q X FN :\STAN\LidoEACkIst.WPD U 9 Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) ;IV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) ,V. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan p. 22 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan p. 22 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) X X X X X X X X X X X (VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General X Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) � y . i \STAN\LidoEACkIst.WPD 10 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p, 46 ff.) (VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Kq X 9 X Q X K4 KI ±J \STAN\LidoEACklst. W PD 11 Vill. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. No earlier analysis were used in this review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. OURCES: aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. eneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002. CAQMD CEQA Handbook. ity of La Quinta Municipal Code evised Acoustical Analysis Report, Douglas Eilar & Associates, June 4, 2002 ieocheck Report, Environmental Data Resources, Inc., April 23, 2002 ,rchaeological Associates, Letter dated May 1, 2002 ASTAN\UdoEACkIst.WPD 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-455 I. d) The area in which the project will be built is generally developed in single family homes, and generates limited amounts of light. The Indian Wells Tennis Garden, located west and north of the project site, can generate considerable light when evening events occur there. There is sufficient distance, however, between the project site and this land use to lower the potential impacts. to a less than significant level. The project itself will generate light, but as a single family subdivision, this impact will be less than significant. 111. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map will result in 147 single family homes at build out. These homes are likely to generate a total of 1,407 trips per day at build out'. Based on this trip generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM 10 PM 10 PM 10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 36.34 1.4 7.45 -- 0.16 0.16 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 1,407 trips/day and average trip length of 5 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR. The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be significant. III. c) The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to PM 10 concentrations in the Valley. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and "Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on Single Family Detached (210) category. P:\STAN\UdoAddendum.WPD requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. Further, the SCAQMD has drafted a revision to the state Implementation Plan for PM 10 which includes a number of potential mitigation measures. The adoption of this document is expected in June 2002. The potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet' prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street and Miles Avenue, as well as the perimeter wall for this project, shall be installed with the first phase of development. 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 10. Should construction begin after the adoption of the revised Implementation Plan for PM 10, the measures included in that plan shall be implemented for this project. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout will not be significant P:\STAN\UdoAddendum.WPD IV. a) The proposed project occurs within the boundaries of the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed lizard. The project proponent will be required to pay the required fee prior to issuance of building permits. This payment will serve to mitigate the potential impacts to this species. V. b) A cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed project2. Both a records search and field survey were conducted. No cultural resources were found. The study recommends, however, that the following mitigation measure be required: 1. An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. VIII. b) The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. All homes built on the project area will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed tract will also meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. d) The proposed project will result in homes, roads and driveways on a parcel which is currently vacant. The City Engineer will require that all phases of the tract retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's drainage plan will be Z Letter dated May 1, 2002, Archaeological Associates. PASTAN\LidoAddendum.WPD XI. a) reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated with surface water to a less than significant level. The proposed project occurs in an area of the City subject to high noise levels due to traffic. A noise analysis was completed for the proposed project3. The study found that without mitigation, 50% of the lots on the proposed site would be significantly impacted by noise. In order to mitigate the potential impacts, the study recommends the following mitigation measures, which will be implemented: 1. A 6 foot wall shall be built on all sides of the proposed project. In addition, the wall along the northern property line of lots 140 and 141 shall be constructed on top of a 4 foot high berm. 2. For all homes which face or have direct exposure to Washington Street or Miles Avenue an acoustical analysis shall be submitted with building permits which demonstrates that the interior noise levels in the homes will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The acoustical analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits for these lots. XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities. Existing homes occur adjacent to the project site on the north and east sides. Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located in the southeast corner of the site. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. "Revised Acoustical Analysis Report," prepared by Douglas Eilar & Associates, June 4, 2002. PASTAN\UdoAddendu m. W PD XIII. a) The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project proponent will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools. To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. P:\STAN\LidoAddendum.WPD a N 0 o 0 C; 0 0 6 N M 4 0 N O 0 N 0 a� Cd 3 ti 0 0 U Cd 0 z 0 d O a U O a a� U O a tn N O 0 N . z a N �) ~ A U W d w A �A U� y, cn O bA O y ccvd .O V U ° b a u o.� O O 4O 0 •U 4O U O •U 0 •U z :5Ecn U U U GD F U U •- 0.0 U �b U U 0 (1) 0 t U U U a a a.a a aa. �ba a a ®z Ao w wA U U U m U Q m GC U N r. z 3 ++ci ° O � p cccycff E0-.4 chi eC 44 Gti. o o. o 0 0 � 0 ¢' -d U U 'd N d N O11 ,..; —Cd 0 o a 0 °� a W E• Q A U0 zA ax �W oV U 0 y Ry •� N U b � •U Cd Cn �. bA O E� bA Q oz � a 0 z� z00 Q x uQ z o rn :a o �d a a a ° o b U � � W Q A Um �A �W ox UU Cd o b y a� W N p a y td '0 17 r. o 0 d 0 U 0.2 v •O bA U .0 U Nbch Ca a Q Q Q O� Zz 0 b° b b b b U Q GQ � GQ GQ i rA 0 Ln U w 0 r of P. w ? o g 0En G o 0r. o �0+ U W •O �o 3 'Ei on z 0 a o 3 a yC �-o cd Un w C7 o a w a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-087 LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25TH day of June, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS for approval of a General Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Low Density Residential (MDR) for 10 acres of the 43.6+ acre site for property located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF APN 604-032-009 WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2002-455. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be certified; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the General Plan Amendment results in promoting a residential character. 2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the resulting project provides substantial setbacks, is well designed and landscaped, and will comply with all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. p:\stan\gpa 2002-087 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- General Plan Amendment 2002-087 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent properties in that the resulting Medium Density Residential project is similar in nature with surrounding single family residences. 4. The General Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in that it will allow development of single family residences in conjunction with those proposed on adjacent land. 5. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because there is adequate commercially designated properties within one-half mile to the south. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2002-087 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as shown in the attached Exhibit 'IA II PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25T" 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 p:\stan\gpa 2002-087 pc res.wpd TO LD NC TO LDR CASE MAP CASE No. GPA 2002-087 LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS EXHIBIT "A" ORTH SCALE: NTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 43.6 ACRES INTO 147 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30521 LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25T" day of June, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS for subdivision of 43.6 acres into 147 residential lots and golf, common area, street, and miscellaneous lots, generally located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: A.P.N. 604-032-009, -18, AND -21 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2002-455. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 30521: 1. The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan with approval of General Plan Amendment 2002-087 in that its lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been imposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements and Conditions of Approval will be imposed. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002-_ Tentative Tract Map 30521 Adopted: Page: 2 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that street connections and cul-de- sac bulbs will be provided with the project to surrounding streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 30521 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25T" 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 p:\stan\tt 30521 pc reso.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 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 ("LQM C") . The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www:la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wyd Printed June 20, 2002 Page I of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate PASTAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 2 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial Street) - None Required 2) Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial Street) - None Required 3) Via Caliente, Bradford Circle, Forbes Circle and Via Coronado - Local Street, 60 foot Right of Way. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Street "A" 'Entry Street - 81 foot private right of way as shown on the Tentative Map. 2) Street "L" Entry Street - 57 foot private right of way as shown on the Tentative Map. 3) Interior Private Streets: 36-foot travel width within a 37 foot private right of way. B. CUL DE SACS 1) Private Residential Cul-de-sac 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. P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 3 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 11. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the Right of way or property line. B. Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the Right of way or property line. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 17. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access points shown on the Final Map. P:\STAN\U 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 4 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 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. 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 acid/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 P:\S'I'AN\tt 30521 pe coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 5 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 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. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical D. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 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. P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd �y Printed June 20, 2002 Page 6 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 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. 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. 29. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," 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 P:\STAN\U 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 7 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 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. 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:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 8 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 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 differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 37. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 38. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. ' 1 � 1 P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 9 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 41. The applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24.120 (Drainage), sub -section "K.", LQMC. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basin(s) as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. 42. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 43. Nuisance water shall be retained on site through an acceptable manner as approved by the City Engineer. 44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 45. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Deeper retention basins may be approved but shall meet the criteria established in Engineering Bulletin 97-03 (Amendment #1). 46. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 10 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 48. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 49. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 51. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 52. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 53. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 54. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. P:\STAN\U 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page I 1 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 55. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 56. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street - (Major Arterial) (a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk along the entire frontage adjacent to the Tentative Tract boundary. (b) Traffic signal at the Project's main entry at Via Sevilla and Washington Street when warrants are met. The Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal if complementing cost share from development on other side of street is available at time signal is required. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject intersection, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the signalization for the resulting "T" intersection. If, however, the applicant's development trails the progress of the development on the other side of the street, the applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the cost as previously stated. 2) Miles Avenue - (Primary Arterial) Widen the north side of the Miles Avenue to a 43 foot half width along the entire frontage adjacent to the Tentative Tract Map boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to facilitate the widening. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant PASTAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 12 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include: (a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk. (b) The applicant shall modify the existing median at the project entry to accommodate a left turn in configuration while prohibiting left turns out. All improvements to Washington Street and Miles Avenue shall be completed with the Phase I Tract Improvements. 3) Via Caliente, Bradford Circle, Forbes Circle and Via Coronado - Local Street, 60 foot Right of Way. The applicant shall complete the necessary street improvement and cul-de-sac improvements for a 40 foot wide, curb to curb street section. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Street "A" Entrance - Construct full improvements within a 81-foot right-of- way, which shall be divided into two 30-foot traveled ways with a 20-foot center landscaped median. 2) Street "L" Entrance - Construct full improvements within a 57 foot right of way, which shall be divided into two 22 foot traveled ways with a 10 foot center landscaped median. 3) Interior Private Streets - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements within a 37-foot right-of-way where the residential streets are double loaded. 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. P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 13 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 57. The entry streets shall be designed to accommodate a gated entry. The design 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.) 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 the respective street. 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. 58. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5"/6.00" 5.5"/6.50" or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 59. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry - Via Sevilla: Full right in, right out, left in and left out turning movements. B. Primary Entry - Miles Avenue: Right in, right out and left in (only) turning movements. Left turn out turning movements will be prohibited. The applicant shall modify the existing median island on Miles Avenue to accommodate the proposed left in turning movement. PASTAN tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 14 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. Corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 63. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. CONSTRUCTION 64. 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 65. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 66. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 67. 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 a r � P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wPd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 15 of 1 S Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 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. 68. 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. 69. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 70. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 71. 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. 72. 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. 73. 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 74. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 1 7 PASTAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 16 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 75. 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 76. 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. 77. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth moving activities, applicant shall pay a fringe -toed lizard mitigation fee of $600.00 per acre to the City of La Quinta. 78. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the property owner/developer shall comply with the Parkland Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13.48 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 79. Within 48 hours after review by the City Council, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Community Development Department a check made out to the "County of Riverside" in the amount of $1314.00 to permit the filing and posting of the Notice of Determination for EA 2002-455 as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. ENVIRONMENTAL 80. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 2002-455. FIRE DEPARTMENT 81. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a two hour duration at 20 PSI. 82. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 83. Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel lanes serving that gate. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle 7 P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 17 of 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 30521 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40 foot turning radius shall be used. 84. Gates shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. Contact the Fire Department for an application (760 863-8886). 85. Provide to the Fire Department, two sets of water plans for plan check prior to recordation of the final Tract Map. 86. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted the appropriate water agency prior to any combustibles being placed on an individual lot. P:\STAN\tt 30521 pc coa.wpd Printed June 20, 2002 Page 18 of 18 PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 25, 2002 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-743 APPLICANT: MR. MEL RUDMAN (PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS) PROPERTY OWNER: MR. MEL RUDMAN REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ±5,000 S.F. COMMERCIAL OFFICE LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 47 (ATTACHMENT #1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (INFILL DEVELOPMENT) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: 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. The applicant proposes a ± 5,060 square foot commercial/office building on Parcel 5 of PM 29889, along Avenue 47 at the north edge of the site (Attachment #2). This office space will ultimately attach with the proposed buildings on Parcel 4 (SDP 02- 738, approved 6/11 /02) and Parcel 3 (future development). Although all three will be separately held properties, the structural appearance will be 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. However, the ALRC requested that a condition be added to ensure embellishment and screening of the metal utility doors on the east elevation. Building Height - The Specific Plan proposes building heights up to 35 feet (tower features may extend up to 40 feet). Parcel 5 was restricted by a condition in the Specific Plan to a maximum 28 foot height, due to it's proximity to Lake La Quinta residential properties. The proposed office building shows a peak roof height of 28 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 interior building spaces will be separate, but 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. Lighting - The Specific Plan states that light pole height will not exceed 20 feet, with 18 feet being the maximum height 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 by the City as installed. limmemorem- This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 15, 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. Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible and concerned public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS• Findings necessary to approve this proposal can be found in the attached Resolution to be adopted for this case. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002 - , confirming the environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and granting approval of Site Development Permit 2002-743, 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 THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ± 5,060 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-743 MR. MEL RUDMAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25th day of June, 2002, consider a Site Development Permit application for a ± 5,060 square -foot commercial/office building, located near the southeast corner of Avenue 47 and Washington Street and more particularly described as: PARCEL 5 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 Community Commercial and other current City standards when considering the conditions to be imposed. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially equivalent to those permitted under existing Regional Commercial zoning, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan and approved under Specific Plan 2001-049. Specifically, development of existing CR land is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that the C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\peresosdp743.wpd $ Planning Commission Resolution 2002- 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 2002-743 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 25th day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SdpO2743\peresosdp743.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\Sdp02743\peresosdp743.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-743 MR. MEL RUDMAN ADOPTED: JUNE 25, 2002 1. Site Development Permit 2002-743 (SDP 2002-743) 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 2002-743 the conditions shall take precedence. 2. SDP 2002-743 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. 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 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 • 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 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 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 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. "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. J C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\SdpO2743\coapcsdp743.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. 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. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. Fire Department connection and post -indicator valve (if any) shall be located at the street side of the building. 16. Minimum fire flow shall be 1750 GPM for a 2-hour duration. Fire flow is based on type VN construction. A 50% credit in fire flow requirements will be given for a fully sprinklered building, down to the minimum 1500 GPM, as required in the California Fire Code. 17. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 18. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review, to run concurrent with the City plan check. 19. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, FDC, PIV, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 20. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 21. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 22. Install a KNOX key box on the building (Contact the Fire Department for an application). G 1:� C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 23. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 24. 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. 25. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 26. 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. 27. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd 0 111. Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 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. 28. 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 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 30. 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. 31. 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, 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. 32. 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. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd 0 1_ 4. Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 33. 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. 34. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 35. 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. 36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 37. 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 38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 39. 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. 40. 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. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd 013 Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. 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. LANDSCAPING 44. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 45. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 46. 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. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd 0 .1 Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. The final landscaping plans shall incorporate adequate plant materials along the east side elevation to accomplish screening of the building's utility door areas. Materials selected should be maintained at a minimum height of 36 inches to effectively screen the lower door and kick panel areas. CONSTRUCTION 50. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 51. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 52. The applicant shall employ or otherwise 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. 53. 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. 54. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd 0 15 Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 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 55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 56. 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 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). MISCELLANEOUS 60. 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. 61. Plan elevations submitted for plan checking shall address architectural treatment of the east utility doors in order to improve their appearance, or to reduce their overall visibility in combination with landscaping requirements as specified in Condition #50. 62. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP049\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd 01 ' Site Development Permit 2002-743 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 25, 2002 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\Sdp02743\coapcsdp743.wpd 0 1. 7 ATTACHMENTS 1 '� LO 0 a .9 ®Y �O U t- z ❑ c Z ii wri y cUado U O)4 Oo H U w 5❑k O� m ugg. C Z ria Z W�U Y $ 6 �_� IL >U Z LU z z < a --------------------- AVa 031vo ° LO ol co a ❑ i o Q 00 d a i acn C . EL W 13381S NOIONIHSVM S D P 02-743 ---------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 5, 2002 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, architect for the project, 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 a round element and relief metal to soften the look. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there were any provision 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 there are no setbacks; fire walls are required. There are two different projects at the same location with different applicants. It will eventually appear to be one building. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\6-5-02.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 5, 2002 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated he likes the outer perimeter of the project. The effect on the outside community is broken up architecturally and is well done. He asked if the doors on the eastern side were utility doors. Mr. Vuksic stated they are utility doors. Committee Member Cunningham asked that this elevation be given additional architectural detail perhaps using metal, or projections to keep them from being unsightly. On the site plan there should be no ability to have outdoor storage. Make sure curbing and planting areas are done to discourage the stacking of boxes. On the northern elevation he likes the 45 degree soffit and recessed boxes to break up the stucco. He presumes they will use color for accent. Mr. Vuksic stated they were proposing color and texture. Committee Member Cunningham stated he likes the colored railings. The building will add to the community. Stated his only concern was that the color be used correctly. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the architecture. He has no further comments except to be sure that any date palms used be 15-20 feet and of good quality and not stressed to lose their crown. 6. 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 2001-738, subject to the conditions as submitted. Unanimously approved with Committee Member Thorns being absent. A. Condition : Add additional architectural detail to the utility doors. Committee Member Thorns rejoined the Committee. D. Site Development Permit 2001-739; a request of Summit Team Inc. (David Israelsky/Fleming Associates), for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a 5,839 square foot one story commercial building located west side of Washington Street, north of Calle Tampico, within the La Quinta Village Shopping Center. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. David Israelsky, owner of the project gave a presentation. G:\WPD0CS\AR1.C\6-5-02.wpd 5 BI #� STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 25, 2002 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-742 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: TOLL BROTHERS, INC. REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR TEN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNS FOR EACH PROTOTYPE AND PROJECT PERIMETER LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTRY CLUB. LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 52. ARCHITECT: TOLL ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: FORREST K. HAAG, ASLA, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 30357 UNDER RESOLUTION 2002-14. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS, OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) PCstfrptTollBros. wpd Page 1 of 4 BACKGROUND: The project is known as Mountain View Country Club and is located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 (Attachment 1). This project has had various approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to Environmental Assessment 2001-437, Tentative Tract Map 30357, Specific Plan/Amendment No. 1 (SP 90-016), General Plan Amendment 2001-081, and Zone Change 2001-104. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted a Site Development Permit for architecture and landscape approval of the prototype residential units. In addition, as one of the conditions for the Tentative Tract Map, the applicant has submitted project perimeter landscaping plans for approval by the Planning Commission. Each of these is discussed below. Prototype Units: The applicant proposes ten prototype single-family residential units, with two different architectural styles for each prototype (Attachment 2). The unit floor plans vary from 2,597 to 4,057 square feet on lots generally measuring 60 to 90 feet wide by 150 + feet in depth. Proposed architectural design themes include "Contemporary" and "Santa Barbara," relying heavily on stuccoed exterior surfaces, concrete the roofs with a variety of architectural elements that add character to each unit. Each plan type has two facade design treatments that include a variation in window sizes and shapes, decorative trim elements, stucco fascias and columns, decorative wrought iron, and roll up garage doors. Gable roofs with a 5:12 pitch vary in heights between 19 and 21 feet in height. The color schemes are primarily variations of white, brown and grey stucco with dark accent colors in shades of green, blue and brown. An exterior color scheme material sample board will be available at the meeting. The front yard landscaping plan consists of a wide variety of specimen trees, shrubs, vines and ground covers. The plant materials proposed are consistent with other projects in the City and are appropriate for the desert climate. Project Perimeter Landscaping: Pursuant to Condition No. 91 of the conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map, the applicant has submitted project perimeter landscaping plans for approval by the Planning Commission (Attachment 3). PCstfrptTollBros .wpd Page 2 of 4 The project perimeter landscaping also consists of a complete irrigation system with a wide variety of specimen trees, shrubs, vines and ground covers. The landscaping is consistent with other major projects in the City. Generally, the project entries on Avenue 50, Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street emphasize Date Palm and Grapefruit trees, Natal Plum, annuals, and Bermuda sod. The remainder of the perimeter landscaping would have landscaped pockets similar to that of the entryways along with a mix of shrubs, vines and sod. Landscape lighting is also proposed to add lighting accents during evening hours. A meandering walkway is also proposed within the landscape setbacks along Avenue 50, Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street with exception of the southeast corner of Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 and northeast corner of Jefferson Street/Avenue 52. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this project at the June 5, 2002 meeting and determined that the prototype units were acceptable. While the ALRC has reviewed architecture and landscape plans for the golf course maintenance building and recommended approval subject to conditions, it also requires approval by the Planning Commission and will be brought before the Commission at a later date. The June 5, 2002, ALRC meeting minutes are attached (Attachment 4). The Committee unanimously approved Minute Motion 2002-025 recommending approval of the prototype units to the Planning Commission as presented. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving SDP 2002-742, subject to findings and conditions contained in the attached Resolution. Attachments: PCstfrptToIIBros.wpd Page 3 of 4 1. Site Location Map 2. Model and Production Home Plans 3. Project Perimeter Landscape Plans 4. June 5, 2002, ALRC meeting minutes Prepared by: Martin Magari Associate Planner PCstfrptToIIBros.wpd Page 4 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR TEN NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TWO FACADES EACH AND PROJECT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR TRACT 30357 (MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTRY CLUB) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 52. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-742 APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25T" day of June, 2002 hold a Public Hearing to consider a request by Toll Brothers, Inc. for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for ten new prototype residential units with two facades each and project perimeter landscaping plans for Tract 30357 (Mountain View Country Club) located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 772-250-002 & 003, 772-250-007 through 012, 772-220-001 through 004, & 772-270-006 (Portion of Section 4, T5S R7E) WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th day of June, 2002, hold a public meeting to review architecture and landscaping plans for the ten new prototype residential units with two facades each and project perimeter landscaping for Tract 30357 (Mountain View Country Club); and WHEREAS, the Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the City Council for Tentative Tract Map 30357 under Resolution 2002- 17. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information which 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 desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: P:\Martin\PC Reso SDP 02-742.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-742-Toll Brothers June 25, 2002 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The project as proposed is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the project is compatible with an established Specific Plan. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and the Mountain View Country Club Specific Plan, as conditioned, which establishes development standards with regard to architecture, building heights, building mass, parking, circulation, open space and landscaping. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-437 was certified by the City Council under resolution 2002- 17. 4. Architectural Design: The proposed project complies with the architectural design standards of the Mountain View Country Club Specific Plan and implements the development standards and design guidelines in that document. 5. Site Design: The proposed project complies with the City's zoning Code with regard to site design in terms of project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, screening of equipment, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance as established in the Mountain View Country Club Specific Plan. 6. Landscape Design: The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette in the Mountain View Country Club Specific Plan and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit. 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-742 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached conditions. PAMartin\PC Reso SDP 02-742.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-742-Toll Brothers June 25, 2002 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25" 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 PAMartin\PC Reso SDP 02-742.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 K� NOT TO SCALE 1 INDIAN WELLS INDIO PALM DESERT z EISENHOWER COACHELLA aU,Hrp PROJECT �L � LOCATION � CASE MAP CASE Na NORTH SDP 2002-742 APPLICANT: TOLL BROS. SCALE: PROJECT: MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTRY CLUB SITE LOCATION MAP NTS ATTACHMENT # Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 5, 2002 E. Site Development Permit 2001-741; a request of Michael Shovlin for Big 5 for review of architectural and landscaping plans for 9,600 square foot commercial building in the La Quinta Professional Plaza located at the southeast corner of Avenue 478 and Washington Street. 1. 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. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that even with the planters there is not enough room for the trees. They need to be careful with pockets/planters as they become trash containers. Pockets are not enough. 3. Committee Member Thorns stated the two outer columns should have the vines planted to enhance the look. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-023 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-738, subject to the conditions as amended. A. Condition to add vines to columns Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2002-742; a request of Toll Brothers for review of architectural and landscaping plans for the prototype residential units and golf course maintenance building for Mountain View Country Club located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 within Tract 30357. 1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Forrest Haag, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated his only concern is that if the maintenance facility were set back, it would be better. He questioned the elevation difference between the building and the G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\6-5-02.wpd 7 f Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 5, 2002 road and asked if their is enough berming. Mr. Haag stated it is away from the six foot wall and will has 22 feet of berming and will be 50 feet from the street. 4. Committee Member Cunningham asked if there were any visibility issues from the westerly traffic. Mr. Haag stated there is a block wall next to the CVWD access wall. Committee Member Cunningham asked the height of the dumpster and carport. Mr. Haag stated no higher than 6 feet. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the exterior would be painted. Mr. Haag stated it will be painted. 6. Committee Member Thoms asked if the City approves of metal buildings. Staff noted they have been allowed. The setback is an advantage. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if any consideration was given to another entrance at the eastern end. Mr. Haag stated no. 8. Committee Member Thoms asked about the fencing material on the interior. Mr. Haag stated it is chain -link and only on the interior of the yard. Committee Member Thoms asked the purpose of the parking. Mr. Haag, explained it was for employee parking. Committee Member Thoms stated there was no room for the trees with the overhang. Mr. Haag stated the spaces are 18-feet with a 1.5 foot overhang which should allow room for the trees. 9. Committee Member Cunningham stated a consideration should be given to plant material along the Canal, or make the carport architecturally appeasing. 10. Committee Member Thoms asked about the entry gates between the walls. Mr. Haag stated there will be gates that are steel to emulate the wall for security. 11. Committee Member Thoms stated he has a problem with chain -link along the gates. The applicant needs to add black vinyl fabric for the fence. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned some of the plant material. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\6-5-02.wpd 8 � I Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes June 5, 2002 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2002-025 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-742, subject to the conditions as amended: A. Enhance the landscaping on Canal side for view. B. Add black vinyl fabric to the chain -link fence in the employee parking lot. Unanimously approved. Staff gave a presentation on the Commercial Property Improvement Program as requested by the Committee. G. Continued - Commercial Property Improvement Program 2002-012; a request of Scott Wilson for funding of landscaping/hardscape improvements for the property located at 78-150 Calle Tampico. 1. Management Analyst Debbie Powell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Members discussed the proposal as presented. 3. Committee Member Thorns stated he was concerned that the east side of property was not addressed in the applicant's request and should be included in this project. Mr. Wilson stated he now owns the entire site and would consider this area. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what he expects to do with this portion of the site. Mr. Wilson stated that until they have a tenant they will not know what will be done. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if it could be cleaned up. Mr. Wilson stated this could be done. 5. Committee Member Thom asked about the area between the wall and the curb. Mr. Wilson asked if the Bougainville could be used on Desert Club as well. Thorns stated it should be the same as the east side. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members to adopt Minute Motion 2002-026 approving G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\6-5-02.wpd 9 WATER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUB[ IC AGENCY TTFRI. COAICHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 'OST OFFICE BOX 1058 - C.OACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 922;t6 - TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS JOHN IN. McFAODEN, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGNEER RUSSELL ItITAHARA, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY TELLIS CODEKAS STEVEN B. ROBBINS, ASSISTANT TO GENERAL MANAGER PATRICIA A. LARSON June 6, 2002 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS PETER NELSON File: 0421.2 Tradition Mindy Gutierrez Tradition Community Association Post Office Box 4772 Palm Desert, California 92261 Dear Ms. Gutierrez: The district recently received a facsimile transmittal of Tradition's May 1 correspondence to Jerry Herman of the City of La Quinta regarding the district's 6630-1 water reservoir. This reservoir is located due south of Tradition's development, screened by an earthen berm. The district would like to point out that this site, berm and facilities were existing prior to the construction of the Tradition development. The developer of Tradition has always had the opportunity to modify and/or enhance the appearance of this berm. This still applies. The district will allow additional rock and aesthetic work on the exterior of this berm provided the work is approved and coordinated through this district. All work will be funded by the proponent and/or by funds secured by the proponent. We have no objection to the City of La Quinta participating or funding part or all of the work. If you have any questions or wish to commence design of enhancements to the reservoir berm/site please call John Corella, principal domestic water engineer, extension 269. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer cc: Jerry Herman City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 bc: Carrie Oliphant Jim Zimmerman TRUE CONSERVATION JC:dd\eng\dom\jun\gutierrez USE WATER WISELY Tradition May 1, 2002 City of La Quinta Attn: Jerry Herman P.O. Box 1504 La Quints, CA 92253 Re: Water tower visible.- from The Tradition Mr. Herman, I am not sure if you are aware, but there is a water tower that is visible from Masters Circle in the Tradition as you are looking west. The Association is requesting that the City licish the rock worm around it to help it to blend in with the existing surroundings. This would greatly enhance the appearance of the water tower. wwald be happy to meet you at Masters Circle an3lime to show you this area of concem hark you in advance fir your review of this matter. incerrly, c Gutierrez, PropeAy Manager )n Community Association PC,,iiPEBERT RESORT FROMTY.ML A\AGEJIENT CUNIPA.\Y POST OFFICE LOX 4772, PAL\i DESI RT, C'A:IFORNiA 92761-4772. 73-550ALE55ANDR0, SUM-E 5, PALNI DESEr, , C L1TFCXN1,4 972d,1 PHONE: (760) 346-1161 --- FAx: (76o) 346-9918 06-17-02 10:43 RECEIVED FROM: P.O2