Loading...
1998 04 28 PCCRyOFTHV, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 28, 1998 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 98-017 Beginning Minute Motion 98-005 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 for April 14, 1998 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ............................ CONTINUED - ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 97-051 AND 98-061 Applicant .................... City of La Quinta Location ..................... City-wide Request ....................... Consideration of miscellaneous amendments to Title 9-Zoninl Code of the La Quinta Municipal Code Action ......................... Request to continue B. Item ............................ CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98 353, REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 87-009, VILLAGE A7 LA QUINTA, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-060 CHANGE OF ZONE 98-085, AND DESIGN REVIEVI GUIDELINES Applicant .................... City of La Quinta Location ..................... The area is generally bounded by Eisenhower Drive, 52" Avenue, Desert Club Drive and the La Quinta Evacuatioi Channel. Request ....................... Consideration and recommendation to the City Council to Repea the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan, replace it with Desigi Review Guidelines and revised "Village Commercial" Zoninj text, and zone the "Village Residential" area east of Desert Clul Drive from Village Residential to Low Density Residential Action ......................... Request to continue. C. Item ............................ CONTINUED - SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-621 Applicant .................... Peters -Hover Company Location ..................... On portions of Liga, Porno, Cetrino, Cidra, and Baya Streets ii the Citrus Country Club Request ....................... Consideration and approval of a compatibility review approva to allow new prototype single family houses in Tract 24890-1 and 28719 ranging in size from 2,424 square feet to 3,869 square feet under Specific Plan 85-006 Action ......................... Resolution 98- PC/AGENDA D. Item ..................... Applicant ............... Location ................ Request ................. Action ......................... E. Item ...................... Applicant ................ Location ................. Request .................. Action .................... VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ............................ Applicant ................... Location ..................... Request ...................... Action ........................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-357, GENERAI PLAN AMENDMENT 98-057, SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 AMENDMENT #2, AND CHANGE OF ZONE 98-086 TD Desert Development South of Avenue 48, North of Avenue 50, west of Jeffersoj Street and east of Washington Street 1. Recommend certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2. Recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment fron Low Density Residential (LDR) to Tourist Commercial (TC) and 32 foot wide private streets (36 foot is required); 3. Recommend approval of Rancho La Quint: Specific Plan 84 004 Amendment #2 , with guidelines and standards; and 4. Recommend approval of a Change of Zone from Low Densiv Residential (LR) to Tourist Commercial (TC) Resolution 98-_, Resolution 98-_, Resolution 98-_, anc Resolution 98- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616 ANL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-036 A & S Engineering for Shell Oil Company Northwest corner of Adams Street and Highway 111 1. Approval of a Site Development Permit to alloy construction of a 2,615 square foot service station/food mar and a 900 square foot car wash; and 2. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the service statioi and car wash. Resolution 98- and Resolution 98- SIGN PERMIT 98-418 DGI Signs, Incorporated (Mr. Skip Berg) 78-611 Highway 111 (southwest corner of Highway I I I ani Simon Drive) Approval of a planned sign program for Simon Motor: Automotive Dealership Minute Motion 98- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meetings of April 21, 1998. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 14, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard and Chairman Butler. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Leslie Mouriquand and Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 10, 1998. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 2, Item B.2. the tanks were "would be installed horizontally"; Page 4, Item 14 the reference to the word "daylight" was questioned. Commissioner Kirk reaffirmed this was correct; Page 5, Item 16. needed to have the word "`RV' added to how many storage units would be left after redesign"; Page 6, Item 29 at the end of the first sentence add, "from the fuel island"; Page 8 Item 44.e., should state "plans are not approved at this time". Chairman Butler asked if there were any other changes to the Minutes of March 10, 1998. There being no other changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the minutes of March 24, 1998. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 8, Item 6 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Kirk stated he did not agree, but noted that exclusive communities like La Quinta tend to have stricter requirements. There being no other corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None. PC-4-14-98 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Environmental Assessment 98-355 and Conditional Use Permit 98-039 a request of Kathryn Carlson, DVM for consideration of a conditional use permit and environmental assessment for the proposed adaptive reuse of a historic structure as a small -animal veterinary clinic with accessory residence in The Village Park Zoning District. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked what days the clinic would be open. The applicant, Kathryn Carlson, stated it would be open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday. Commissioner Tyler asked if the perimeter chain link fence would remain and be grandfathered. Staff stated the fence is nonconforming and the applicant intended to plant a screening - type vine that would grow to cover the fence. Commissioner Tyler stated the Noise issue contained in the Environmental Assessment (EA) did not address the issue of barking dogs. Although the proposed clinic is not located in a residential area, the EA should have addressed it. 3. Commissioner Seaton asked if the alleyway behind the clinic, served any other businesses and whether or not there would be any traffic problems in the future. Staff stated there are other properties that back up to the alleyway, but the Public Works Department should address any potential traffic problems. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the alleyway would be improved at some point in the future and the traffic from this use would not be a negative impact. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated he too was concerned with the chain link fence, but did not want to see a hardship placed on the applicant as approval of this project was in the interest of the City. He then asked about the trash enclosure; would it be a block wall. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated yes, and as it was new construction, the trash enclosure would be stuccoed to match the entry wall and not the historic building. Commissioner Woodard stated that in regard to the sign, he would agree with the graphics on the street address. Staff stated their objection was that the sign should be for identification and not advertising. PC-4-14-98 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 5. Commissioner Abels asked what impacts the proposed changes to the Village Specific Plan would have on this project. Staff stated the proposed project is recommended for approval as it does comply with the current zoning for the Village. 6. Commissioner Gardner stated he would like to commend whoever started the idea of saving the lumber yard and asked if the sign would be visible from the street. Staff stated it would be installed at an angle to be visible as you travel down the street. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify how the rehabilitation work was to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit under the Summary of Mitigation Measures. Staff stated that the seismic retrofit work was being required to be done prior to any other tenant improvements. The condition could be reworded to require both improvements done concurrently. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the hanging sign would include the street number and name. Staff stated they were uncertain as to whether or not the street name was included in the sign. Commissioner Kirk stated he too liked the graphics on the sign and suggested the graphic not depict the use of the building. He questioned the "Regional Environmental Setting"issue in the EA as it stated the median home price as $112,000. This appears to be very low. Staff would check into it. 8. Chairman Butler asked if there would be any security lighting? Staff stated the existing wall lights would be replaced, but no additional lighting would be installed. 9. Commissioner Abels commended the applicant on her proposed business and stated this is a use he would like to see in the Village area. 10. Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened the discussion to the Commission. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planing Commission Resolution 98-012 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-355, subject to the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler. Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC-4-14-98 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Gardner/Tyler moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-012-A, approving Conditional Use Permit 98-039, subject to the amended conditions as follows: a. The trash enclosure and entry stucco walls shall be compatible, but not match the stucco of the historic structures. b. The hanging address sign to be approved as presented by the applicant (delete Condition #4). ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Tentative "Tract 26855, First Time Extension; a request of Sumbad and Sharron Kanlian for a recommendation to certify an amended environmental assessment and approval of a first time extension for a tract map which creates 73 single family lots on 23+ acres in the Low Density Residential Zone on the east side of Jefferson Street approximately 660 feet south of 50th Avenue. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff stated they would like the following added to the Conditions of Approval: Condition # 14 requires the applicant to obtain an easement from the property owner to the south for shared street access. Staff is asking for this to be done within 90-days of the approval of the first time extension. Condition #23.A., staff is requesting to add to the end of the condition: "if access is ultimately acquired at Pomelo". Condition #71 correct to read "a two and half foot berm". Condition #74.B., remove the last sentence. Condition #75.F., needs to be deleted as it is already in another condition. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk thanked staff for drawing attention to the condition changes. In regard to Condition #14, he asked if this was normal. Staff stated they had placed similar conditions on tracts to be sure that issues of concern are addressed. Commissioner Gardner questioned Condition #23.a., as to whether or not another street would be added later on. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the ultimate plan is for the access street into the Citrus Course to have a full turn and ultimately a signal. Unfortunately, the ten acres are not a part of either tract, but is the key to this access of the two tracts being. It is just a plan for the future when the ten acres are developed. Commissioner Gardner asked who would pay the costs for the improvements. Staff stated it would 13C-4-14-98 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 be shared by all the developments at this location. Commissioner Gardner asked why staff was asking for the deletion of the requirement regarding the shading of glass. Staff stated it is a requirement of Title 24 and it is redundant to have it in the conditions. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked the location of the Reese Ranch and what it was zoned. Staff stated it was zoned RL with the Equestrian Overlay (EO). Commissioner Woodard asked what properties have the EO and how long have the adjacent properties been zoned RL. Staff stated the area was zoned RL when it was annexed into the City. Commissioner Woodard stated the RL zoning has been known for ten years. Staff stated that since the annexation in 1991. Commissioner Woodard stated this tract is dependent upon the access through the ten acre parcel, but there is no guarantee when, or if the ten acres will be developed. Therefore, there is only one way in and out. Is this acceptable to the Fire Marshall? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated a condition had been placed on the tract that the second access must be provided before the 41 s` home is built. This is based upon the Fire Department's recommendation. Commissioner Woodard asked why Lots 1 and 73 were restricted to one story. Staff stated the condition is based on the General Plan requirement for Jefferson Street. Commissioner Woodard asked that Condition #74.0 be changed to have the design guidelines approved by the Planning Commission. Staff pointed out this condition refers to the CC&R's and Section "A" refers to the design guidelines. Staff suggested modifying Conditions "C" to read "the applicant shall establish within the CC & R's Site Development Standards and Design Standards as approved by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Woodard asked that Condition #55 also be changed to require approval by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Woodard asked if Lot I had been designated as open space? Staff stated it was. Commissioner Woodard asked if this would be maintained by the homeowners' association and if this was true of Lot G. Staff stated it was a retention basin. 5. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain the emergency exit. Staff stated the emergency access will enter into the tract to the south and go west to Jefferson Street. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked why this tract was not required to have an emergency access. Staff stated he was allowed to build no more than 40 houses until the second access is provided. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked who owned the ten acres. Staff stated they did not know at this time. Commissioner Tyler stated that in his opinion there are potential problems if these two tracts are not built at the same time. He did not understand the reason for the urgency for the easement. Senior Engineer PC-4-14-98 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 Steve Speer stated they initially were not going to bring it to the Commission until it was obtained and only changed it to allow them 90-days to keep from holding up the time extension. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify which School District was affected with this tract. Staff stated it is Coachella Unified School District. Commissioner Woodard stated the EA requires an eight foot wall or berm, but it is not clear if it is to be around the entire perimeter or only on Jefferson Street. Staff stated it would only be on Jefferson Street. Commissioner Tyler asked that this be clarified. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify what the percentage breakdown of the signal improvements would be on each tract. He then asked if this was the same for the bus turnout. Staff stated they do not bond for bus turnouts. Commissioner Tyler stated the location of the bus shelter needs to be clarified as whether it is to be on the east or west side of Jefferson Street. He stated the entry lots were unusual and there appears to be a need for a greater setbacks. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked the City Attorney to identify what changes the Commission could make on an extension request. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the applicant could be required to comply with the current Code requirements. Traditionally, the City has not made major changes on a time extension request. Commissioner Woodard asked if this plan had to come back for landscaping, etc., approval. Staff stated it is currently conditioned for staff s approval. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Planning Commission could require this condition to be changed to require the landscaping plans be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission could require Lots 1 and 73 to come back to the Commission. Staff stated that landscaping requirements for entries is not included in the Zoning Code at this time and cannot be placed on this tract as a condition. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could not require changes that are not currently contained in the Zoning Code. Discussion followed as to what changes were within the Commission's purview. 9. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not all the proposed conditions were contained in the current Zoning Code. Staff stated some of the condition changes are proposed changes to the Zoning Code. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in order to have a legal basis to uphold the condition, all conditions should be based on the existing Zoning Code. This is the City's authority to uphold conditions. Commissioner Kirk asked if conditions could be established if they were consistent with General Plan Policies. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that everything should be consistent with the General Plan. The reason there are explicit zoning requirements is to provide a certainty to the development community as to what is required. Discussion followed. 13C-4-14-98 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 10. Commissioner Woodard asked if a tract map is submitted, is there a requirement in the present Zoning Code stating what the landscaping should be or where a wall should be located. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #79 be added requiring that Lots A of this tract and Lot C of the adjoining tract have the same name. In addition, with the impact of Proposition 218 on the Lighting and Landscaping District, it has been a new policy to have the perimeter landscaping be the responsibility of the developer or HOA. This condition needs to be added. Is there a condition for bicycle and/or equestrian path. Staff stated there was a condition. 12. Chairman Butler stated that if there are conditions on these tracts that are not consistent with what was approved originally, then the Commission is approving something they are not allowed to do, according to the City Attorney. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that as long as the applicant has no objection with the conditions, then they can become a final part of the tract. Chairman Butler asked the City Attorney to clarify if she was saying they cannot approve what has been recommended by staff. If this is true, it is a real dilemma. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she was unaware staff was making these changes as a regular basis. In the past, the applicant has not objected to the conditions and after a certain period of time, if the applicant does not challenge them, they become defensible. Chairman Butler stated that when this tract comes back in a year for another extension, the new Code requirements could be imposed. The City Attorney stated that was true. 13. Commissioner Abels asked that in view of this discussion, could a condition be placed on the tract to require the landscaping to be upgraded at the entrances? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission could impose the condition as long as they know that if a challenge is made, the condition is indefensible 14. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission on this project. Mr. Sumbad Kanlian, applicant, stated the entrance is designed as other tracts with landscaping and a wall. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant if he would accept all the conditions as they are currently placed on the tract by staff. Mr. Kanlian stated he would prefer to leave it as it is. Commissioner Woodard stated that in accepting the conditions as they are recommended, it can be a hardship on the developer. Mr. Kanlian stated this is a problem that the developer would have to contend with. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would object to having the conditions placed on the tract regarding the entrance. PC-4-14-98 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 16. Commissioner Kirk stated the potential condition may be a condition that the developer would not want as it would add another level of complexity. Mr. Kanlian stated he would not want to put any conditions on the project that might jeopardize the sale of the tract. 17. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened it up for Commission discussion. 18. Chairman Butler asked if the concerns raised by the Reese's letter regarding the water access would be an issue of concern. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this development cannot shut off the water supply to an adjacent farming operation. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked where the water access was located. Staff stated that it was a series of underground water pipes that transition the water to the different properties. It is staff s understanding that CV WD would ask that conditions be placed on the tract that would not interfere with their irrigation pipes. 20. Commissioner Kirk stated the discretionary issue is still confusing and asked if the City Attorney read the conditions prior to being submitted to the Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she does not have the time to read all the conditions. She only gets involved with staff s concerns when questioned. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the Commission wants to add conditions, they should review them in light of what is contained in the Zoning Code. He suggested the Commission continue this to have staff review the conditions in light of this discussion. 21. Commissioner Gardner stated there appears to be several issues that need to be discussed and maybe this should be continued until they are resolved. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could continue this if there are conditions they feel need to be reviewed. Should the Commission decide to continue this item for a length of time that length of time must be reasonable to the issues that are raised. 22. Commissioner Kirk stated he needed clarification from staff. Is the applicant under any time pressure to have this approved at this meeting. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the reason for continuing is to allow staff time to review the Commission's concerns, then it was justifiable. 23. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission to identify their concerns. Chairman Butler stated their concern was recommending approval of conditions that are not contained in the Zoning Code. Staff stated some of the conditions are based on mitigation measures that were raised in the Environmental Assessment. PC-4-14-98 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 24. Commissioner Gardner asked if based on the comments made, are the conditions defensible. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in order to answer that, each condition would have to be reviewed. 25. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested a condition be added requiring the tract to comply with the landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning Code before a grading permit is issued. Discussion followed. 26. Commissioner Woodard moved to continue this item to allow staff time to review the conditions in light of the Zoning Code. Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested Condition #60 be modified to read "Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the Zoning Code requirements enforced at that time relating to landscaping and entryways and shall submit that plan to the Planning Commission for approval." This allows the Planning Commission the last opportunity to review the plan and make changes. 27. Commissioner Woodard stated his objection was the two entry lots that are oversized and the space to accommodate the entryway and access to the lots is very restricted. 28. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-013 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Amended Environmental Assessment 91-194. 29. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Addendum be given a number and date. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-014, approving Tentative Tract Map 26855, Time Extension #1, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval. a. Condition #23.a.: amended to include, "if access is ultimately acquired at Pomelo", and reduce the percentage of street improvements to 13.9%. b. Condition #60. Add, "Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit landscaping drawings in conformance with the current Zoning Code. PC-4-14-98 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 C. Condition #74.a.: "The Design Guidelines shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission prior to final map. d. Condition #74.b.: Remove that portion referring to "architectural design shall provide shading of glass areas from the south, east, and west exposures." e. Condition #74.c.: The applicant shall establish within the CC&R'S Site Development Standards and Design Standards as approved by the Planning Commission. f. Condition #79: "Lot A and C of each tract shall have the same street name. g. Condition #75.f. shall be removed. h. Condition #71. The height of the berm shall be 2.5 feet. i. Condition #5: Change to reference Coachella Valley Unified School District. 31. Commissioner Kirk stated he would be voting against the project only because it is still unknown to him what is discretionary and what is not in regard to what the Commission is able to approve. He would like to request staff bring back to the Planning Commission what conditions are rooted in the Zoning Code and which are not. Commissioner Seaton stated she too would like to see this. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Seaton. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 32. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to address Commissioners Kirks concerns. Staff asked if the request was specifically for this tract. Chairman Butler stated yes. Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m. C. Tentative Tract 26718 First Time Extension; a request of Walter Hansch for a recommendation to certify an amended environmental impact and approval of a first time extension to create 125 single family lots on 40+ acres in the Low Density Residential Zone on the east side of Jefferson Street approximately 1650 feet south of 50th Avenue. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted the conditions would be modified the same as the previous tract. 13C-4-14-98 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 2. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition #70 should be changed to reference lot numbers 116-125 to be consistent. Condition #81 should reference the property to the north. 3. Commissioner Seaton asked for clarification on Lot L. Staff stated it was a retention basin. 4. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to hear the applicant address the issue of the conditions raised on the previous tract. 5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Walter Hansch, applicant, stated he did not understand the question. 6. Commissioner Kirk clarified for Mr. Hansch that there were conditions that staff had recommended that he may not have to comply with and asked if he was aware of this. Mr. Hansch stated he would agree with the same conditions as those placed on Tentative Tract 26855. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 015 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Amended Environmental Assessment 91-193. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Addendum be given a number and date. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-016, approving Tentative Tract Map 26718, Time Extension #1, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval. a. Condition #23.a.: amended to include, "if access is ultimately acquired at Pomelo", and change the percentage of street improvements to 24.1 %. b. Condition #60. Add, "Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit landscaping drawings in conformance with the current Zoning Code. PC-4-14-98 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 C. Condition #74.a.: "The Design Guidelines shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission prior to final map. d. Condition #74.b.: Remove that portion referring to "architectural design shall provide shading of glass areas from the south, east, and west exposures." e. Condition #74.c.: The applicant shall establish within the CC&R'S Site Development Standards and Design Standards as approved by the Planning Commission. f. Condition #79: "Lot A and C of each tract shall have the same street name. g. Condition #75.f. shall be removed. h. Condition #71. The height of the berm shall be 2.5 feet. i. Condition #5: Change to reference Coachella Valley Unified School District. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Seaton. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. moved on the EA Unanimously approved. D. Site Development Permit 98-621; a request of Peters -Hover Company for a compatibility review approval to allow six new prototype plans for the Citrus Country Club in compliance with the adopted Specific Plan and Tracts 24890-6 and 28719 on portions of Liga, Pomo, Cetrino, Cidra, and Baya Streets. 1. Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and withdrew from the dias. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Commissioner Steward stated that if the guest suite on Plan 3 is a bedroom the house would then be a 4 bedroom house with a two car garage. Staff stated a condition had been placed on the tract that any houses with the guest suite must provide a three car garage. Commissioner Woodard asked that an additional condition be placed on the tract requiring those elevations to come back to the Commission. Commissioner Woodard stated that at least half of the existing homes were Mediterranean. The remainder were contemporary to something else. Staff stated they would modify the condition. Commissioner Woodard stated that in the staff report under Compatibility 1'C-4-14-98 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 Review, it mentions "To accentuate the street views of the houses, roof lines are varied by using hip and gable design elements and standard 4:12 roof trusses." In his opinion he did not see much variation in the plans. The Citrus is a custom home project and now a tract is being proposed with production homes. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Planning Commission could address the location of the house on the lot. Staff stated Condition #7 requires the variation in setbacks. Commissioner Kirk stated that the narrow lots and 3- car garages could create a wall of development along the street fronts. Are there any other treatments or greater setback variations to accommodate this? Staff stated only if the applicant wanted to bring it back and offer a modification. Discussion followed regarding the guest house orientation. 5. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment regarding this issue. There being none, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #9 be amended to have the last word changed to "all garage bays." Other than this, it is a nice design. 7. Commissioner Seaton also commended the applicant on his presentation. 8. Commissioner Woodard stated that on Product A, Plan 1 the variation of the facade on the home is excellent, but it has the same elevation/roof line. All the Plan 1 rear elevations are the same. Product B has the same elevation/facade with the same problem on the rear of the house. On the units with the guest suite, the developer should vary the location of the suite so it is not one continuous row down the street. Plan C, the front elevation and facades are again wonderful, the roof and rear are the same. The roof's should be modified and the homes with the guest suite varied and the elevations be required to be brought back to the Commission on all homes with three car garages. 9. Chairman Butler asked if the suggested changes were required to the roof lines would create a new truss arrangement. Commissioner Woodard stated it would require a redesign. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission could make the suggested changes if the applicant was not present. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission has the right to impose any conditions it believes are warranted. The applicant can appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council if they do not agree with the Commission. PC-4-14-98 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the direction of the Commission regarding design review on what faces the street; but how far should the Commission go in regards to redesign of the entire house. Chairman Butler stated that what the Commission is trying to accomplish is to cause more imagination in what is developed in the City; to eliminate square boxes from being developed in the City. 11. Commissioner Tyler questioned this redesign as the tract had already been approved have the same rear elevations. Commissioner Woodard stated that on the site plan, all the homes would have the same setback and the guest suite at the same position causing a streetscape of was. Discussion followed regarding how elevations could be changed. 12. Commissioner Abels stated it was important to upgrade the projects as they come before the Commission. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated he would rather have these issues addressed in the Zoning Code than based on personal appeal. He was concerned about the developer having to go back and redesign a project when this is a compatibility review. In his opinion, the proposed elevations are no worse or better than the existing homes. In that regard, this proposed design is compatible. They may not be compatible with the custom homes. It should be the purpose of the City/Commission to provide developers with guidelines of what is expected of them when they propose their project. 14. Commissioner Woodard asked for legal counsels opinion in regard to compatibility and changing the design. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they should be reviewing the design for what is compatible with the existing built out subdivision. Staff has indicated that this area has always been intended to be tract homes. Therefore, it would appear the relevant comparison would be to the tract homes. Commissioner Woodard questioned whether they could address the issues of variability. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the existing does not, then no. 15. Chairman Butler stated that in order to address this problem, it would have to be addressed in the Zoning Code. 16. Commissioner Tyler stated they are again trying to address issues that are not contained in the Zoning Code. 17. Commissioner Woodard asked if they could require a percentage of the homes be varied. City Attorney Dawn Honey stated that if it is based on the existing units. PC-4-14-98 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 18. Commissioner Tyler stated that when Tract 28719 was before the Commission for approval, it was another problem. This tract is an improvement over that. The impact on the existing homes, whether custom or tract, these are isolated streets and the homes will not be side by side. They will either be separated by streets or a golf fairway. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to continue this item to allow staff an opportunity to present to the Commission, examples of other existing houses in the vicinity, to review these prototypes against, for compatibility. 20. Commissioner Kirk asked if the five development standards raised under Compatibility Review contained in the staff report, were the only development standards that can be considered under a compatibility review, or are they selected. Staff stated that development standards were used to make the findings for approval. Commissioner Kirk stated it would help if staff would provide the Commission with pictures and/or examples of what they are to be compatible with. 21. There being no other discussion, it was moved and seconded to continue Site Development Permit 98-621 to April 28, 1998. Unanimously approved. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. E. Environmental Assessment 98 353. Repeal of Specific Plan 87-009 Village at La Quinta Zoning Code Amendment 98-060 Change of Zone 98-085, and Design Review Guidelines; a request of the City for consideration and recommendation to the City Council to Repeal the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan, and replace it with Design Review Guidelines and revised "Village Commercial" Zoning text. Rezoning of the "Village Residential" area east of Desert Club Drive from Village Residential to Low Density Residential. 1. Chairman Butler open the public hearing and asked if there was any public comment. 2. Mr. Don Gittleson, Prelude Development Company, stated his purpose in speaking regarding this issue was to clarify the zoning of the four acre parcel of land east of Desert Club Drive. He would like to request the four acres fall into the Village Commercial Zoning. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked for the current zoning. Staff stated it is low density and staff is not proposing any additional area be added to the Village Commercial. Mr. Gettleson stated this is his point, if you look at the map, it should be included. PC-4-14-98 15 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1998 4. Commissioner Woodard asked that the Commissioners review the Village area and visualize what they would like it to look like. It is going to be difficult and the Commission should have a clear idea. 5. There being no further comment, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Kirk to continue this item to April 28, 1998. F. Zoning Code Amendment 97-061; a request of the City for consideration of miscellaneous amendments to Title 9-Zoning Code of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. 2. There being no public comment, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this item to April 28, 1998. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign being built by Family Heritage Church had a sign permit. Staff stated they had been issued a sign permit. He then informed the Commission and staff he would not be at the next meeting and would not be able to attend the next City Council meeting B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of April 7, 1998. He suggested copies of the goals which were reviewed by the Council be distributed to the Commission. C. Commissioner Seaton encouraged the Commissioners to attend "The Second Annual Day of Discussion -The Future of the Coachella Valley". Commissioners were to inform staff if they were wanting to attend. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on April 28, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:07 P.M. on April 14, 1998. PC-4-14-98 16 PH#A PLANNING COMMISSION PH # B STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 28,1998 CASE NOS.: 1.) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-058 (ZONING) 2.) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-061 (ZONING) 3.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-353, REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 87-085, VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-060, CHANGE OF ZONE 98-085, AND DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES INITIATED BY: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUESTS: CONSIDERATION OF MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9 (ZONING CODE) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE (ZCA 97-058 AND 98-061) AND CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO REPEAL THE VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND REPLACING IT WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED "VILLAGE COMMERCIAL" ZONING TEXT AND REZONING OF THE "VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL" AREA EAST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE FROM VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (EA 98-353, SP 87-009, ZCA 98-060, CZ 98-085). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the above cases be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 1998. Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: ( Christine di lorio, Pla Wing Manager P:\stan na's April 28 PH #tom STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 28, 1998 (CONTINUED FROM 4/14/98) CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-621 REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW SIX NEW PROTOTYPE PLANS FOR THE CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLAN AND TRACTS 24890-6 AND 28719 LOCATION: ON PORTIONS OF LIGA, POMO, CETRINO, CIDRA, AND BAYA STREETS APPLICANT: PETERS -HOVER COMPANY (MR. THOMAS I. HOVER, PRESIDENT) PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LAND CORPORATION ARCHITECT: HOVE DESIGN ALLIANCE AND BBG ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HORTON SHEPARDSON ASSOCIATES GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION/ ZONING: RESIDENTIAL AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Review On April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider approval of six prototype single family homes at the Citrus Country Club. The Planning Commission, after discussion, continued the project to April 281h on a 7-0 vote, to allow the SRPCSSDP621Rev-23; RESOSDP621-23; CONDSDP621-23 Page 1 of 5 applicant time to prepare a concept landscape plan and provide enlarged photographs (or blueprint drawings) of existing houses within the private community. The Commission also requested that the developer examine whether or not architectural changes should be made to the proposed building elevations. Minutes from the meeting were distributed to the Commission on April 24, 1998. On April 22, 1998, staff received from the applicant photographs of existing houses and a concept landscape plan to supplement the prior plans submitted to the Planning Commission (Attachments 1 and 2). No architectural changes were made to the proposed plans that were reviewed by the Commission on April le. However, with the photographs is justification on how their plans are compatible with the existing residences. Project History The Oak Tree West Specific Plan (SP 85-006) permits 2,245 residential units, golf courses, and a small amount of office commercial at the southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. The Citrus Country Club, a portion of this master planned community, is approved for approximately 570 single family houses around an existing 18- hole golf course. To date, approximately 100 housing units and the community clubhouse have been built. The initial home builder of the Citrus Country Club was the J. M. Peters Company which built paired houses that ranged in size from 2,439 square feet to 2,727 square feet and detached houses ranging from 3,069 square feet to 3,710 square feet. The model complex was constructed on Sandia in 1990 and is located to the southeast of the Clubhouse. Existing custom-built houses in the Citrus range in size from approximately 3,000 square feet to over 5,200 square feet. These houses are located on the west side of the development on Lima, Pina, Nispero, and Citrus. In 1997, KSL Development Corporation and Marvin Homes received approval, under Site Development Permits 96-597 and 97-613, to build one story houses that range in size from 2,195 square feet to 4,542 square feet (i.e., Ryder, Heritage, and Masters Series). The houses are generally three or four bedrooms with two- and three -car garages. Existing architectural facades within the development are varied but focus on Spanish - style themes. Exterior finishes consist of concrete roof tile (S-tile) with plaster cement walls (i.e., desert colors). Roof eaves treatments are varied (e.g., exposed rafter tails, box stucco, etc.). Protect Request The applicant requests approval of six new prototype plans for two areas (i.e., 121 lots) within the Citrus development (Attachments 3 and 4). Each prototype plan is described on the following page: STRPTSDP621Rev-23, RESOPCSDP621-23, CONDPCSDP621-23 Page 2 of 5 Product "A" Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 2,424 square feet 2,480 square feet 2,504 square feet 3 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 2 car garage + cart storage 2 car garage + cart storage 2 car garage + cart storage Product "B" Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 3,077 square feet 3,439 square feet 3,660 square feet 3,869 square feet 3 or 4 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 3 car garage 3 car garage 3 car garage The proposed houses are one-story and vary in height from approximately 15'-6" to 19'-6" excluding chimney projections. The architectural style is California Mediterranean with the houses having hip and gable designs with "S" the roofs, exterior cement plaster walls and fascia treatments. Each house plan has a minimum of three different street elevations. Stucco coated privacy walls are provided in the side and front yard areas to provide courtyards. Public Notice A public hearing notice was published in the Desert Sun Newspaper on April 1, 1998, and mailed to all affected property owners informing them of the April 14th hearing. On April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project for a two -week period. Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment #2 On February 17, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution 98-13, permitting an amendment allowing smaller single family lots of not less than 6,000 square feet for Specific Plan 85-006 (Amendment #2) and setback requirements consistent with the RL District. Compatibility Review No residential unit shall be approved under compatibility review unless the Planning Commission determines that it complies with the following development standards: Page 3 of 5 A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to, or abutting, a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. Response: One story houses are being proposed by the applicant which can be built on any lot within Tracts 24890-6 and 28719 according to the provisions of SP 85-006 (Amendment #2). 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same, or better, type of fencing for the new dwelling, as determined by the Planning Commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. Response: Privacy fencing is cement plaster on masonry to match existing houses. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission with respect to the following design elements: (a.) architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; (b.) colors; (c.) roof lines; and (d.) lot area. Response: The applicant's plans propose an architectural style which uses concrete tile roofing (S-shaped tile) and exterior cement plaster surfaces with desert color tones. Windows are embellished with stucco surrounds and roof fascias are also stuccoed to match existing homes. To accentuate the street views of the houses, roof lines are varied by using hip and gable design elements and standard 4:12 roof trusses. The proposed houses are consistent in design with the existing houses built by prior tract builders and those approved under Site Development Permits 96-597 and 97-613. Conditions are proposed to ensure the houses meet the requirements of SP 85-006, Tract 24890 and Tract 28719. The single family lots are not being modified by this application's submittal. 4. At least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum 24" box size and minimum 10' tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard or street side yard. Response: Conditions are recommended to ensure an adequate number of trees and shrubs are installed prior to final inspection of the houses. 5. The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision shall not deviate by more than ten percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. Response: The proposed houses are between 2,424 square feet and 3,869 square feet and exceed the 1,400 square foot minimum established by the City Council Page 4 of 5 under Amendment #2 of SP 85-006 (Resolution 98-13) and are within 10 percent of the initial 2,439 to 3,710 square feet originally constructed in the project. CONCLUSION: Housing units that propose four bedrooms or more (i.e., 3 bedrooms + den, etc.) require a minimum of three garage parking spaces under the provision of Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition requiring three car garages for all units with four or more bedrooms unless the Specific Plan is modified to require otherwise. Given the existing infrastructure improvements for the previous tract as condominiums and construction of guest house and main building sharing roofing, the applicant has not changed the architectural drawings from the April 1411 meeting. The prototype houses have architectural design elements consistent with previously built houses and those approved under Site Development Permits 96-597 and 613. The house plans, as designed, meet the requirements of Specific Plan 85-006 and the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98 =, approving the prototype house plans for the Citrus Country Club, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Photographs of Existing Citrus Homes (Commission only) 2. Concept Landscape Plan (Commission only) 3. Site Location 4. Architectural Plans (Commission only) Prepare d'rt,er�4dlll, Associ te; Planner Submitted by: f'-,e' 0hris/ine di lorio, Planning Manager Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-621 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF SIX PROTOTYPE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE PLANS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2,424 SQUARE FEET TO 3,869 SQUARE FEET FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN TRACTS 24890-6 AND 28719 (CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB) CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-621 APPLICANT: PETERS -HOVER COMPANY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1e and 2Vh days of April, 1998, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider prototype housing plans for Tracts 24890-6 and 28719, located in the Citrus Country Club development, more particularly described as: Portions of Section SE 1/4 of Section 6 and SW 1/4 of Section 6, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. (Tracts 28719 and 24890-6) in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has determined that the origina@ Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 85-006 (Oak Tree West Specific Plan) approved by the City Council in 1985, and as amended, is still valid and binding on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; 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 for Site Development Permit 98-621 as required under Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Code: A. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to, or abutting, a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. One story houses are being proposed by Peters -Hover Company which can be built on any lot within Tracts 24890-6 and 28719 according to the provisions of SP 85- 006 and the requirements of the Zoning Code. RESOPCSDP621 Peters-23, CONDSDP621-23 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Site Development Permit 98-621 April 28, 1998 B. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same, or better, type of fencing for the new dwelling, as determined by the Planning Commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. Privacy fencing by the applicant is cement plaster on masonry to match existing houses. C. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission with respect to the following design elements: (a.) architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; (b.) colors; (c.) roof lines; and (d.) lot area. The applicant's plans propose an architectural style which uses concrete tile roofing (S-shaped tile) and exterior cement plaster surfaces with desert color tones. Windows are embellished with stucco surrounds and roof fascias are also stuccoed to match existing homes. To accentuate the street views of the houses, roof lines are varied by using hip and gable designs elements. The houses are plotted so that the front yard of the house is generally 20-feet from the front property line with the backyards facing onto the golf course fairways. Garage parking will be provided for each house as required. Three car garages are required when the number of bedrooms is four or more. The proposed houses are consistent in design with the existing houses built by previous developers. The single family lots were established by the City Council's approval of the tracts. No lot changes are proposed by the applicant. D. At least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum 24" box size and minimum 10' tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard, or street side yard. The front yard of each house will have a minimum of one box tree and one 15- gallon tree for interior lots and additional trees on corner lots. Additionally, shrubs and lawn will be used to accent the proposed trees. Landscape plans shall be prepared for the project and include plant material currently being used within the development. The plant material, once installed, shall be compatible with existing landscaping. E. The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision, shall not deviate by more than ten percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. The proposed houses are between 2,424 square feet and 3,869 square feet and comply with the 10 percent deviation requirement of Section 9,60.300 of the Zoning Code. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. RESOPCSDP621Peters-23, CONDSDP621-23 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Site Development Permit 98-621 April 28, 1998 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 approve Site Development Permit 98-621 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 the 28' day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPCSDP621Peters-23, CONDSDP621-23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-621 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW) PETERS -HOVER COMPANY APRIL 28, 1998 CONDITIONS: This site development permit shall expire on April 28, 1999, unless extended pursuant Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 2. Pedestrian gates leading into the side and back yards shall be wrought iron or tubular metal and painted to match the exterior house colors or approved HOA colors. 3. The landscape/irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review. The plans will require Community Development Department, Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner approval before they will be considered final. The plans shall include the following: (A) front yard landscaping shall include lawn and a minimum of ten shrubs (i.e., 5-gallon or larger) and two trees (i.e., one 15-gallon with 1" diameter trunks and one 24" box tree with a 1.75" diameter trunk) for interior lots and five trees (four trees @ 15-gallon minimum with one 24" box tree) for corner lots; and (B) landscaping or fencing shall screen all ground mounted mechanical equipment. All provisions of Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation) of the Municipal Code shall be met. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all landscaping in a healthy and viable condition. 4. Lawn areas for front yards shall be either Hybrid Bermuda (Summer) or Hybrid Bermuda/Rye (Winter) depending upon the season when it is planted. All trees shall be double staked with lodge poles to prevent wind damage. All shrubs and trees shall be watered with bubblers or emitters. Landscape improvements for each house shall be installed before final occupancy of the house. 5. All requirements of Tentative Tract Maps 24890-6 and 28719 shall be met during building permit plan check approval. 6. Front yard setbacks shall be varied from 20-feet to 25-feet to create additional interest in the streetscape as required by Specific Plan 85-006. 7. A Minor Use Permit shall be required for temporary model complexes (sales offices) including signs/flags per Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Code. COtiDSW621Peters-23, RF.SOSDP621-23 Page 1 of 2 Resolution 98-_ Site Development Permit 98-621 April 28, 1998 8. Roll -up, sectional garage doors shall be installed for all homes. 9. Private yard walls shall be constructed using masonry blocks and be finished with cement plaster. 10. Houses that have four or more bedrooms shall provide three car garages as required by Table 1501 of Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code. Each required garage parking bay shall have a minimum interior dimension of 10' in width by 20' in depth pursuant to Section 9.150.080 (1311) of the Zoning Code. 11. Property owner/developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS Attachments 1, 2, and 4 are on file with the Community Development Dept, A�tdChlTlEllt. z4 =nary Club =-77- AR �� 1 i U ' ® Site Location CASE MAP CASE No. ILL LL Site Development Permit 98-621 1 SCALE: NTS SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) ACROSS AVENUE 48 SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL ACROSS JEFFERSON STREET CITY OF INDIO WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Property Description The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area is 716.6 acres (1.11 square miles). The project boundaries are defined by four Arterial streets; Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Avenue 48, and Avenue 50. The project area is located at the south of Avenue 48, north of Avenue 50, west of Jefferson Street and east of Washington Street. The developed portion of the area consists of residential homes and an 18 hole championship golf course, professional golf shop, tennis and recreational facilities; the undeveloped portion of the area consists of a varied dunes topography with heights of approximately 40 feet. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel (flood control) runs south to north through the middle of the area. Brief History of the ProIect The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were approved and certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in 1979 (then known as the ATO Desert Project). In 1984, the City of La Quinta adopted an Amended Specific Plan (then called The Grove) that reduced the scale of the proposed resort community to 1,500 residential units and two 18 hole golf courses and certified the EIR with an Addendum. This proposed Specific Plan Amendment is the first major update since that time. Applications Under Consideration 1. General Plan Amendment The applicant is requesting to change the location of the 40 acre Tourist -Commercial (TC) site from Avenue 48 and Dunes Palms Road (west of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel ) to the corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street while retaining 10 acres at the Dunes Palm Site for TC uses such as "Casitas" units with interval or fractional ownership. In addition, the applicant is requesting a modification to the General Plan Circulation Element to allow 32 foot wide private residential streets. 2 +_.` �J t. 2. Specific Plan Amendment The request is for approval of "The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan" establishing guidelines and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The proposed Specific Plan changes the location of the Tourist Commercial consistent with the General Plan Amendment request. The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 includes two eighteen hole golf courses on approximately 298 acres; 1,597 residential units on 376 acres; 78 Casitas units (Tourist Commercial/Residential Overlay as the proposed zoning) and private club facility on 36 acres, and 30.2 acres of Tourist Commercial for a resort hotel. The proposed Specific Plan identifies five planning areas for development. Planning Area I, partially developed, is 233 acres in the northeast quadrant consisting of 105 acres of Low Density Residential, 119.5 acres for the existing 18 hole championship golf course with 8.5 acres of Water Course/ Floodplan use incorporated into the Golf Course design. Project entry points are from Washington Street and Eisenhower Avenue and Avenue 48 and Adams Street. Planning Area II, currently under development, is 40 acres located south of Avenue 48 at Dunes Palms Road consisting of 26 acres of Low Density Residential, 4 acres of Water Course/Floodplan for the Golf Course, and 10 acres of Tourist Commercial Residential limited to residential uses (allowing interval or fractional ownership) with supporting uses such as the Rancho La Quinta Resort Lodge and Golf Club. Planning Areas III and IV are located east of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and are not developed. Planning Area I.II consists of 355 acres with 192 acres of Low Density Residential and 151 acres designated for an 18 hole golf course and driving range. Access to the residential areas will be from Jefferson Street at the Avenue 49 alignment and from Avenue 50 at the Dunes Palms Road alignment. Planning Area IV is located at the corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street consisting of 30.2 acres Tourist Commercial and a 1.8 acres for an Imperial Irrigation District Substation. Planning Area V is east of Washington Street, south of Cabrillo Way and is designated as 30.5 acres Low Density Residential and 3.0 acres for Water Course / Floodplan (the La Quinta Evacuation channel), and a .5 acre well site. This is the existing "Ventanas" subdivision with 98 recorded residential lots. With this Specific Plan Amendment, it will be incorporated into the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. RANCHO LA OUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY Land Use Zoning Low Density Residential- LDR RL Tourist Commercial - TC TC Golf Course - GC GC TOTAL Acres Density 376 2-4 units/acre 40 Not applicable 298 Not applicable 714 Proposed Circulation The proposed Circulation Plan shows access to the residential areas at the existing main entry points on Washington Street at Eisenhower and Avenue on 48 at Adams Street. Proposed access to future phases is shown on Jefferson Street at Avenue 49 and on Avenue 50 at the alignment for Dunes Palms Road. Access to the Tourist Commercial site (future resort hotel) is taken from both Jefferson Street and Avenue 48, both 250 feet from the corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 48. Street Classification Major Arterial Primary Arterial Onsite Arterial Collector Local Cul-de-sac Right -of -Way (feet) Improved Street (feet) Number (curb to curb) of lanes 120 102 6 100 76 4 84 60 4 (no median) 64 40 2 60 32 2 50 36 2 Development Standards Development standards proposed for the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan development standards. Development standards proposed for the Specific Plan differ from the Zoning Code. The Specific Plan proposes variations in standards are tailored to the individual site locations within the project boundaries and the existing topography. The following tables represent the key proposed development standards as compared to Zoning Code development standards. Proposed Specific Plan development standards for single family detached which differ from Zoning Code development standards include: Proposed :Minimum lot size 4500 sq. ft. Minimum lot frontage 50 ft. Front yard setback 15 ft. Garage setbacks 15 ft. Rear yard setback 10 ft. Existing Code 7200 sq. ft. 60 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. (Dependant upon door type) 20 ft. Proposed Specific Plan development standards for single family attached which differ from Zoning Code development standards: Minimum lot size :Minimum lot frontage Front yard setback Rear yard setback Proposed Existing Code 4500 sq. ft. 7200 sq. ft. 45 ft. 60 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 9 t Proposed Specific Plan development standards for ancillary buildings which differ from Zoning Code development standards: Proposed Existinsz Code :Maximum building height 28 17 Proposed Specific Plan development for Tourist Commercial building which differ from Zoning Code development standards: Proposed Existing Code Maximum building height 40 40 Maximum no. of stories 4 3 The applicant is proposing design, site planning, and landscape guidelines for all residential and commercial development in Rancho La Quinta. 3. Change of Zone The applicant is requesting to change the location of the 40 acre Tourist -Commercial (CT) site from Avenue 48 and Dunes Palms Road (west of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel ) to the corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street while retaining 10 acres at the Dunes Palm Site for CT uses such as "Casitas" units with interval or fractional ownership. The applicant is also requesting the Casitas units be identified as Tourist Commercial use with a Residential Specific Plan (RSP) Overlay. This use category calls for detached or attached units including the following key development standards: 1,200 square foot minimum lot size, 420 square feet minimum livable floor area, and 30 foot minimum lot frontages. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment 98-357 for the project. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public agencies on March 11, 1998, requesting comments returned by April 3, 1998. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on April 6, 1998. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. 5 ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: Specific Plans are designed to allow flexibility for future development of the property. Proposed development in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the Specific Plan, as conditioned, will provide the unique environment within the planned community "Rancho La Quinta Country Club". The proposed General Plan Amendment, modifying the Tourist Commercial use location, will have minor or no significant impacts to the Land Use, Circulation Element, and other Elements of the General Plan. Additional site access from public Arterial (Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street) to the Tourist Commercial site will provide adequate traffic flow and accommodates future Tourist Commercial uses. The project is proposing Low Density Residential (2-4 units per acre) with two eighteen hole golf courses. The existing Specific Plan is conditioned to allow a maximum of 1,500 residential units and 80 guests cottages. The proposed Specific Plan, with the addition of the the Ventanas subdivision in the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan, designates 1,597 residential units and 78 "Tourist Commercial Residential" (guest units). The existing condition is proposed to be modified to 1,597 as the maximum allowable residential units, and 80 maximum allowable guest units. All streets within Rancho La Quinta are private; General Plan Circulation Elements standards are required to be met including street sizing. The project is proposing to build local residential streets 32 feet wide; the General Plan requires widths of 36 feet for local streets. A General Plan Amendment allowing local private streets to be 32 feet wide will have no adverse impacts on service levels while maintaining the project's unique character and the City's unique resort character. All public streets, providing the major access to the project, conform to the General Plan standards. The proposed development standards reflect the quality of current development with Rancho La Quinta and bring together, in one document, existing development requirements and practices. Proposed single family detached residential standards which differ from the existing Zoning Code include smaller lot sizes with 50 foot minimum lot frontages and smaller building setbacks. Proposed single family attached residential standards which differ from the existing Zoning Code also have smaller lot sizes with 45 foot minimum lot frontages and smaller building setbacks. Relaxation of these development standards are appropriate for residential golf course lots. The Specific Plan proposes a building height of 40 feet with a maximum of four stories for Tourist Commercial (resort hotel) at the corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street. The proposed height is site specific; the site is amenable to a 40 foot maximum height since it does not infringe on view corridors and is adequately buffered from residential uses by golf course/open space. The siting and design of a facility is subject to further review under a Site Development Permit. The proposed design, site planning, and landscape guidelines for all residential and commercial development in Rancho La Quinta are consistent with current Zoning Code requirements and all development is subject to further review under a Site Development Permit. 0 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 98-357) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-, recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment to modify the location of the Tourist Commercial land use generally described as the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 48 and to modify the configuration of the golf course and residential component, as shown on Exhibit A, and to allow 32 foot wide private residential streets. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-, recommending approval of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment No. 2. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-, recommending approval of a Change of Zone to modify the location of the Tourist Commercial Zone, as generally described as the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 48 and to modify the configuration of the golf course and residential zone as shown on Exhibit B. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project local setting 2. Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment No. 2 Prepared by: red Baker, Principe Planner Submitted by: Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- 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 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-357 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-057, CHANGE OF ZONE 98-086, AND RANCHO LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN 84- 004 AMENDMENT NO.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-357 T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28`h day of April, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 98-357 for General Plan Amendment 98-057, Change of Zone 98-086, Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 2; herein called the project and, WHEREAS, said applications have 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 98-357), reviewed a previously. certified Environmental Impact Report No. 90, and Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 90, for Specific Plan 84-004 and determined that although the project will have significant adverse impact on the environment, these impacts will be mitigated to less than significant, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, however the mitigation measures identified for this project will reduce impacts to less than significant, and that 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 recommend certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified, and less than significant or potentially significant impacts can be addressed by the incorporated mitigation measures and standard City development requirements. 2. The project does have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, however, mitigation measures identified for this project will reduce the impacts to less than significant, and the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 84-004 amendment No. 2. Project impact mitigation has been added to the proposal which will address the potential impacts as identified and discussed in the Initial Study. EAResoPC.gp/cz/spRanchoLaquinta 1 Planning Commission Resolution 98- The project does have a less than significant potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvzmtage of long-term environmental goals, with implementation of the monitoring program, as the proposed project will not exceed the total unit count allowed within the General Plan. Impact mitigation is required for any site grading in conjunction with payment of mitigation fees for the loss of habitat for the Fringe -Toed Lizard. 4. The project will have potentially significant impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consLderable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project, whether approved or not, is a consistent representation of the project type to be proposed for the site as long as General Plan designations are applicable, and to the extent that the impacts as identified in the Initial Study will remain similar. "I17e project will have less than significant environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, as the project contemplates uses similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of I.a Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the 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 Environmental Assessment 98-357 and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta. Planning Commission held on this 28`h day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California fiAResoPC.gpicr/spRanchoLaquinta Page 2 of 3 Mann= Commission Resolution 97- ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN. Community Development Director City of La Quinta. California Page 3 of 3 INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-357 Specific Plan 84-004-Amendment #2 General Plan Amendment 98-057 Change of Zone 98-086 Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Applicant: T. D. Desert DeN•clopment 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Drive La Quinta. CA 92253 Prepared by: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 J�eslie Mouriquand Associate,Planner March 20, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I INTRODUCTION 3 l . l Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 4 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 5 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 5 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 6 22 Phvsical Characteristics 6 2.3 Operational Characteristics 6 2.4 Objectives 6 2.5 Discretionary Actions 7 2.6 Related Projects 7 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 7 3.1 Land Use and Planning 7 3.2 Population and Housing 10 3.3 Geologic Problems 12 3.4 Water 16 3.5 Air Quality 20 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 22 3.7 Biological Resources 26 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 28 3.9 Hazards 29 3.10 Noise 30 3.11 Public Services 32 3.12 Utilities and Service Systems 34 3.13 Aesthetics 37 3.14 Cultural Resources 38 3.15 Recreation 41 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 42 5 EARLIER ANALYSES 42 2 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Studv is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to Specific Plan 84-004, General Plan 98-057, and Change of Zone 98- 086, for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan development. The request is for approval of modifications in the internal layout of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan, and the City's General Plan. There is a total of 716.6 acres in the specific plan boundaries. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved and certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in 1979 (then known as the ATO Desert Project). In 1984, the City of La Quinta adopted an amended Specific Plan (then called The Grove) that reduced the scale of the proposed resort community to 1500 residential units and two 18-hole golf courses and certified the EIR with an addendum that addressed potential impacts to the Fringe -Toed Lizard, schools, and traffic/circulation. This proposed Specific Plan Amendment is the first major update since that time. The project site is bounded on the west by Washington Street, Jefferson Street on the east, 48`'' Avenue on the north, and by a portion of 50`' Avenue on the south. The current Specific Plan approval provides for two 18-hole golf courses and associated club facilities, a maximum of 1,597 residential units, a resort lodge with 80 to 100 guest cottages and resort hotel with 400 rooms. As of fall 1997, one golf course has been constructed and approximately 300 residential building permits have been issued. The proposed General Plan Amendment to the Specific Plan would relocate 30 acres of a 40- acre existing tourist commercial area in the development to the northeast corner of the specific plan to Jefferson Street and 48' Avenue from the Dune Palms entry location, west of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. In addition, the applicant is requesting as modification to the General Plan Circulation Element to allow 32-foot wide private residential streets, a change from the required 36-foot width. The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 includes two 18-hole golf courses on approximately 298 acres, 1,597 residential units on 376 acres, 78 casita units (Tourist Commercial/Residential overlay proposed zoning) and private club facility on 36 acres, and 30.2 acres of Tourist Commercial for a resort hotel. The proposed Specific Plan identifies five planning areas for development. Planning Area I, partially developed, is 233 acres in the northwest quadrant consisting of 105 acres of low density residential, 119.5 acres for the existing 18-hole golf course with 8.5 acres of Water Course/Floodway use incorporated into the golf course design. Project entry points are from Washington at Eisenhower, and 48' Avenue at Adams Street. 3 Planning Area I1, currently under development, is 40 acres located south of 48"' Avenue at Dune Palms Road cons:sting of 26 acres of low density residential, 4 acres of Water Course/Floodway for the golf course, and 10 acres of Tourist Commercial Residential limited to residential uses (allowing interval or fractional ownership) with supporting uses such as the Rancho La Quinta Resort Lodge and Golf Club. Planning Areas III and 1V are located east of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and are not developed. Planning Area III consists of 355 acres with 192 acres of low density residential and 151 acres designated for an 18-hole golf course and driving range. Access to the residential areas will be from Jefferson Street at the Avenue 49 alignment and from 50`' Avenue at the Dune Palms Road alignment. Planning Area IV is located at the corner of 48`h Avenue and Jefferson Street consisting of 30.2 acres Tourist Commercial and 1.8 acres for an Imperial Irrigation District Substation. Planning Area V is east of Washington, south of Cabrillo Way, and is designated as 30.5 acres low density residential and 3.0 acres for Water Course/Floodway (the La Quinta Evacuation Channel), and a .5 acre well site. This is the existing "Ventanas" subdivision with 98 recorded residential lots. This subdivision will be incorporated into the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan ( Source: 14). The proposed Change of Zone would change the location of the 40 acre Tourist Commercial (TC) site from 48`h Avenue and Dune Palms Road (west of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel) to the corner of 481h Avenue and Jefferson Street while retaining 10 acres at the Dune Palms site for CT uses such as "casitas" units with interval or fractional ownership. The applicant is also requesting the casitas be identified as Tourist Commercial use with a Residential Specific Plan (RSP) overlay. This use category calls for detached or attached units including the following key development standards: 1,200 square foot minimum lot size, 420 square feet minimum livable floor area, and 30 foot minimum lot frontages. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving specific land uses which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve amendments to specific plans, general plan amendments, and changes of zone. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed amendments and designation changes, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed change in tourist commercial land use. The purposes M of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the proposed amendments and designation changes, To enable the applicant, or the Citv of La Quinta, to modify the land use, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed land use; To facilitate environmental review early in the review process, To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the land use will not have a significant effect on the environment, To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed amendments were deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended land use and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts to cultural resource issues contained in the Environmental Checklist. The degree of this adverse impact could be significant if not appropriately mitigated. Mitigation measures have been identified for each issue area. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone are interdependent requests to allow the relocation of 30.2-acres of an existing 40-acre Tourist Commercial area from Planning Area II to Planning Area IV. This relocation will be at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and 48`' Avenue to provide for a hotel setting adjacent to an 18-hole golf course and associated support facilities. The existing maximum number of residential units (1,500) will be increased with the addition of the 106-lot Ventanas subdivision to the Specific Plan, as Planning Area V. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Generally, the Ranchc La Quinta Specific Plan would operate as a private, gated residential/resort community with private ownerships. Both property owner/member and visitor/guest residential and recreational opportunities will be provided. The proposed amendments would allow for the construction of a second Tourist Commercial area to allow for the future development of a hotel and accessory tourist facilities in a series of golf -oriented residential villages. The property will have on -site parking. The revised Specific Plan will operate as a residential golf resort with tourist lodging and two 18-hole championship golf courses. The proposed Tourist Commercial residential units in Planning Area IV could possibly operate as potential hotel rooms that can be rented as "keys." An interpretation of the TC residential units may be made that the potential use of the bedrooms within each residential unit will be hotel rooms would classify the units as hotel rooms with residential if the unit owner decided to reside in all or part of a unit. The resort residential uses envisioned for Planning Area IV will generate Transient Occupancy Tax in accordance with the requirements of the City of La Quinta (Source: 14, 39). 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed amendments is to allow a specific land use within an existing specific plan. The proposed specific plan will be developed and function as a private residentiaUresort development for profit. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the Citv of La Quinta. The proposed amendments will require discretionary recommendation of approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of the Environmental Assessment 98-357; and General Plan Amendment 98-057; Change of Zone 98-086, and, Approval of Specific Plan 84-004 - Amendment #2. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS The project consists of proposed land use amendments and designation changes, and related environmental assessment. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use design approval of the proposed amendments. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed amendment. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The vallev is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental ,'Vetting The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area totals 716 acres, and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Washington Street and 48`h Avenue. The development is bisected 7 by the La Quinta Evacuation Channel in a northeast -southwest trend. The channel serves as a part of the community -wide flood control system to protect local properties from runoff water. There is existing development on the west side of the channel. East of the channel, the land is vacant except for a portion in the southern -most area of the development that has part of the golf course on it. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The property is within the Low Densitv Residential (RL), Tourist Commercial (TC), Golf Course (GC), Open Space (OS), and Flood Plain (FP) Zoning Districts. The existing General Plan/Land Use designations consist of Low Density Residential (LDR), Tourist Commercial (TC), Parks Facilities (P), Golf Course Open Space (G), and Watercourse/Flood Control (W). The proposed amendments would redesignate existing Golf and LDR-designated areas near the northeast corner of the project to TC for the proposed hotel site, and reconfigure existing LDR and golf areas in the eastern and southern project areas. A 97 lot single family subdivision is being added to the specific plan boundaries. This tract will be called The Ventanas. Adjacent land uses and their designations consist of existing Low Density Residential (Lake La Quinta) and vacant Mixed/Regional Commercial and the Desert Sands Unified School District Administration complex to the north; existing Low Density Residential to the west (Laguna de La Paz, La Quinta Country Club); Medium Density Residential and existing Major Community Facilities (public schools) to the southwest; vacant Low Density Residential and vacant Community Commercial to the south and southeast; and residential and agricultural parcels within the City of Indio to the east of Jefferson Street. The proposed General Plan and land use designations are identical categories to the existing plan and General Plan designations, the minor redistribution of the locations and corresponding acreage create conflicts that are interpreted as adverse impacts. There are conflicts are with the proposed amendments and the City's General Plan map and the Zoning map designations. The General Plan identifies the northeast corner of the project area as designated LDR, which does not allow for Tourist Commercial land uses. These inconsistencies, or adverse impacts, in the land use and zoning designations can be mitigated by the proposed General Plan Amendment 98-057 which proposes to change the LDR to TC in Planning Area IV, and Change of Zone 98-086 which changes the existing RL zone to TC. The approval of this General Plan Amendment will then make the proposed Zoning designation to Tourist Commercial consistent with the General Plan designation with no adverse land use impacts, thus mitigating the issue (Sources: 1, 12, 23). In addition, the proposed General Plan Amendment would modify the General Plan Circulation Element to allow 32-foot wide private residential streets. The General Plan currently requires 36-foot street widths. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? N. No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over this project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the ATO Desert Project EIR, the Grove Specific Plan Amended # 1 and EIR Addendum, and the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (Sources.- 1, 12, 14, 32, 36). C. Would the project be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing land uses adjacent to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan consist of developed Low Density Residential, vacant Mixed Regional Commercial, and Flood Plain adjacent to the northern project boundary, existing agriculture and residential adjacent to the eastern project boundary; vacant commercial and vacant low density residential at the southeastern project corner, agriculture and developed residential adjacent to the southern project boundary; developed public school complex and developed residential at the southwestern corner of the project, and developed low density residential on the west side of Washington Street (Sources: 1, 12, 14, 17, 32). Specific plans must demonstrate consistency in regulations, guidelines and programs with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan. Chapter 4 of the proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan discusses the consistency of the proposed amendments with the elements of the General Plan These elements are: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Parks and Recreation Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure and Public Services, Environmental Hazards, Air Quality, and Housing. Each element contains key issues which direct and guide that element's goals and policies. The applicable key issues are stated as to how the proposed amendment to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan conforms to the issues (Source: 14). There are no identifiable conflicts with existing land uses nearby the Specific Plan boundaries D. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation although there are agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern portions of the City. Historically, there has been farming activity in several sections of the City, however, that has largely been replaced by resort and residential development over the past 15 years. Approximately 80 acres of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area was previously farmed with citrus. However, no farming activity is currently done on the project site (Sources: 14, 18). There is no anticipated adverse impact to agricultural issues by the proposed project amendments. No mitigation is required for this issue. E. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 9 No Impact. The property is located within a partially -developed gated community. There are no proposed changes to the existing project configuration that would create a disruption to the physical arrangement of the City. There are no low-income or minority communities within the Specific Plan boundaries, thus there is no impact on this issue. No mitigation is required. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOI SING Regional Environmental .Vetting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time period, the number of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 1 1,215. From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18.050. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been approximately 10% in recent years. The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: 40). The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population (Source: 7, 27, 28). In addition to permanent residents, La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the Citv are used by seasonal residents (Source: 27, 40). The total housing stock as of 1996, is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 92.29/0 of the available housing stock, 5.2% are multi -family units, and 2.6% are mobile homes. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8,624 detached single family, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.15 ( Source: Department of Finance 1996). Median home prices in La Quinta are approximately $1 17,400 (1990 Census) which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120,950), but less than other Southern California counties (Source: 27). Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population is 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 2% Afro-American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American. The 1990 Census indicates that 81% of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 2 1 % are college graduates (Source: 28, 40). The Coachella Valley has experienced a pronounced growth of population in the past 30 years. Primary factors have been tourism, agriculture, and retirement or resort living, together with their respective secondary supporting service industries. The labor force and employment situation in the Vallev rerlects some of the circumstances with a population oh higher median age, and which caters to a relatively large influx of seasonal visitors ( Source: 32, 40). Local Environmental .Netting The project site consists of a 716 acre partially developed gated community the development of which is guided by The Grove Specific Plan. The existing residential units do not include any low or moderate income priced units. There is an existing 18-hole golf course, and related maintenance and club house amenities. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The land uses proposed for this project will consist of additional low density residential, Tourist Commercial resort residential units and accessory tourist recreational and support uses. The proposed amendments to the existing specific plan will not have a significant effect upon the local or regional population projections beyond that projected by the initial approval of the specific plan which was included in the 1992 General Plan and analyzed by the General Plan EIR (Source: 1, 3). The Draft EIR prepared for the original project for the Specific Plan area, the ATO Desert Project, in January 1979, stated that any inducement to growth in the Coachella Valley originates with its seasonal (winter) climate, the Vallev's proximity to major metropolitan areas, and its ability to retain within itself the characteristics of a smaller center with emphasis on recreational opportunities. The population increase to be controlled by the proposed project will be the seasonal residents themselves. The original ATO project estimated an occupancy of 2.2 per dwelling unit, and an average residency of 174 days per year, there would be an annualized population increase of 2,157 persons per full year. The existing Grove Specific Plan and the proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan have fewer residential units, thus a smaller total population. The Grove Specific Plan was considered in the 1992 General Plan buildout analysis. Introduction of the proposed project into the area, however, will attract commercial development around its periphery, and cause nearby property prices to rise, thereby making existing agriculture less attractive economically ( Source: 1, 2, 3, 14, 32). B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed land use and zoning amendment will allow for the development of a resort hotel facility within the Specific Plan. The hotel is proposed to have 400 rooms that will attract additional tourists to La Quinta, and serve to induce growth in both the Rancho La Quinta project and the City in general. Impacts from such added growth include more jobs created to construct and service the tourist amenities, the need for worker housing, and increased demands on infrastructure including roads. Mitigation for these impacts includes the payment of infrastructure fees by the developer, and the implementation of erergy and resource conservation methods dictated by the uniform Building Code and the City's Zoning and Development Code during construction of all structures (Source: 14). Also see discussion above. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. The proposed amendments to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will not have an impact upon existing housing. There is no existing affordable housing that would be displaced by the Specific plan or the proposed amendments (Sources: 14, 17, 18). 3.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a gently sloping topography, except for the hillside area on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion of the City reach 1,400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Source: 29). The Coachella Valley consists of a trough that is bounded by high terrain. The upwind end of the trough is considered to be the San Gorgonio Pass area. From this northwestern extreme, the trough extends for about 30 miles to its downwind end. The Whitewater River is the Valley's major watercourse. The seismicity of the Valley is dominated by the San Andreas Fault, which is approximately 6 miles from the project site at its nearest point. In the event of an earthquake, the intensity of groundshaking will be affected both by distance from the fault and by the thickness of alluvial and sedimentary cover overlying hard bedrock (Source: 32). Local Environmental .Setting The specific plan area is located within the Indio Plain, which is predominately a flat valley of fine-grained deposits. Allu\,7a1 fans form the marginal limits of the plain. These alluvial fans are products of the erosion of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which consist of large blocks of igneous and metamorphic complex that have been uplifted by faulting (Source: 32). To the north of the site lies the Palm Springs Sand Ridge. This large sand ridge has been formed by the strong prevailing winds that continually move sand and debris in a southwesterly direction down the Coachella Valley (Source: 32). 12 The specific plan area contains two basic geologic units. The older unit is the alluvial plain and lake deposit. These are fine-grained sand, silt, and clay deposits. The other unit is Dune Sand which consists of windblown sand deposits, including both active and stabilized dunes. They are well -sorted, fine to medium -grained, micaeous sands, overlying fanglomerate, alluvial plain, and lacustrine deposits. Both of these units are recent Quaternary in age (Source: 32). A review of the 1949 aerial photograph indicates that the project site was vacant with mesquite -covered sand dunes over much of the property. The elevation of the property ranges from approximately 0 feet above mean sea level to 70 feet above msl, and the topography of the project area consists of rolling sand dunes in the eastern half and relatively flat topography in the southern portion and developed portions of the project (Sources: 14, 17, 18, 30, 31). There is an inferred earthquake fault line trending northwest by southeast through the property. There has been no recorded activity along this fault line, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. However, the City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The Indio Hills Fault lies 6 miles northeast; the Banning Fault lies 8 miles northwest; and the Mecca Hills Fault lies 10 miles southeast (Sources: 2, 32). A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The threat of fault rupture could be present for the Specific Plan area. There is an inferred fault located within the project boundaries that could potentially rupture if the fault became active. This is a hazard of living in a seismically active region for which each resident must be willing to assume if they are to live in the region. The only feasible mitigation is to develop the project according to the recommendations of the geotechnical studies prepared for each tract within the specific plan and construct each structure according to the Uniform Building Code Seismic requirements (Sources: 1, 2, 10). B. Would the project results in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The specific plan area lies mostly within Groundshaking Zone III, with a portion of the northeast corner in Zone IV. Zone XII is the most hazardous level of ground shaking zones (Sources: 1, 2, 10). Mitigation for potential structural damage or failure from seismic activity, including ground shaking, consists of constructing each structure according to the seismic requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code for each Groundshaking Zone (Source: 2). C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? 13 No Impact. The proposed specific plan will not have a significant effect upon ground failure or liquefaction issues, as the property is not within the designated liquefaction hazard area of the City. Liquefaction is not considered a potential hazard since the groundwater is believed to be deeper than 50 feet (the maximum depth that liquefaction is known to occur). Conformance with the latest Uniform Building Code and findings of site specific geotechnic analysis is expected to satisfactorily mitigate potentially adverse effects of future earthquake shaking on structures (Source: 2). D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley, separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect this project in 'the event of a levee failure or seiche because the lake is on the other side of the Coral Reef Mountains. Thus, there is no anticipated adverse impact from these hazards, and there are no mitigation requirements (Sources: 2, 30). E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? No Impact. No mudflows are anticipated for this project, as the adjacent hills and mountains are formed of rocky granitic material, and are some distance away from the project area. The general area of the project site is protected from flood waters by earthen training dikes and retention basins that are located throughout the City, as well as through the project area The specific plan area will not be effected by this hazard issue (Source: 2). F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed amendments to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will include future development requiring grading, excavation, and fill activities. No grading, excavation, or trenching is being reviewed for approval at this time. That could potentially cause erosion, changes in the natural topography, and unstable soil conditions. The project site is situated in a level area that is covered by sand dunes rising about 20 feet. The development of each Planning Area will be subject to the approval of Site Development Permits that will include grading plans. A review of the grading plans will be conducted by the City Engineer and the Community Development Department to identify potential soil problems or concerns. Mitigation for problems or concerns could include redesign of proposed grading or implementing the recommendations of the geotechnical reports that are required for each grading plan. This issue will be assessed in detail at the Site 2 Development level by permit -related environmental assessments conducted by the Citv (Sources: 14, 32). G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. The specific plan area is not located in an area designated for subsidence hazards. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is not anticipated to be effected by subsidence issues. Each specific Site Development permit will be assessed for this issue. Mitigation for any identified problems or concerns would include the implementation of the recommendations of the geotechnical report of specific development areas (Source: 2). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? No Impact. The specific plan area contains three soil associations: Coachella -Mecca Association, Mecca -Indic Association, and Dune Land. Within the three soil associations there are five soil types found on the project site: Indio very fine (Is), Myoma tine sand (MaB), Coachella (CSA), Coachella (CpA), and M"voma (MaD). Each of these soil types is discussed in detail in Sources 32 and 6. Construction in these soils would be subject to wind erosion, the mitigation of which would include the submittal of a wind erosion PM 10 Control Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department. These soils are also classified as prime agricultural land, however, the desire to develop the land for other than agricultural uses dictates the use of this privately -owned land. The soils within the specific plan area are typical of the soils in the Coachella Valley, and present no construction problems. They will require only normal compaction measures, with no reinforcement or pilings necessary (Source: 32). I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains represent a unique geologic feature in the La Quinta area. This unique feature is located south of the project site. The proposed amendments to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will not have any impacts to unique geological or physical features as the property is approximately 3/4 mile north of the closest mountains (Sources, 1, 14, 18). 15 3.4 WATER Regional Environmentai Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous lavers of rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain goundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The District has its own local wells and has contractual entitlements to Colorado River water. It holds future entitlements to northern California water from the State Water Project (Sources: 2, 32). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 1 11. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing (potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal (Source: 2). The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearbv areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet are considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a necessary in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir, lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated groundwater, and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. La Quinta is protected from this runoff by the existing flood control facilities located throughout the Citv. 10 One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Vallev Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction was completed in November 1986 (Source: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989:1). Local Environmental ,Petting The specific plan area does not have any natural standing water. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir is located approximately two miles to the southeast, on the east side of the Coral Reef Mountain. The Whitewater River channel is located slightly over 2 miles to the north of the project site, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta Stormwater Channel is located within the specific plan area, and is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities. The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow development in flood prone areas based upon the submittal of a drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The City of La Quinta requires that all runoff storm and nuisance water be retained on site. There is no city-wide master drainage plan. Drainage plans are project -specific and as such are reviewed by the City Engineer prior to project approval. Each tentative tract or project phase will be required to submit for approval a drainage plan and hydrology report that includes mitigation measures by design. The natural drainage pattern of the project site allows for very little runoff. The high permeability of the desert sands, in combination with the dune topography, results in a wide variety of natural drainage conditions, which do not produce significant runoff problems (Source: 32). 17 B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The majority of the project site is within the Zone X designated flood hazard area, which is an area determined to be outside of the �00-vear flood plain. The Zone X designation is the 100 year flood plain FIRM zone in which the hazard factors have been determined. The area surrounding the La Quinta Evacuation Channel is in Flood Zone A which is within the 100-year flood plain boundary. Residential development is prohibited in Zone A, and the project is designed so that Zone A is entirely within the golf course portion of the propertv and there will be no residences within the boundaries of Zone A (Sources- 2, 14. 19, 23). The Coachella Valley Water District indicated in their comment letter, dated April 8, 1998, that the City shall require a flooding easement as mitigation for all area below the elevation of 50 feet that is subject to possible inundation from the water from the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This flooding easement shall be granted to the water district. The applicant may choose to ensure that no portion of the project site is below 50 feet elevation. The district also requires that the developer be required to install suitable facilities to limit access to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel right-of-wa_v (Source: 19). C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration 6 surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Storm runoff from the project site is required to be directed into the existing drainage system for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. The Coachella Valley Water District has stipulated that nuisance flows or other nonstormwater generated runoff shall not be discharged into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The channel transects the specific plan area and could become adversely impacted by temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity from irrigation runoff, golf course lake runoff, or other types of nonstorm waters. The mitigation for this issue is to design adequate retention basins and a project drainage system to keep such waters out of the channel and off of adjacent areas. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no natural bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the subject property. The proposed amendments to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan are not anticipated to have any effect on any natural body of water (Sources: 2, 12, 14). E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The proposed amendment will not have any effect upon currents or water movements as the subject property is not near any body of water ( Sources: 2, 12, 14, 32). IV F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawal, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Water supply in the Citv is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. The proposed amendments to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will utilize both existing water facilities and require additional facKities, such as wells, booster pumping stations, and reservoirs. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. The specific plan indicates seven new wells are anticipated. The specific plan states that irrigation water for the golf courses will be provided by a separate system of shallow onsite wells. However, the water district requires that the golf course and green belts shall be irrigated with canal water The district will need additional facilities for the expansion of its irrigation water distribution system in order to serve the project. These facilities may include additional lateral piping, reservoirs, and booster pumping facilities, and some of the land on which these facilities will be located. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of the district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the developer (Source: 19). Mitigation for this issue will require that the developer provide land for needed facilities, and provide payment of necessary fees and charges for facilities. G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed specific plan will have a less than significant effect upon the direction or rate of groundwater flow. The EIR prepared for the ATO Desert Project in 1979 indicated that the water district estimated that on an annual average the amount of water to be consumed for all purposes within the development would be 300 to 500 gallons per day per resident. This would include consumption, sanitation, irrigation, and recreation. Most of the water used would be for irrigation and would eventuallv return to underground resources. The ATO project proposed 2049 dwelling units, 550 more than the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. Therefore, the current project, including proposed amendments, will have less of an impact upon groundwater resources from domestic water usage. The EIR also stated that the ATO project would have no appreciable impact on the supply of water available in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, which covers an area of more than 690 square miles and has a maximum depth of more than 12,000 feet to consolidated rocks. The 1992 General Plan EIR also considered the potential development of the specific plan site as part of the city's buildout scenario at that time, with comments from the water district. The City Council certified that EIR in 1992 (Source: 3). The greatest onsite use of water, irrigation, will be mitigated by a ponding and irrigation system designed to conserve water. Water areas of the golf courses and open space areas will be integrated into the drainage system as holding ponds in order to store available runoff onsite. Swales will be located adjacent to developed areas to direct storm runoff to holding K i i1 . J ponds. Water collected in the holding ponds will be used for irrigation of golf course and wind barriers (Source: 32). H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed use of the subject property will include new hard surfaces, such as concrete and asphalt pavement, that would reduce the absorption ability of the ground. Storm water runoff will be discharged into the La Quinta Storm Channel where it will be directed into the Whitewater River Channel. Following a heavy rain, contaminates from parking Pots and landscape planters could be transported into the basins or into the nearby storm drains that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. However, this potential impact is anticipated to be less than significant. The proposed amendments to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan are not anticipated to significantly effect to groundwater quality as the developed portion of the project has been designed to control nuisance waters, thus protecting groundwater quality. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental .Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular, the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air at over 32 monitoring station in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but of a lesser extent than the SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM-10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, among other causes. Local Environmental.Vetting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low 20 humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. The Citv is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The station has been collecting data for ozone and particulates since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate and has been in operation since 1985. The La Quinta General Plan MEA/EIR indicates that the Village .Area is in the Riverside portion of the southeast Desert Air Basin. This area has been designated as a non -attainment area for photochemical oxidants and suspended particular matter (TSP). Non compliance for ozone is largely the result of transport from the South Coast Air Basin via prevailing winds whereas non compliance for TSP is due to blowing sand and dust locally. Total emissions have been calculated for the build -out of Redevelopment Project No. 1 which includes the Village Area. The project location has the same climate and air quality that were described in the Regional Setting. In addition, the site receives some degree of sheltering from the prevailing wind and blowsand given its proximity to the local mountains (Source: 32). A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will have a marginal effect on existing air quality for two basic reasons: 1) The project will have a low - density occupancy. 2) By occurring in the winter months, peak occupancy coincides with the high point in air quality. Air quality problems occur in the summer months when occupancy will be at its lowest. Air quality impacts will be derived from two sources, stationary and mobile. Stationary sources and mobile sources of air quality impacts are discussed and quantified in the ATO Desert Project EIR. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will have fewer dwelling units than the ATO project, thus the air quality impacts should be less. Mitigation measures recommended in the ATO EIR for short-term impacts were identified as the blowing sand and dust generated by grading and construction activities. This impact will be mitigated primarily 21 0 y by suspension of grading operations during periods of extreme wind activity and by using dust - suppression measures in accordance with the City's PM-10 Control Plan required for the project. Long-term impacts are identified as generated by motor vehicle emissions that normally would be generated on a large project. Mitigation for these impacts includes: 1) Street surface area within the development are limited in mileage, and they are designed to encourage pedestrian, golf cart, and bicycle transportation within the project. 2) Residents will allocate most of their time to non -travel pursuits such as golfing and tennis, all within the project boundaries, 3) The utilization of passive solar energy in dwelling unit design and placement (Source: 32). B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan amendments are not anticipated to have a significant effect upon sensitive receptors to pollutants. Sensitive receptors are long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities. A resort hotel would not be a sensitive receptor, but low density residential units would be. The future hotel would be pennitted in Planning Area IV, which is located in the northeast corner of the specific plan, away from existing or planned residential areas. Mitigation for this issue will be accomplished by the design of the planning areas (Source: 8, 14). C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in any activity which may create objectionable odors. Residential areas, golf courses, and resort hotels are not commonly associated with objectionable odors. Vehicles traveling on nearby and internal project streets generate gaseous and particular emissions that may be noticeable. However, these would be short-term odors that should dissipate quickly. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental.Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The City's existing circulation system is a combination of early road work begun in the 1930's by Riverside County and newer 22 roadways constructed since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 1 11, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Data on automobile accidents is kept in the Public Works Department. Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along I ighway i l I serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There is no current bus line along Jefferson Street (Source: 1). There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems xvriL be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The subject project site is located west of Jefferson Street, east of Washington Street, north of 50`h Avenue and south of 48°i Avenue. Washington and Jefferson Streets are classified as a Major Arterial with 120-foot rights -of -way. 48 h and 50`h Avenues are classified as Primary Arterials with 100 to 1 10 foot rights -of -way. The intersection of Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive/Rancho La Quinta Drive is controlled by a 4-way traffic signal. The intersection of 48`h Avenue and Jefferson Street is controlled by a 4-way traffic signal. Washington Street is designated as a Class III- Shared Facilities bikeway corridor. Jefferson Street is classified as a Class II- On -road Bicycle Lane. 48' and 50`'' Avenues are classified as a Class II- On -road Bicycle Lanes ( Source: 34). Interior streets within the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan are privately owned. The La Quinta General Plan gives design standards for the various street classifications. According to these standards, the buildout traffic volume, projected in 1991, for a 24-hour two-way traffic volume far Washington Street, north of 50`h Avenue, will be 65,100 Average Daily Trips (ADT) for the 24-hour two-way traffic volume, Jefferson Street, north of 50"' Avenue will be 67,200 ADT at buildout; and 48`' Avenue, between Washington Street and Jefferson Street will be 29,600 ADT at buildout. 501h Avenue, between Washington Street and Jefferson Street, will be 25,500 ADT at buildout. The 1991 daily traffic flow for Washington Street, north of 50'h Avenue is estimated at 21,500 trips; for Jefferson Street, north of 50th Avenue, 8,400 trips, for 50`' Avenue, between Washington Street and Jefferson Street, 8,200 trips. There is no 1991 data for 48°i Avenue, as the street was not improved until 1998 (Sources: 1, 2). 23 When the EIR for the ATO Desert Project was prepared in 1979, a traffic study was conducted with the results contained in the document. Trip generation factors for the proposed specific land uses were analyzed for 24-hour and peak times. The 1979 project was determined to have a total number of 11,634 external trips generated during a 24-hour period for all proposed land uses. The EIR discusses in detail the traffic and access issues for the 1979 project. The EIR Addendum for The Grove (the new name of the ATO Desert Project), prepared in 1984, states that the traffic analysis focuses on the full buildout of The project. Traffic generated by The Grove would generate approximately 1 1 % of the two way Average Daily Traffic on both Washington and Jefferson Street. It would generate approximately 5% of the ADT on 50'' Avenue. (These figures are not current according to the City's Engineering Department, and should not be used (Source: 35).) When the traffic generated by the project proposed at that time was overlaid on the existing traffic in 1984, the roadway network and intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. However, when a typical growth rate is applied to background traffic and this traffic is overlain with the traffic generated by the project, the major intersections would need signalization and widened approaches, and the major roadways would need to be widened to provide for the smooth flow of traffic. Mitigation measures called for by the EIR Addendum included completion of proposed roadway improvements (widening, signalization, turning lanes, etc.) to provide for a level of service C during the PM peak hours during the peak season. Since the 1984 EIR Addendum, the City has improved Washington Street, 50'' Avenue, and 48`' Avenue to their ultimate width and configurations. Jefferson Street will still need improvements to accommodate projects such as the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will be conditioned to provide certain needed roadway improvements as applications for specific development are reviewed by the City, such as the future hotel in Planning Area IV (Source: 35). A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. It is not known how many trips the proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will generate. It is anticipated that there will be fewer trips than that estimated for the ATO project as the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will have approximately 500 fewer residential units. However, the Final EIR for the ATO project did determine that there would be substantial increases on local and regional roadway system. The recommended mitigation for this impact consisted of road improvements on Washington and Jefferson. Based on this information, the proposed specific plan could have a significant adverse impact on the City's circulation system unless the appropriate mitigation is implemented (Sources: 2, 11, 32, 36). The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Circulation Plan recommends the following mitigation measures to reduce potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed project and 24 should be implemented in conjunction with development of the residential areas within Planning Area II. 1) The applicant shall develop all roads internal to the project in accordance with the design standards specified in the general plan and the structural standards in effect at the time of tentative tract or zoning approval in conjunction with the phased implementation of the specific plan. All roadways with the specific plan area shall remain private. 2) The primary loop road shall be widened to a minimum pavement width of 36 feet unless the applicant demonstrates that adequate provision has been made for sufficient of -street parking to accommodate all needs, including guests, so that on -street parking is not required. 3) All other roads shall be widened to a minimum pavement width of 32 feet unless the applicant demonstrates that adequate provision has been made for sufficient off-street parking to accommodate all needs, including guests, so that on -street parking is not required ( Source: 14). B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? No Impact. There are no identified hazards from design features in the existing private internal roadways or the external public roadways (Source: 14). C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? No Impact. Gated entry points into the specific plan area exist off of Washington Street, 48' and 50' Avenues. The 50" Avenue entry is a maintenance, emergency access. Future accesses will be located off of Jefferson Street. The proposed use of the property would not be permitted to obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. The City's Engineering Department and the Community Development Department have reviewed the proposed specific plan for this issue and have not identified any concerns. Each specific development permit will be reviewed for this issue. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? No Impact. On -site parking will be provided for all proposed Planning Areas and land uses. All internal roads, other than the primary loop road, are proposed to be widened to a width of 32 feet unless the Applicant demonstrates that adequate provision has been made for sufficient off-street parking to accommodate all needs, including guests, sot that on -street parking is not required. In general, the project roads shall be developed in accordance with the design standards specified in the specific plan, if approved at 32 feet for internal residential streets, and the structural standards in effect at the time of tentative tract or zoning approval in conjunction with the phased implementation of the specific plan. All roadways within the specific plan area shall remain private (Source: 14). E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? 25 No Impact. The perimeter public roadways around the specific plan area are designated bikeway corridors. It is anticipated that hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians will not be increased significantly as a result of the proposed specific plan amendment because there will be no modification to the existing Bike Route Plan adopted by the City (Source: 14, 34). F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. City-wide mass transit systems and stops are accessible via the perimeter public thoroughfares of Washington Street, 48t' Avenue, and 50`s Avenue. There is no existing or. proposed mass transit route along Jefferson Street (Source: 1). Bicycle racks are required for commercial land uses. Whether bike racks would be required for future tourist commercial land uses would be determined at the time specific development permits are reviewed for approval. The City does have a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance for those employers with 100 or more employees. The number of potential employees that would be needed for the future hotel and other tourist commercial land uses is not known at this time. This issue would be determined at the time specific development applications are reviewed by the City (Source: 1, 2, 4, 14). G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impacts. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is approximately five miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately five miles north of the project site and the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA, USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; Site Survey). The proposed specific plan amendments will not have any adverse impacts on this issue. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental .Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two natural ecosystems are found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). 26 Local Environrnental.Setting The project site is located in the urban and the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. The immediate area surrounding the subject property is developed with residential units, and vacant parcels. A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed specific plan amendment will remove over 700 acres of endangered Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat. For the 1979 ATO Desert Project EIR, a biological survey was conducted that stated that the specific plan site was composed of relatively old dunes that are covered with some mesquite as well as other vegetation. The flat or depressed interspaces are populated with salt bush and creosote bush. Abandoned agricultural fields that covered approximately 40 acres within the site were inhabited by weedy annual species. The substrate is predominately wind -deposited sand, and the entire area may once have existed as a single habitat, a mesquite -dominated dune system. There were no known rare or endangered plants on the site. There were 20 different species of animals observed or were expected to inhabit the site include bats, rabbits, rodents, coyotes, skunks, and foxes. At that time none were classified as rare or endangered. There were a number of types of birds present on the site. The Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat is present on the site. Subsequent to the 1979 EIR, the lizard was listed as an endangered species. The taking of the lizard habitat through development is a significant adverse impact. The mitigation for destruction of its habitat is payment of $600 per acre of disturbed land to the Nature Conservancy for habitat preserve purchase elsewhere. As each grading permit is applied for, payment of the lizard fee is required (Sources: 11, 14, 2, 23), B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no officially, locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: 2). The proposed specific plan amendment will not have any effect upon this issue (Source: 14). C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no officially, locally designated natural communities found in or near the project site. See discussion above. 27 r r1 D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no natural wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools on the project site or nearby. The proposed conditional use will not have any effect upon wetland issues ( Source: 2, 23 ). E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site is within the traditional habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard. Development of the specific plan area will remove lizard habitat, thus impact dispersal or migration corridors. The mitigation for this taking has been determined to be the payment of a fee as discussed above, in VII(a). 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies. Local Environmental ,'Vetting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources on or near the project site, except for an Imperial Irrigation District power substation located at the northeast corner of the specific plan area. While the project site is only partially developed, there is no significant resource to be mined, such as rock or gravel. The project site is located within MRZ-1. The MRZ-1 designation is applied to those areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral despots are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. (Source: 2). A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. The proposed specific plan amendment will not have any effect upon this issue (Source: 14). B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used in the construction of structures include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction and operation. Title 24 requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Anv landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: 2, 14). C. Would the proposal results in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? No Impact. See discussion above in B. 3.9 HAZARDS Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet present in the City of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such material out of, and around, La Quinta takes place (Source: 2). Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing or industry, and there has not been any known dumping of hazardous substances on the property (Sources- 18, 17). A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk of exposure from chemicals and fuels. No other risks are anticipated by the proposed use. Storage of chemicals, such as pesticides and herbicides, is regulated by the County Health Department and the Fire Marshal (Source: 14). 29 B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Construction activities will be confined to the project site, except for off -site work as is necessary for project roadways, curbs, gutters, etc. These activities will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. All such work is subject to permits issued by the Public Works Department. Needed measures to divert and control traffic shall be implemented whenever required (Source: 14). C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan amendments beyond those discussed above (Source: 14). D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no identifiable health hazards associated with the proposed animal hospital other than those identified above (Source: 14). E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan amendments will not have any effect upon fire hazard issues (Source: 14). A response letter received from the Riverside County Fire Department, dated March 16, 1998, requires all water mains and fire hydrants to be constructed in accordance with the California Fire Code, and all structures to be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in the Uniform Building Code. Final fire protection requirements and impact mitigation measures will be determined when specific project plans are submitted. There were no concerns regarding flammable brush, grass, or trees discussed in this letter (Source: 21). 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources within and outside the City boundaries. The major sources of noise include vehicles on City streets and Highway 1 11, and temporary construction noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated bv_ vehicular noise along the highway and major arterial roadways. 30 Local Environmental Setting The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan establishes land uses in conformance with the General Plan which was analyzed in its MEA/EIR. Development of the specific plan will result in increased traffic volumes and an increase in traffic noise. The General Plan and its Mea/EIR require appropriate noise analysis be conducted for projects within the City and that standards and design solution be established to address vehicular traffic. The application of these provisions will mitigate the impact of traffic noise on new developments and land uses. The ambient noise level at the subject site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise primarily from Washington Street, and to a lesser degree from Jefferson Street, 48' Avenue, and 50`h Avenue. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. The nearest residential uses are located northwest and southwest of the subject property, as well as those existing residential units within the project area. The State Building Code requires that interior noise level in buildings do not exceed CNEL 45. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL 60 (Sources: 1, 2, 14). Noise sources around the project site are minimal, with surrounding land uses contributing very little to the ambient noise level of the area. Neither State Highway 11 1 nor Interstate 10 passes close enough to the project site to impact the noise level of the area, there are no rail or airport facilities in the vicinity (Source: 32). A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Final EIR No. 90 prepared for the ATO Desert Project in 1979, states that that project was determined to result in increased noise during construction, additional vehicular noise upon project completion. The recommended mitigation consisted of grading and construction activities limited to normal working hours, and that setbacks of residential units from noise sources be included in the project design. The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan states that noise mitigation should be considered with all development near arterial streets. Setbacks from adjacent arterials are required by City development regulation. A noise study shall be prepared for specific development projects adjacent to arterials and other development as required by the City of La Quinta Community Development Department. The recommendations of the noise study shall be implemented as mitigation for noise impacts (Sources: 1, 14, 36). B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. The proposed specific plan will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging 31 from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels are not anticipated nor permitted after construction (Source: I ). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within City Hall. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City, Station 432 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station 470, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved (Source: 2). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within the City. Additional schools are planned for the City. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but overserved in terms of volumes (Source: 2). 32 Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in the 1 1 1 Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Animal control services are provided by the City of La Quinta, with impoundment contracted to the County Animal Shelter. Local Environmental .Vetting The nearest City fire station to the project site is Station 432 located less than a mile southwest of the project site. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be serviced by the local schools in the Desert Sands Unified School District. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are due to the increased number of emergency or public service calls generated by additional buildings and human population. The Fire Department recommends approval of the specific plan subject to conditions. These conditions will mitigate the potential impacts identified at this time. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fir flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the California Fire Code, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in the Uniform Building Code. Final fire protection requirements and impact mitigation measures will be determined when specific project plans are submitted (Source: 21). B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is not anticipated to have a significant effect upon the need for police protection. The Sheriff's Department has reviewed the proposed land use and does not have any concerns (Source: 22). The specific plan area is further protected by a private security force (Source: 14). C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? 33 Potentially Significant Unless :Mitigated. The Grove Specific Plan has an agreement with the Desert Sands Unified School District regarding per unit mitigation fee associated with the student generation to be paid by the developer (Source: 14). D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan could have a significant effect upon public facilities or roads. Some of the impacts will be cumulative and will be mitigated by specific conditions of approval required by various City Departments. Payment of fees for construction and development permits, and inspection and plan checking services, will offset the majority of City and agency expenses for development - related activities related to the specific plan (Sources: 1, 2, 14). E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the project will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection fees charged to the applicant and contractors. The proposed specific plan is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon this issue. Other types of public services, such as the public library, schools, waste collection. etc. will receive property tax monies, monthly service collection fees, and sales tax monies generated by the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Colony Cablevision serves the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. 34 The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The project is surrounded by both developed and vacant areas. All utilities exist to the subject property that is already developed. The undeveloped portion of the specific plan area will require extension of main lines and connectors to service these areas. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed specific plan is not anticipated to have a significant effect upon power or gas service. There is an existing power substation within the specific plan, near the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and 48'' Avenue. The substation will remain in its location. Natural gas distribution lines are located along Jefferson and Washington Streets. Natural gas service has been provided within the specific plan to the developed areas (Source: 2, 14). B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration t communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. Land based telephone services are provided by General Telephone Company. Cellular service providers include LA Cellular and AirTouch Cellular Service. The proposed specific plan is not anticipated to have a significant effect upon communication systems. The developed portion of the specific plan has communication services. The development of the vacant portions of the specific plan would include the normal and expected extension of the existing services (Sources: 2, 14). C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed specific plan will not have a significant effect upon regional water treatment systems. The Coachella Valley Water District has indicated that they will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of the district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider which are subject to change (Source: 19). A trunk line for potable water is located along Washington Street, 48`h Avenue, and 500' Avenue. There are existing water lines within the specific plan area, as well (Source: 2). 35 D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed specific plan will result in the generation of additional impacts to existing sewer systems and require the extension of sanitary sewer facilities. The Coachella Valley Water District has indicated that they will furnish sanitation service to the specific plan area. The water district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on tract maps as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose (Source: 19) Existing force mains are located along Washington and Jefferson Streets, and 48'h and 5& Avenues ( Source: 2). As a result of development of this property and others in the area, CVWD proposes to build a regional sewage treatment plant and extend its interceptor main along 50"' Avenue to Washington Street. T. D. Desert Partners, L. P. has constructed an offsite gravity main paralleling Washington Street to the intersection of 50`h Avenue as part of its phased development to serve land west of the CVWD storm water channel. The remainder of the specific plan area will be served by gravity mains to the interceptor main on 50`h Avenue. The sanitary sewer system shall be installed in accord with CVWD regulations. The area shall be annexed to Improvement District No 55 for sanitation service (Source: 14). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration a storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed specific plan is not anticipated to have significant effects upon the provision of storm water drainage. The Coachella Valley Water District states that this area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The specific plan area is designated as Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The La Quinta Stormwater Evacuation Channel transects the specific plan area. The water district requires a flooding easement for all areas below the elevation of 50 feet that is subject to possible inundation from the water from the channel. This flooding easement shall be granted to the Coachella Valley Water District. The developer shall have the option to keep all elevations above 50 feet as an alternative to the required easement. The developer shall obtain encroachment permits from the district prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the channel. This includes, but not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping and roadways. A portion of the specific plan area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the channel, and the district requests that the developer install suitable facilities to limit access to this right-of-way. The water district requests the right to review and approve the grading and drainage plan prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits (Source: 19). 36 Storm water will be held onsite and stored in the system of golf course lakes and low points whose capacity is calculated to hold the necessary storm generated volumes prior to discharge to the storm water evacuation channel which traverses the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area. Storm water drainage from perimeter streets shall be accommodated onsite ( Source: 14). F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed specific plan will require solid waste disposal services from Waste Management of the Desert, or the current purveyor of solid waste collection. Prior to regularly scheduled pick-up and removal, refuse will be contained in a maintained surface bin environment. Solid waste may be transported to the three currently existing landfills in the Coachella Valley. The proposed specific plan will not have a significant impact upon solid waste services as the continued development of the specific plan area is a normal and expected expansion of development in La Quinta (Sources: 1, 14). 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental.Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the central portion of the City. Views from the project site consists of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the south and southeast, the alluvial fan/cove area to the southwest, and the open valley floor to the north and northeast (Sources: 2, 18, 14). A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed specific plan will not significantly affect a scenic vista or scenic highway as it is to be located in the open desert floor area of the City. The specific plan area is within Distinctive Viewshed No. 2, located north of 50' Avenue within the La Quinta Country Club. The 270 degree viewshed if distinctive views and 90 degree viewshed of common views creates a combined high level of visual sensitivity. This viewshed has primary focal points to the northeast and southeast and is highly sensitive to impacts. Viewshed No.4 , located to the northeast of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, is a 90 degree viewshed of distinctive views, 90 degree viewshed of attractive views, and 180 degree viewshed of cornmon views creates a combined low to moderate level of visual sensitivity. includes attractive secondary focal points toward the specific plan area. The proposed Rancho 37 La Quinta Specific Plan has existing development that is low profile in mass and height. The proposed future development may include a 4-story, 40-foot high, resort hotel to be located near the northeast corner in Planning Area IV. The tallest existing buildings in La Quinta are 35-feet. A more detailed analysis will be conducted of this potential impact when the site development application for the hotel and commercial buildings has been submitted to the City for review and approval. Specific mitigation measures, if required, will be identified at that time. The proposed residential units within the specific plan will not exceed 28 feet, thus maintaining the low profile building heights. The La Quinta General Plan states that scenic corridors, vistas, and viewsheds of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains, as well as views toward the San Gorgonio Pass, should be preserved and enhanced. (Sources: 1, 2, 14). B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A specific plan with numerous buildings as part of the development scheme could have potential aesthetic impacts due to architectural design and siting of the buildings, landscaping design. The proposed specific plan will be required to comply with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City in effect at the time of development. Mitigation for potential aesthetic impacts consists of the review of architectural and landscaping design by the City prior to approval and issuance of any specific grading or building permits (Sources: 1, 4, 14). C. Would the project create light or glare? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Exterior security lighting will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare in the City. All such lighting fixtures shall be required to comply with the Dark Sky policies of the City, in order to reduce the impact. The proposed specific plan could significantly add additional outdoor lighting on the 716 acre area, which could result in adverse impacts to the City. Mitigation for this potential impact is the submittal of lighting plans for each specific site development application, and compliance with the Outdoor Lighting regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (Source: 4). 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental .Vetting A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment. 38 Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in an archaeologically -sensitive area of the City. There many recorded archaeological sites within the specific plan area and within a one mile radius of the project site. The specific plan area was A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Potentially significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed specific plan will involve mass and finish grading, excavation, and trenching. A small portion of the specific plan area is within the Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Area. It is possible that paleontological resources could be present that could be impacted by development activities. Mitigation for this potential impact consists of prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a professionally qualified paleontologist to provide monitoring of earth -moving activities, including trenching for both on -site and off -site related work. The paleontologist shall conduct a preliminary survey and surface collection of any paleontological resources. The paleontologist shall prepare a monitoring and salvage program for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to implementation. The project shall be monitored by a professionally qualified paleontologist who maintains the necessary paleontologic collecting permits and repository agreements. In areas of known high potential, the paleontologist may designate a paleontologic monitor to be present during 100% of the earth - moving activities. If, after 50% of the grading is completed, it can be demonstrated that the level of monitoring should be reduced, the paleontologist may so amend the mitigation program. The paleontologic monitor(s) is/are authorized to temporarily divert equipment while removing fossils. The paleontologist shall submit a final report to the Community Development Department. The final report shall discuss the methods used, result of the surface survey, identification, cataloging. curation, and storage of fossil materials collected; and the significance of the paleontological resources. A final report of the finds and their significance after all operations are complete shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for acceptability. Acceptance of the final report by the Historic Preservation Commission signifies completion of the program of mitigation. B. Would the project affect archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed specific plan area has several recorded prehistoric archaeological sites and resources within its boundaries. Some of these sites were located within the developed portion of the specific plan and do not require any additional mitigation. However, there are several recorded sites on the undeveloped portion of the specific plan that could be directly impacted by the proposed development. The proposed specific plan states that an archaeological study was conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, to identify and preliminarily evaluate cultural historical resources within the undeveloped portions of Rancho La Quinta which comprise the eastern portion of Parcel Map 20469.Preceding an intensive pedestrian 39 survey of the project area, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), a branch of the California Historical Resources Information system, performed a cultural resources records search. This search revealed that portions of the study area had undergone some level of archaeological survey, albeit extant reports are generally unclear on the number, content, and location of specific archaeological sites. The EIC files contain records of two previously recorded prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-1176, CA-RIV-I177) within the subject portion of Parcel 20469. The records search also identified a number of additional archaeological sites and other prior cultural resources inventory surveys in the general vicinity. Along with the two prehistoric sites noted above, one historic (CA-RIV-5772H) and 15 prehistoric (CA-RIV-5764 through -5771, and CA-RIV-5773 through-5780) sites, and two prehistoric archaeological isolates (33-6871, 33-6872) were encountered during fieldwork for the current investigation. Of the 20 archaeological sites now recorded for the specific plan area, it is recommended that both isolates, the historic site, and four of the prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-5766, -5775, -5777, and -5778) not be considered important cultural resource properties under criteria stipulated in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended). The remaining 13 prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-1176, -1 177, -5764, -5767 through 5771, and -5773 through -5780) are recommended as potentially important cultural resource properties under legislated criteria. These sites are being assessed through the initiation of Phase 1I archaeological mitigation. If a site is determined to be significant as a result of the Phase 1I investigations, the site shall be retained as open space, capped per current acceptable methods, or excavated and archived per acceptable methods (Source: 14, 38). C. Would the project affect historical resources? Less Than Significant Impact. There is one recorded historic period archaeological site within the specific plan boundaries. The site, (CA-RIV-5772H) is a small trash dump located near the former agricultural field. Intermixed with the trash debris is solder -drop cans, pre- dating 1950. The archaeology report states that the trash dump is not significant as it offers to evidence that it further investigation would offer additional information of scientific/historical consequence. No further mitigation is required for this resource (Source: 38). D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic values? No Impact. There is no identifiable unique ethnic value to the proposed specific plan site. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known current religious uses or sacred uses within the specific plan boundaries. .% 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Objective 3 concerns private recreation facilities, and states, The City shall promote the provision of private recreation facilities to meet a portion of the park and recreation needs which result from gated residential development. Policy 3.1 states: Promote the inclusion of private outdoor and indoor recreation facilities in large residential and commercial projects as a benefit to residents and employees, respectively, as a means of reducing demand on public facilities. Policy 3.2 states: Encourage the development of golf courses in conjunction with major new residential projects. Privately developed golf courses should be available to City residents at a reasonable cost. Policy 3.3 states: Promote the development of commercial recreational facilities that meet workforce needs, and complement public parks, facilities, and programs. Policy 4 states: Park and recreation facilities developed in conjunction with new residential developments shall be eligible for satisfaction of land dedication and park impact fees required by the City, provided that the location and intent of the park is in accord with the spirit and intent of the Parks Master Plan and General Plan standards and requirements. Such privately developed facilities shall be subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation Manager. The specific plan area is a partially developed gated community with a private 18-hole golf course. An additional 18- hole golf course is proposed in the specific plan. Tennis, spa, and swimming facilities are also proposed (Sources: 7, 14). A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is planned as a "recreationallresidential" community and therefore contains as a major element an extensive passive and active recreation program of development. Standards for the development of recreation improvements include: promotion of a variety of recreation uses in context with a Rancho La Quinta lifestyle, promotion of high quality, championship -level golf and tennis facilities, and continued development of a variety of housing types with open space providing both passive and active recreation opportunities. The proposed specific plan will not have any impact upon public or private recreation amenities as the subject property is a private, gated community 41 with self-contained recreational facilities, including golf, driving ranges, tennis courts, swimming pools and jacuzzis, health spas, and trail systems (Source: 14). The proposed specific plan will meet Objective 3 of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as well as Policies 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of same. The demand on public facilities will be reduced by the proposed and existing private recreational amenities within the Specific Plan, thus, there is no identifiable adverse impact on this issue. All mitigation measures (dedication of park land and payment of in -lieu fees) have been met by the applicant. No additional mitigation is required. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. The proposed specific plan would not have any effect upon existing recreational opportunities as it is a private gated community with self-contained recreational facilities. See discussion above. SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed specific plan will have potentially significant adverse impacts on several of the environmental issues addressed in the checklist and addendum. These potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to levels below significance. The following mandatory findings of significance can be made, as set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, and based on the results of this environmental assessment: * The proposed specific plan will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed specific plan will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. * The proposed specific plan will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity. * The proposed specific plan will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. 42 SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: A. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Sources used in this document are: 1. La Quinta General Plan (1992) 2. La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1992) 3. La Quinta General Plan EIR (1992) 4. La Quinta Zoning Ordinance S. La Quinta Municipal Code 6. Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area, USDA -Soil Conservation Service (1979) 7. City of La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1992) 8. SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Drat}) (May 1992) 9. La Quinta General Plan - Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program (1992) 10. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989) 11. The Grove, La Quinta, California - EIR Addendum. Robert Lamb Hart, (July 1984) 12. The Grove, La Quinta, California - Specific Plan, Robert Lamb Hart (July 1984) 13. City of La Quinta, Areawide Traffic and Circulation Study, (SP 84-004) Berryman and Stephenson, Inc. 14. Rancho La Quinta: The Essence of Early California, Specific Plan (Draft), Forrest K. Haag, ASLA, (December 1997) 15 .Approved Conditions -The Grove Associates, November 20, 1984 16. City of La Quinta, Subdivision Ordinance 17. City Aerial Map 18. Site Visit 19. CVWD letter, April 8, 1998 20. Initial Study Addendum for EA 97-340 21. Fire Marshal letter, March 16, 1998 22. Sheriff letter, March 16, 1998 23. People's Heritage Land Use Due Diligence Planning, Zoning and Development Status Questionnaire (July 7, 1992) 24. EA 87-071 for GPA 87-017 25. Paleontological Lakebed Determination Map 26. (Deleted) 27. City of La Quinta 1995/ 1996 Department of Finance Estimates, 1990 Census 43 28. 1990 Census 29. Southland Geotechnical (1996) 30. La Quinta Topographic Quad Sheet, 7.5' 31. 1949 Aerial Photograph 32. EIR No. 90 ATO Desert Project (January 1979) Draft 33. California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Report for the City_ of La Quinta, 1 / 1 /97 to 9/3 0/97 34. La Quinta Bike Route Plan. Existing and Proposed (1996) 35. Steve Speer, Senior Engineer, City of La Quinta, Personal communication, 4-22-98 36. Final EIR No.90 - Specific Plan 127-E 37. (Deleted) 38. Cultural Resources Survey of the Eastern Portion of Parcel 20469 Adjacent to Rancho La Quinta Country Club, Central Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California (Nov. 1995). 39. EA 97-340 40. La Quinta Housing Element (1995) B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this Environmental Assessment by the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. The proposed specific plan will either be approved or modified subject to conditions of approval, including mitigation measures; or denied. Appendix I Environmental Checklist Form - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-357 1. Project Title: SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004, AMENDMENT #2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-057 ZONE CHANGE 98-086 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker (760) 777-7125 4. Project Location: 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Drive, La Quinta, CA 92253 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: T. D. Desert Development 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Golf, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, Watercourse 7. Zoning: RL (Low Density Residential), GC (Golf Course), FP (Floodplan), and TC (Tourist Commercial) 8. Description of Project: The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area is 716.6 acres (1.I I square miles). The project boundaries are defined by four arterial streets; Washington, Jefferson Streets, Avenue 48, and Avenue 50. The project area is located at the south of Avenue 48, north of Avenue 50, west of Jefferson and east of Washington. The developed portion of the area consists of residential homes and a 18 hole championship golf course, professional golf shop, tennis and recreational facilities; the undeveloped portion of the area consists of a varied dunes topography with heights of approximately 40 feet. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel (flood control) runs south to north through the middle of the area. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) ACROSS AVENUE 48 SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM), AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL/ACROSS JEFFERSON ST. CITY OF INDIO WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ACROSS WASHINGTON ST. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Fire Marshal, Public Works Department, Riverside County Environmental Health Department, Desert Sands Unified School District, Coachella Valley Water P:\LESLIE\ECF-SP84-004AMD#2&GPA98-057&ZC98-086 - I - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Population and Housing X Geological Problems X Water IIX Air Quality Determination Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared 11 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but n it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (be) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. a APRIL 21, 1998 i ature L' Date LESLIE MOURIOUAND CITY OF LA OUINTA Printed Name For Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. P:\LESLIE\ECE-SP84-004AMD#2&GPA98-057&ZC98-086 -3 - Sample question: Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) (Attached source list explains that I is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source#(s): 1, 12, X 23,20) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1, 14) X c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1, 14, 20) 1 1 1 X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (14, 18) 1 1 1 1 X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (12, 14, X 18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1) 1 1 1 1 X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? (14) 1 1 X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (14, 17, X 18) r:� P: \LES L I E\ECF-SP84-004AMD#2&GPA98-057&ZC98-086 IV. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact mitigated Impact Impact GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1, 2, 10) X b) Seismic ground shaking? (2) X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (2) X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (2) X e) Landslides or mudflows? (2) 1 1 1 1 X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (14) X g) Subsidence of the land? (2) X h) Expansive soils? (2, 6, 32) X i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1, 18) X WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (12, 14) X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (2, 14, 23) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (14, 19) P:\LESLIE\ECF-SP84-004AMD#2&GPA98-057&ZC98-086 V. VI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (2, 12, 14) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (12) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact ;Mitigated Impact impact X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge X capability? (14, 19) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (14, 19) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (14, 19) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (14, 19) AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (8, 14) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2, 8, 14) M�� Im = c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (14) X d) Create objectionable odors? (14) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (11, 14) Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (14) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (11, 14) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (14) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1, 2, 14) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1, 2, 11) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1, 2, 3, 10) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact M�M a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (2, 11, 14, X 23) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ( c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (23) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (2) M�M P:\LESLIE\ECF-SP84-004AMD#2&G PA98-057&ZC98-086 U _� VIII. IX. 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (14) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X (14) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (2) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (14) X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (14) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (14) M�� d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X (14) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X (14) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (14) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (14) M � Potentially Potentially Significant Less "Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (21) X b) Police protection? (22) X c) Schools? (2) X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, 2) X e) Other governmental services? (2) X XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (2) X b) Communications systems? (2) X 1 7 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (19) 1 1 X 1 7 d) Sewer or septic tanks? (19) X e) Storm water drainage? (19) X 1 7 f) Solid waste disposal? (2) X g) Local or regional water supplies? (19) X P:\LESLIE\ECF-SP84-004AMD#2&GPA98-057&ZC98-086 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (2, 14) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? (1, 2, 14) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (25) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (26) c) Affect historical resources? (26, 38) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact M�� M M� e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( I I I I X XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (14) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (7, 12, 14) P:\LES LI E\ECF-SP84-004AMD#2&G PA98-057&ZC98-086 M�� XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare to endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? I I .. X I 1 -1 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. P-\LE SL I E\ECF-S P84-004AMD#2&G PA98-057&ZC98-086 CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE DATE: April 28, 1998 CASE NO: GPA 98-057, CZA 98-086, SP 84-004, Amendment #2 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Drive EA/EIR NO: Environmental Assessment 98-357 APPROVAL DATE: April 28, 1998 THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.1 LAND USE & PLANNING Potentially significant impacts identified. OBJECTIVE: To ensure compatibility in land use. MEASURE: Community Prior to Approval of General Plan Development approval of SP Amendment 98-057 and Change Department 84-004, of Zone 98-086. Amendment #2 SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.2 POPULATION & HOUSING Potentially significant impact identified OBJECTIVE: To ensure adequate housing and services for existing and future population MEASURE: Approval of Mitigation Measures Community Throughout for SP 84-004, Amendment #2. Development development Department phases I SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Grading; ground shaking impacts. OBJECTIVE: To limit impacts to local topography and geology and protect residents and structures from hazards from seismic events. MEASURE: Submit soils report, grading plans Public Works Grading and Approved plans as routinely required. Department construction and reports Comply with seismic Building & Safety Plan check and Approved plans requirements in UBC Department inspections Submit Fugitive Dust Control Public Works, Grading Plan Chapter 6.16 Plan Community submittal Development Department cl CD SP 84-004, Amd. #Z GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.4 WATER Drainage/Hydrology OBJECTIVE: To ensure adequate provision for drainage facilities. MEASURE: Provision of drainage/hydrology plans. Landscaping and irrigation plans Public Works Prior to grading Plan provisions. to comply with Ordinance 220. Department permit. Review by CVWD and City of La Quinta of landscaping and Community During plan Ordinance 220; irrigation plans. Development review and CVWD; and Department, Public material approved plans Works Department installation. SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUI%IMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.5 AIR QUALITY Contribution to existing A.Q. violations. OBJECTIVE: To mitigate PM10 in the local environment; compliance with air quality standards. MEASURE: Submit Fugitive Dust Control Community During all earth- Uniform Plan for approval. Comply with Development disturbing and Building Code FDCP. Department for plan construction Chapter 70; approval; Public activities. SCAQMD; Works Department LQMC Chapter for inspection 6.16 SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION Additional traffic, access, roadway capacities. OBJECTIVE: To minimize impacts to the area circulation system. MEASURE: Install roadway and signal Public Works As determined Public Works improvements as required by Department and by the Public Department Public Works Department Community Works standards, Development Department approved plans Department SP 84-004, Amd. #? GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard OBJECTIVE: To mitigate habitat loss as required by the approved Section IOA Permit. MEASURE: Payment of the Fringe -Toed Community Prior to issuance Established fee. Lizard fee at the current rate, Development of a grading prior to issuance of a grading Department and permit permit. Public Works Department SP 84-004, Amd. V GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.8 ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES No significant impacts identified. OBJECTIVE: I MEASURE: None required by the City of La Quinta. SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.9 HAZARDS No significant impacts identified. OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: None required by the City of La Quinta. SP 84 004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CIIECKED BY DATE 3.10 NOISE Potentially significant impacts identified. OBJECTIVE: To maintain ambient noise levels and to reduce noise impacts. MEASURE: As required by the La Quinta Community Plan check Noise control General Plan Policies and SP 84- Development plan. 004, Amendment #2 Department/Code Enforcement _- I SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially significant impacts identified. Schools fire, public facilities (roads). OBJECTIVE: To ensure adequate public services. MEASURE: Payment of per unit fee for Building and Safety Prior to Agreement Mitigation of School impacts per Department and issuance of any between Desert existing agreement with Desert DSUSD building Sands Unified Sands Unified School District permits. School District Compliance with the Fire Fire Marshal All phases. Fire Code Marshal's conditions. SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.12 UTILITIES No significant impacts identified. OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: i None required by the City of La Quinta. SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.13 AESTHETICS Building appearance, views, and lighting impacts. OBJECTIVE: To protect existing viewsheds. MEASURE: Require design treatment through Community Design and Approved plans design review for each Site Development landscape plan Development Permit submitted Department review. for approval. Require lighting plan consistent Community Prior to any Approved plan, with the "Dark Sky" Ordinance. Development lighting installed LQI%IC, Section Department and 9.100.150 Building and Safety Department Consider identified viewsheds Community Review by Plans as during design review. Development Planning submitted. Department Commission SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98-086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE CHECKED BY 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially significant impacts identified. Archaeological resources. Paleontological resources. OBJECTIVE: To identify, evaluate, and properly treat cultural resources. MEASURE: Archaeological for Phase II. Community Ongoing Archaeological Archaeological mitigation to Development monitoring Report by ARU. determine which sites will be Department during grading retained as open space, capped, and trenching or excavated and archived. for both on -site and off -site work. Paleontological survey and Community Ongoing Paleontological monitoring. Development monitoring Report. Department during grading and trenching for both on -site and off -site work. SP 84-004, Amd. #2 GPA 98-057 ZC 98 086 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.15 RECREATION No significant impacts identified. OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: None required by the City of La Quinta PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY DIAGRAM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-057 APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of Aptil, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider amending the City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram to modify the location of the Tourist Commercial land use generally described as the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 48 and to modify the configuration of the golf course and residential component, as shown on Exhibit A; and to allow 32 foot wide private residential streets; more particularly described as: APN: BOOK 646, MAPS 2, and 43 through 40, AND BOOK 649 MAPS 10, 21, 37. 38, and 40 WHEREAS, said the General Plan Amendment request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial study (EA 98-357), reviewed a previously certified Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 90 for Specific Plan 84-004 and determined that the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; 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: This Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment affects land uses and circulation which already exist as a part of the Plan. That the General Plan Amendment is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Jefferson Street as a Primary Image Corridor and Avenue 48 as Secondary Image Corridors; it will have street improvements with a landscaped median and abundant landscaping contiguous to the street right-of-way consistent with Circulation Policy 3-4.1.2. The landscape setbacks are consistent with Circulation Element Policy 3-4.1.11. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. 2. The new 32 foot width for private residential streets is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is a standard commonly associated with residential resort uses. V � I'CRF:SOUPA 98-057 Planning Commission Resolution 98- General Plan Amendment 98-057 3. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety. and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission or Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. 4. The new land use designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission and/or City Council review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 5. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 6. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. 7. That the General Plan Amendment is within a project that will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 98-357. a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held. on this 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PCRESO 98- Planning Commission Resolution 98- General Plan Amendment 98-057 RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California �J tj PCRESO 98- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004, AMENDMENT NO.2 CASE NO. SP 84-004, AMENDMENT NO.2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of April, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Specific Plan Amendment No.2 to a mixed use development consisting of a combination of residential, golf course, tourist commercial and retail uses on 716.6 acres, generally bounded by four Arterial streets; Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Avenue 48, and Avenue 50. The project area is located at the south of Avenue 48, north of Avenue 50, west of Jefferson and east of Washington., more particularly described as: APN: BOOK 646, MAPS 2, and 43 through 40; AND BOOK 649 MAPS 10, 21, 37, 38, and 40 WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA 98-357), reviewed a previously certified Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 90 for Specific Plan 84-004 and determined that the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; 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 Specific Plan Amendment No.2: l . That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Residential, Golf Course/Open Space, and Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. 2. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses and circulation will require Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. A: \reso S P84-004amdNo.2 �� Planning Commission Resolution 98- 2. That the Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation. 3. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. 4. That the Specific Plan Amendment No.2 is consistent with the current Specific Plan approval and amendment process. 5. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is conceptual; further review will be required under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be attached to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 98-357, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A: treso S P84-004amdN o.2 r— ' V ( I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 AMENDMENT NO.2 APRIL 28,1998 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Land divisions within Specific Plan 84-004 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permits for any facilities contemplated by this approval, 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 (Potable water supply and work within the La Quinta Evacuation Channel) • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) 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 include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. ,x► COA.. SP 84-004AMD.NO2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, .Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of final maps or parcel maps or a waivers of parcel maps lying over or adjacent to the required property rights. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. Prior to approval of final maps, parcel maps or grading plans and prior to issuance of grading pernuts, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent 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. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall 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 ClIty Engineer. 9. Right of way grants required of this development include: A. Washington and Jefferson Streets - Sixty -foot halves of 120' rights of way B. Avenues 48 and 50 - Fifty -five-foot halves of 110' rights of way Grants shall ;include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. The applicant shall grant the above rights of way withing sixty days of written request by the City. 10. The applicant shall grant a flooding easement to CVWD for all areas of the development below the elevation of 50.00 feet which are not drainage isolated (to elevation 50.00) from the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. C OA..SP84-004AMD.NO2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 11. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. Washington Street - As constructed at the time of this Specific Plan update B. Avenues 48 and 50 and Jefferson Street - 20' Minimum widths may be used as average widths if meandering wall designs are approved. Required setback areas or lots shall apply to all existing and proposed street frontage of the property being subdivided including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and lots dedicated or deeded to others such as water well and power substation sites. Where public sidewalks are placed on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 13. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Washington and Jefferson Streets and Avenues 48 and 50 from lots abutting the streets. Direct access to these streets shall be restricted to entry/exit drives approved by the City. 14. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 15. Prior to approval of any land division map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices 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. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and COA.SP84-004AMD.NO2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 "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. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. Grading and drainage plans within or directly affecting the La Quinta Evacuation Channel shall have signature blocks for CVWD. 18. 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. 19. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the land division map, 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 choices 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 including approved revisions to the plans. 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. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 20. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish executed, secured agreements to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of final or parcel maps or issuance of certificates of compliance for waived parcel maps. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. COA.. S P84-004AMD.NO2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 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 approved estimates of improvement costs. 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 outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract 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. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's required share of improvements which are or have been constructed by others (participatory improvements). GRADING 23. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 24. Prior to occupation of development sites for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of fugitive dust control plans prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 25. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 26. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report ("soils report") with grading plans. 27. Grading plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report(s) and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final map(s) that soils reports have been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. COA.SP84-004AMD.NO2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at the interface of this development with abutting properties and of 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, 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 issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide documents, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that list actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by map and 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: 30. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 31. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design 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. 32. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 33. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 34. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. 35. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater from a design storm directly or indirectly to public waterways, the applicant and, subsequently, the Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may 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 COA.SP84-004AMD.NO2 i Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. UTILITIES 36. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 37. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to the hardscape improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 38. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the land being divided may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. 39. The applicant shall develop all internal roads in accordance with the design standards specified in the specific plan and the structural standards in effect at the time of tentative tract approval. All internal roads shall remain private. A. The primary loop road shall be constructed to a minimum pavement width of 40 feet. B. All private collector, local and cul de sac streets serving residential uses shall be a minimum width of 32 feet. C. Street widths and configurations for resort complexes and hotel uses shall be subject to review and approval when preliminary site plans and traffic generation rates are available. 40. The following minimum off -site street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. Washington Street and the portion of Avenue 48 from Washington Street to Dune Palms Road have been constructed by the applicant at the time of this specific plan amendment. B. Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial) - Reimburse the City for the cost to construct the applicant's half of this street from Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street. r COA. SP84-004AMD.NO2 0 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 C. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - Fifty -one -foot half of 102' improvement (curbface to curbface) plus six-foot sidewalk for the length of the applicant's frontage. D. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Forty -three-foot half of 86' improvement (curbface to curbface) plus six-foot sidewalk for the length of the applicant's frontage. 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. 41. The minimum rate of progress on the applicant's remaining responsibility for off -site streets (approximately 2.1 of the original 3.1 miles of improvements) shall be as follows (Area 5 lots are not included in or affected by this schedule): A. At the time of approval of this amendment to the specific plan, the applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of improvements to Avenue 48 between Dune Palms Road and Adams Street (one-half mile). B. At the time of approval of the next land division providing for residential units, the applicant shall secure, build or reimburse (at the City's option) an additional one-half mile of improvements. The improvements shall be completed when directed by the City but no later than the time of issuance of a building permit for the 538th residential unit. C. At the time of approval of the map allowing the 539st residential unit, the applicant shall secure, build or reimburse (at the City's option) an additional one-half mile of improvements. The improvements shall be completed as directed but no later than the time of issuance of a building permit for the 619th residential unit. D. At the time of approval of the map allowing the 620st residential unit, the applicant shall secure, build or reimburse (at the City's option) all remaining off -site improvements. The improvements shall be completed as directed by the City but no later than the time of issuance of a building permit for the 700th residential unit. The above notwithstanding, all off -site street improvements determined necessary to serve developing portions of the Specific Plan area shall be constructed, secured or reimbursed at the time of approval of those portions of the development and shall be completed as required by the City. All off -site street improvements shall be completed no later than five years after the approval of this Specific Plan. Improvements and reimbursements so required may exceed the minimum rate of progress outlined above. r'° , COP. SP84-004AMD.NO2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 42. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 43. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 44. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, the specific plan, and as approved by the City Engineer. 45. Street right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 46. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding and to facilitate street sweeping. 47. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: 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" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can COA.SP84-004AMD.NO2 Conditions o1' Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 48. Final inspection and occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development will not be approved until the homes or permanent buildings have improved access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include streets and sidewalks, traffic control devices and street name signs. WALLS AND LANDSCAPING 49. Final inspection and occupancy of homes and buildings within tracts abutting the perimeter will occur only after the perimeter wall has been constructed adjacent to those tracts. Perimeter walls along public streets shall be installed within one year of the applicants' construction or participation in the costs of the streets. 50. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or lots along all adjacent public streets. Landscape improvements shall coincide with construction of the adjacent perimeter wall unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 51. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 52. 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. 53. 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 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 54. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. PUBLIC SERVICES 55. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. COA.SP84-004AMD.NO2 '� ` Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April28, 1998 QUALITY ASSURANCE 56. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 57. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not performed by the City but necessary to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 58. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 59. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 60. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City. FEES AND DEP©SITS 61. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 62. The final Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated in the Final Specific Plan document. 63. Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. COA.SP84-004AMD.NO2 �� Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #2 April 28, 1998 64. Fringe -Toed Lizard mitigation fees in effect at the time of permit issuance, shall be paid Prior to land disturbance activities (i.e. grading permit). 65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Archaeology Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Unit in 1995 for this project. 66. During grading activities, the project site shall be monitored by a professionally qualified archaeological monitor. The monitor is authorized to temporarily divert or stop equipment in order to investigate and mitigate exposed cultural deposits. A final report of the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the City's Historic Preservation Commission for review. 67. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a professionally qualified paleontologist to provide monitoring of earthmoving activities, including trenching for both on -site and off -site related work. Prior to commencing grading activities, the paleontologist shall conduct a preliminary survey and surface collection of any paleontological resources. The project paleontologist shall prepare a monitoring and salvage program for review and approval by the Community development Department prior to implementation. During grading activities, the project site shall be monitored by a professionally qualified paleontologist who maintains the necessary paleontologic collecting permits and repository agreements. In areas of known high potential, the project paleontologist may designate a paleontologic monitor to be present during 100% of the earth -moving activities. If, after 50% of the grading is completed, it can be demonstrated that the level of monitoring should be reduced, the project paleontologist may so amend the mitigation program. The paleontologic monitor(s) is authorized to temporarily divert equipment is authorized to temporarily divert equipment while removing fossils. Prior to issuance of occupancy, the project paleontologist shall submit a final report to the Community Development Director. The final report shall discuss the methods used, results of the surface survey, identification, cataloging, curation, and storage of fossil materials collected; and the significance of the paleontological resources. A final report of the flnds and their significance after all operations are complete shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for acceptability. Acceptance of the final report for the project by the Historic Preservation Commission signifies completion of the program of mitigation. cO,%..SP84-004A1.1,1D.NO2 ; ° PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 98-086 CASE NO.: ZC 98-086 APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28' day of April, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of T.D. Desert Development for a Zone Change to modify the location of the Tourist Commercial Zone, generally described as the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 48 and to modify the configuration of the golf course and residential zone, as shown on Exhibit B., and more particularly described as; APN: BOOK 646, MAPS 2, and 43 through 40, AND BOOK 649 MAPS 10, 21, 37, 38, and 40 WHEREAS, said Zone Change request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA 98-357), reviewed a previously certified Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 90 for Specific Plan 84-004 and determined that the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan being amended, in that the Zone Change only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. 3. The zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties in that Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. r 47) COZ98-086. PCRES098- Planning Commission Resolution 98- Zone Change 98-086 April28, 1998 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing zone designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional and alternate rental units and rooms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above rechxcions are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 98-357, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed Change of Zone will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 98-086; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of April, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California COZ98-086. PCRES098- PH #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 28, 1998 CASE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-036 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616 REQUEST: 1. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH 2. APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,615 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION/FOOD MART ANDA 900 SQUARE FOOT CAR WASH LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 APPLICANT: A&S ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE: A&S ENGINEERING PROPERTY OWNER: SHELL OIL COMPANY ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / THE LUBE SHOP SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / VACANT LAND EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / VACANT LAND WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / LA QUINTA CAR WASH BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Prope , Description The irregularly shaped 1.12 acre property, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street is vacant with off -site street improvements in place on Adams Street and Highway 111. The site is a portion of the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center which contains Wal-Mart and Albertsons. 1 Applications Under Consideration The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a Shell Oil Company service station and Food Mart, with a drive -through Car Wash on 1.12 acres within the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, Specific Plan 89-014. The applicant is also requesting approval of the required Conditional Use Permit for the Car Wash and service station use. The project consists of a 2,615 square foot service station/Food Mart building with eight pump island bays under a 3,880 square foot canopy and a 900 square foot drive through Car Wash. Site PI n The site has frontages of 340 feet on Highway 1 I 1 and 280 feet on Adams Street, taking access from existing driveways for the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center on Highway I I I and Adams Street. Vehicle access from Highway I I I is at the western end of the site within the existing 24-foot 4'/4-inch wide driveway and access from Adams Street is at the northern portion of the site within a 33-foot and 3'/2-inch wide driveway. The 2,615 square foot Food Mart is sited generally parallel to the service bays with the front entrance located on the southeast building front. The Food Mart building is setback 80 feet from the south property along Highway 111 and 85 feet from the east property line along Adams Street. A 900 square foot drive through Car Wash is attached to the rear of the Food Mart abutting the west property line. There are four vehicle lanes with eight service bays and eight pumps for vehicle fueling under a 3,850 square foot canopy with a northeasterly site lay out. The service bay canopy is set back approximately 45 feet from the south property along Highway I I 1 and 40 feet from the east property line on Adams Street. Vehicles will access the Car Wash in separate 10-foot curbed and landscaped lane from the north and exit on the south side. There are thirteen parallel parking spaces provided on the perimeter of the north portion of the site. Each space is 9-feet by 19-feet providing access to the Food Mart. There is a bus pull-out area and bus stop shelter provided within the right of way for Highway 1 I 1 street frontage. The trash enclosure, adequately sized for trash and recycling, is located at the north portion of the site near the entrance to the Car Wash. Landscape Plan Landscape setbacks along Highway 1 I 1 vary from 48 feet to 32 feet from the back of curb with the landscape setback along Adams Street at 20 feet. At the corner of Highway I I I and Adams Street is a triangular shaped setback that extends approximately 77-feet back from the corner property line to a 3-foot 8-inch high planter wall. Landscaping surrounds the outside perimeter of the site on the east and south sides of the property. The preliminary landscape plan consists of Fan Palm and shade trees with ground cover and shrub plant material that are low water consumption and native to the area; a maximum of two feet of mounding above curb level in the landscape setbacks is provided to buffer the parking and fueling area. A six-foot wide sidewalk is incorporated in the landscape easement meandering within the landscape setback on Highway 111 extending approximately 340 feet along the south portion of the property. The six-foot wide sidewalk continues south along Adams Street within the 20-foot landscape to the vehicle driveway providing a continuous walkway to adjoining uses. The corner of Highway I I I and Adams Street is landscaped, providing an extended landscape area in conjunction 14 conjunction with the street landscape easements, extending approximately 97 feet from the corner property line to the fueling area. A pricing/monument type sign is located in this landscape area. A six foot landscape planting area is provided along the north edge of the Food Mart building. A 20- foot landscape planting area is provided along the south edge of the Food Mart building which also buffers the Car Wash exit. Architectural Design The applicant is proposing two structures: a Food Mart/Car Wash and a canopy structure for the gasoline service bays. The architecture of the Food Mart, Car Wash, and service bay canopy is southwestern in character and consistent with the design of the existing buildings in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Materials consist of a frazee color (4352M) exterior stucco, a frazee (4281 W) color tile, with tempered seamless glass windows and doors; frames will be bronze anodized. The central portion of the Food Mart is 24-feet 6-inches at its' peak with a Spanish Mission tile roof hipped supported by stuccoed columns. The metal parapet roof canopy, which will be texture coated, is 20-feet 6-inches high supported by eight stuccoed columns with tile at the base. Lighting Site lighting consists of nine 16-foot high steel square poles, located generally on the perimeter of the interior pavement, with box luminaries directed downward. Seven poles have one 400 watt metal halide lamps, and two poles (located at the Adams Street entrance and the Car Wash entrance) have two 400 watt metal halide lamps. There are 24 box luminaries with 400 watt metal halide lamps installed flush with the ceiling of the service bay canopy. The illumination study identifies the lighting patterns and light source intensity in relationship to surrounding property. It also shows light spillage off the property exceeding one foot candle. Sign Plan There are six building mounted signs types: Shell, Shell logo, Food Mart, "ETD" Experience the Difference, Car Wash, and a Future QSR (Quick Service Restaurant) Sign. Two "Shell" signs (each 20" x 92") are located on the canopy facia at the west and east elevations. There are two Shell logo signs (2' x 2') mounted on the east and west elevations of the Food Mart building. The "Food Mart" sign (8' x 7'4") is located on the front of the Food Mart building facing south east. The "ETD" sign and the "Future QSR Sign" are also located on the south elevation on the Food Mart building. The "Car Wash" sign (18" x & 7' 4") is located on the west elevation of the Car Wash. There is one pricing/monument type sign located at the corner of Highway I I I and Adams Street within the landscape easement area. The monument structure is 13' 6" long and 8' 10"high with materials consisting of frazee color exterior stucco and frazee color tile matching the design of the building. The signs on the monument structure include the Shell logo (4' x 4'), "ETD: Experience the Difference" (1' x 4% "Car Wash" (1' x 4% and gas pricing (4' x 4'). 3 SIGN SIZE SUMMARY Building mounted signs Food Mart (1) Car Wash (1) Shell (2) Shell logo (2) ETD (1) Future QSR Sign (1) TOTAL One "Pricing/monument type" mounted signs Pricing (2) Shell logo (2) ETD (2) Car Wash (2) TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Square Feet 11 11 30.6 8.0 11.6 11.6 83.8 32 32 8 8 80 The Community Development Department completed Environmental Assessment 89-150 for Specific Plan 89-014. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and no additional documentation is necessary. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public agencies on October 15, 1997, requesting comments to be returned by October 31, 1997. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. To date, no comments have been received. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on April 15,1998. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: General Plan Consistency The General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as Mixed Regional Commercial. This designation allows commercial uses including service stations as proposed. Land Use Element Policy 2-3.1 provides for primary uses being major retail businesses with ancillary uses including other commercial enterprises. The One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center contains the primary uses, Wal-Mart and Albertson's supermarket; the proposed service station is an ancillary use. The project is compatible with surrounding regional commercial uses and consistent with the General Plan. 4 Specific Plan Consistency Specific Plan 89-014, for the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, allows the proposed use. The Specific Plan, adopted in 1989, identified this site as a service station; although the proposed Site Plan contains acceptable modifications from the original site layout, vehicular access, parking and setbacks are consistent with Specific Plan 89-014. The Specific Plan allows flexibility in development standards. A Conditional Use permit is required for Service Stations and Car Washes. Building setbacks for the Food Mart and service bay canopy are consistent with the Specific Plan. The southwest architecture of the Food Mart (with a reddish brown Spanish Mission tile roof), Car Wash and service bay canopy all with tan/brown stucco and tile is compatible with the architectural styles, materials, and colors in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. The project is in compliance with the architectural standards of the Highway 111 Design Theme Guidelines. Vehicle access is adequately accommodated with the existing driveways on Highway 111 and Adams Street. The 10-foot vehicle entry and exit access for the Car Wash is adequate. Adequate lanes and spacing are provided for on -site vehicle circulation. Parking can be accommodated on site. Based on the current and potential demand for parking and the parking study for the Center, a parking deficiency does not exist and the proposed parking spaces adequately serve the site. As part of the Specific Plan, a sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center has been adopted. The proposed building signs are similar to that permitted for the other service station within the Center. The adopted sign program specifically permits a pricing sign. The project is conditioned to reduce the height of the pricing/monument type sign to be in conformance with the existing service station price sign in the Center. The proposed landscaping is consistent with the existing landscaping along Highway 111 for the Shopping Center; an average minimum of three feet of mounding has been added as a condition in compliance with the Highway 111 Design Theme Guidelines. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Food Mart, Car Wash, and service bay canopy, as designed, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. Adequate vehicle access for fueling and tank refueling is provided. The project will be conditioned to reduce light spillage and require all exterior lighting modifications to be approved as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , approving Conditional Use Permit 97-036, subject to conditions. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , approving Site Development Permit 97- 616 to allow construction of a 2,615 square foot Food Mart with eight pump island bays under a 3,880 square foot service bay canopy, and a 900 square foot drive through Car Wash, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Specific Plan 89-014, Map Exhibit Site Plan and Elevations Prepared by: '�-- Fred baker, Princip9flanner Submitted by: C � 'stine di I rio, Planning Mkiager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97- 036, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTO MOBILE SERVICE STATION AND A CAR WASH CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-036 APPLICANT: SHELL OIL COMPANY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28" day of April, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit 97-036, to allow construction of a a 2,615 square foot Food Mart with a 3,880 square foot service bay canopy, and a 900 square foot Car Wash, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway I I I and Adams Street, more particularly described as: APN: BOOK 643 MAP 08 PARCEL 6 WHEREAS, said conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83- 63) in that the Community Development Department Director has conducted, and adopted under Resolution 90-27, an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 89-150) and has determined that the proposed project is within the scope of EA 89-150 and that no further environmental review is necessary. 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 Conditional Use Permit 97-036: That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Mixed Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. 2. The proposed commercial building ,and car wash are consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Specific Plan as conditioned, supplement, replace, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or incompatible with surrounding properties. The adjacent properties are designated and zoned for commercial use and the site is located at the intersection of two PCRESO.CUP 97-036 Planning Commission Resolution 98- Arterial roadways, which commonly attracts automotive -based commercial uses. The conditional uses proposed are a consistent representation of the uses which would be proposed for surrounding sites. The adverse impact of the project are mitigated to an acceptable level and generally in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance with a soft lighting design which includes limiting the height, direction and wattage of the lights fixtures, shielding the light fixtures, and limiting the hours of night operation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PCRESO.CUP 97-036 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97- 036 APRIL 28, 1998 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Applicant agrees to lower the lighting level of the project by: 1) reducing the number of luminaries proposed for the ceiling of the service bay canopy structure to sixteen (16) and, 2) to recess said luminaries into the ceiling of the service bay canopy to reduce lighting and glare levels. 2. Any and all exterior lighting modifications are to be approved by the Planning Commission as an Amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. MISCELLANEOUS 3. Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. PACONAPWCUP97-035 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,615 SQUARE FOOT FOOD MART WITH A 3880 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE BAY CANOPY, AND A 900 SQUARE FOOT CAR WASH CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616 APPLICANT: SHELL OIL COMPANY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28TH day of April, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for a 1.12 acre site with a 2,615 square foot Food Mart with a 3,880 square foot service bay canopy, and a 900 square foot Car Wash generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street, more particularly described as: APN: BOOK 643 MAP 08 PARCEL 6 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Department Director has conducted, and adopted under Resolution 90-27, an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 89-150) and has determined that the proposed project is within the scope of EA 89-150 and that no further environmental review is necessary. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Site Development Permit 97-616 The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan. A. The property is designated Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC). The Land Use Element (Policy 2-3.1) of the 1992 General Plan Update allows retail business. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. B. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Highway 111 as a Primary Image Corridor and Adams Street as Secondary Image Corridors; the project will have street improvements with abundant landscaping contiguous to the street right-of-way consistent with Circulation Policy 3-4.1.2. The landscape setbacks are consistent with Circulation Element Policy 3-4.1.11. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. PCRESO.SDP97-616 RESOLUTION 98- 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center Specific Plan 84-004 supplement, replace or, are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the high quality of commercial development in the Center, and the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding development and development in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center in that it is similar in scale to the development in the area; the building materials are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, and a blend of surfaces and textures are provided. 8. The conceptual sign program of the project is consistent with the adopted Sign Program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center and it provides building identity using common elements of size, color, and materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Site Development Permit 97-616 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28`h day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PCRESO.SDP97-616 RESOLUTION 98- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PCRESO.SDP97-616 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97- 616 APRIL 28, 1998 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The development shall comply with Specific Plan 84-004, the approved exhibits, and the following conditions on file in the Community Development Department, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. SDP 97-616 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 89-150 Specific Plan 84-004 Conditional Use Permit 97-036 3. Adequate trash and recycling areas shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Plans to be reviewed for acceptability by the City's franchise waste hauler prior to City review. 4. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local requirements. A minimum average of three feet of earth mounding will be provided along Highway 111 in compliance with the Highway 111 Design Theme Guidelines. 6. The pricing/monument sign structure shall not exceed a height of eight feet and one inch and, a width of thirteen (13) feet and four inches consistent the existing service station pricing/monument sign. 7. Construct a bus shelter as required by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. The bus shelter design will be supplied and approved by the Community Development Department. 8. Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including construction, preliminary site work and/or archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and shall indicate time lines for any phasing of the project, and shall establish standards for comprehensive control of both anthropogenic and natural creation of airborne dust due to development activities on site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over the entire build out of the project such as for disturbed lands and pending future P AFRED\CONAPRV L. SDP97-616 Conditions of Approval - SDP 97-616 April28, 1998 development. 9. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building and Safety Director. 10. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SDP 97-616 and EA 89-150. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SDP 97-616, and EA 89-150. Prior to final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of EA89-150 and SDP 97-616. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. FIRE MARSHAL 11. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 g.p.m. for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 12. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2") located not less than 25-feet or more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 13. Blue retro-reflective pavement markets shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed 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". 15. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 1500 gpm fire flow for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. PAFRED\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 2 Conditions of Approval - SDP 97-616 April 28, 1998 Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flows of 1500 gpm. Please check with the water company prior to obtaining an approval from the Fire Department Planning Department. 16. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2-1/2") will be located not less than 25-feet or more than 165-feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 17. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 18. Applicant /developer shall be responsible for obtaining under ground/ above ground tank permits from both the Riverside County Health and Fire Departments. 19. Final conditions will addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time the building plans are submitted. 20. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 21. The site grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a site grading permit. The site shall be graded in accordance with the approved grading plan prepared for Specific Plan 89-014 unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 22. All storm water and nuisance water run-off produced on site shall be discharged in accordance with the approved drainage plan prepared for Specific Plan 89-014 unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide a fuel/water separator (1,000 gallon minimum fuel capacity) or other approved devise, to intercept and retail fuel spills on site. Wash water from the car wash shall not be allowed to drain into the storm drainage system. The applicant may be required in the future to implement additional measures to maintain compliance with State and federal standards for discharge of pollutants in the Whitewater Stormwater Channel. 23. Site grading shall conform to approved improvement plans prepared pursuant to Specific Plan 89-014. P:\FRED\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 Conditions of Approval - SDP 97-616 April28, 1998 24. The applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on the applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the site grading and improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. a. All grading and improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. b. The finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. 25. Site access shall be from entry drives existing at the time of this approval. 26. The applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 27. Applicant shall install a raised landscaped traffic island in the westerly access intersection. The shape and location of the island shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide a one inch equals ten foot drawing of the access routes to and from the site which show the turning radii of the tanker trucks that will service the station. 28. All underground utilities shall be installed with trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by the applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. MISCELLANEOUS 30. Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. P:\FRED\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 4 ATTACHMENT • 7ui•usla • alnl aaltgall Q i S^"mr W Z z>> ►�I(SI%/ NWr o o VI1.. ZZj Lj W _�An OQ ��HV c 0 Czun Z. OOP > n n dWW Ju =—Q m N o< _z �N .,� Q- a sz u u -O- r� V� Z �N V W W W Z O ATTACHMENT VICINITY MAP N W E � 1 1 <SrA Mrs Ate. fy SITE s Ln cn O � a o u, V) Ln �2 o 48th. AVE. never'MA! PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 28, 1998 CASE NO.: SIGN PERMIT 98-418 APPLICANT: DGI SIGNS, INCORPORATED (MR. SKIP BERG) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP LOCATION: 78-611 HIGHWAY 111 (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND SIMON DRIVE) PROPERTY OWNER: SIMON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP (MR. FRED SIMON, SR.) GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL OVERLAY BACKGROUND: Project History Simon Motors, a General Motors dealership, was built in 1982 on approximately four acres at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Simon Drive (Attachment 1). Vehicles sold at the site in past years were Cadillac, Pontiac, Buick and GMC trucks. Recently, Mr. Simon expanded his dealership to include the Chevrolet and Oldsmobile Divisions of General Motors. The existing Simon Motors building has numerous illuminated and non -illuminated nonconforming signs on each of the street frontages totaling approximately 467 square feet. In addition to permanent signs, plastic flags are displayed along Highway 111 and Simon Drive mounted on the parking lot light posts and are not allowed. On April 6, 1998, Mr. Simon met with staff to review his application request. Mr. Simon stated to staff that he has a two-year agreement to market GM vehicles from his dealership, but that he is obligated to enlarge his existing facility or build a new facility according to their requirements. Should Mr. Simon decide not to expand his dealership, he will lose the opportunity to sell Pontiac, GMC and Buick vehicles. Mr. Simon can explain his obligations further at the meeting. STRPSIGN98 418/23 and CondSign418/23 Page I of 3 Sign Request As required by Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code, DGI Signs has submitted a Planned Sign Program for Simon Motors which consists of new building signs in conjunction with the relocation of other existing building signs (Attachment 2). The total sign area proposed under this new program is approximately 675 square feet. A majority of the signs are located on the north side of the building facing Highway 111. A new Chevrolet identification sign is proposed on the west side of the building to supplement the other proposed building signs. Corporate sign colors are being proposed (i.e., white and blue). Freestanding signs are not being proposed. Nonconforming Signs Under Section 9.160.110 (A2) of the Sign Ordinance, "no nonconforming sign shall be changed in any manner that increases the sign's noncompliance with the provisions of this Chapter, nor expanded or structurally altered so as to extend its useful life. This restriction does not preclude change of sign copy or normal maintenance." Staff Comments The Zoning Code allows for one monument sign 8 feet high and 50 square feet and signs on building elevations facing perimeter streets not to exceed two signs (one sign per building side) and a maximum aggregate sign area of 50 square feet. Due to the limited landscape frontage on Highway 111, a monument sign is not possible. The Planning Commission may permit the applicant to transfer the freestanding sign area to the building signs pursuant to Section 9.160.090(E3) of the Sign Ordinance, which pertains to sign adjustments. The number of signs is excessive considering the maximum allowable number of building signs is two with an allowable aggregate size of 50 square feet. The purpose and intent of signs is to prevent excessive and confusing sign displays per Section 9.160.010(A5) of the Sign Ordinance. Staff does not support the applicant's proposal to have a combination of channel letter and cabinet mounted building identification signs. These different style signs take away from the architectural elements of the building and create a haphazard design theme. Staff recommends the following changes to the proposed Planned Sign Program in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code: Permit one sign per vehicle brand not exceeding 25 square feet on the north building elevation so as to advertise the vehicle product line, provided the signs are grouped together near the dealership showroom. Individual illuminated channel letter signs shall be installed to create design unity, and make sure the signs can be read from a distance. STRPSIGN98-418/23 and CondSign418/23 Page 2 of 3 2. Relocate the proposed illuminated Simon Motors identification sign (46 square feet) from the north building elevation to the east building elevation to reduce the number of building signs facing Highway 111. 3. Remove existing and proposed cabinet signs on north, west and east building elevations excluding directional signs to enhance the Sign Program and prevent confusing sign displays. 4. Remove existing roof mounted Simon Motors signs above the showroom as they are prohibited according to Section 9.160.100 (Prohibited Signs) of the Zoning Code. CONCLUSION: Under Section 9.160.090(E) of the Zoning Code, additional sign area and number of signs are permitted provided the signs are in proper scale with building elements, compensate for inadequate visibility, or facilitate good design balance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission limit the number of building signs and require channel lettering for signs on the north and east sides of the building. The Conditions of Approval ensure that the project will be compatible with the design theme of the surrounding shopping centers, and limit the amount of on -site identification signs to 227 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 98- , approving the Planned Sign Program for Simon Motors Automotive Dealership under Sign Permit 98-418, subject to Findings and Conditions; or 2. Continue discussion of this request to May 12, 1998; or 3. Deny the applicant's request to create a new Sign Program for Simon Motors Automotive Dealership. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Sign Program Document - Commission Only Prepared by: Submitted by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager STRIISIGN98-419/23 and CondSign418/23 Page 3 of 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN PERMIT 98-418 (SIMON MOTORS SIGN PROGRAM) APRIL 28, 1998 FINDINGS: Implementation of the Sign Program will not adversely affect surrounding land uses because only one building -mounted sign is allowed per brand of GM vehicle on the north side of the building. 2. Replacement of existing cabinet -style building mounted signs on the north building elevation with channel lettering signs provides a unifying design theme for Simon Motors consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code. Grouping the signs by the existing showroom provides formal design structure which is lacking under the existing and proposed Sign Program. The proposed changes to the Sign Program prevents excessive and confusing sign displays. The Sign Program, as Conditioned, is consistent with the type and size of signs in the immediate area. 3. Transferring freestanding sign area to the building signs offers the same sign area allowed by other individual businesses. 4. Design flexibility is proposed ensuring that future building signs comply with the Sign Ordinance unless allowed an adjustment by the Planning Commission. 5. Removal of the nonconforming signs from the exterior building elevations ensures compliance to existing Sign Ordinance requirements. 6. The Sign Program is exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act pursuant Section 15311 (Class 11(a)) because on -premise signs are proposed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All provisions of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code shall be met unless otherwise amended herein. 2. Existing permanent signs that do not comply with the Sign Program shall be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new signs. 3. The plastic advertising flags along Highway 111 and Simon Drive shall be removed within 24 hours of review and approval of the Sign Program by the Planning Commission. 4. A total number of five signs are permitted on the north building elevation (i.e., one per each GM Division). Individual channel letter signs are required. Each building - mounted sign shall not exceed 25 square feet, nor be located more than 100 feet to the west of the existing showroom. The signs shall be stacked in groups of two or more to provide design symmetry, subject to approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. 5. Existing roof mounted signs located above the showroom shall be removed. 6. No signs are permitted on the west building elevation. 7. Directory cabinet signs on the east and south building elevations are allowed to remain (i.e., customer parking, etc.). Other existing or proposed building mounted signs shall be removed unless addressed separately in the following conditions. 8. The proposed channel letter Simon Motors identification sign on the north building elevation shall be relocated to the east building elevation, and be mounted to the south of the showroom. 9. The existing Simon Motors identification sign on the south building elevation is allowed to remain. 10. Sign copy changes shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 11. Channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. 12. No more than 227 square feet of sign area is permitted for this site excluding accessory directory signs. 13. Amendments to this Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as required by Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code. CONllSIGN98418-23 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 PLAZA LA QUINTA t North ' SIM PWI pALMS DRIVE *-+ fit@ '- � . �,\ Eagle ' WAL T SHO/ CENTER Hardware WI 4 78-992 Highway 111 • La Quinta, CA 92253 (619) 777-1181 April 25.1998 City Of La Quinta Planning Commission P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta. Ca. 92253 Subject: Site Development Permit (SDP 97-616) Conditional Use Permit (CUP 97-036) Honorable Members of the Commission: It was our fervent desire to attend this Commission Meeting and present our thoughts in person, but an emergency meeting, requiring our attendance, has been scheduled in New York by one of our large consulting contract clients. We respectfully request that this letter be presented to the Commission and entered into the record. We. Duane Younker and Jim Jarnagin, are the owners an operators of the La Quinta Car Wash located adjacent to the subject development. We offer a full range of car wash services to public including but not limited to: Full -Service - Comrlete inside and outside cleaning. vacuuming, and windows. Exterior -Service - Outside cleaning only. This project was permitted in 1995 with construction completed in July of 1996. During our planning and permitting process the staff worked closely with us to assure a quality development was proposed to the Commission. Throughout the public hearings the Commission focused much attention on the quality of the project, whether it met the needs of the Community, and our ability to manage the traffic, business flow, and congestion on -site. We feel that we have met or exceeded all of our commitments. We feel it is our responsibility to voice our opinions on the subject development: 1. We did not plan gasoline for our facility because we were aware that Shell Oil owned the adjoining property and since gasoline was their primary business, they would be better able to serve the community. Obviously they do not have the same respect for us or the Coin -operated car wash next door. We can see no community purpose being served by Shell Oil building another car wash with two units existing within a three hundred (300) feet offering all service options to the public. 2. Machine car washing, by its very nature, can be confusing to the public and thus it is our professional opinion that it is best handled where the customer has access to employees who can explain the procedures and assist them through the process while handling their specific concerns and problems. i.e., which autos can safely be washed and what add -on equipment can go through the machinery. Examples would be modified vehicles and small trucks with special purpose racks. 3. Please be advised that we are not opposing the service station or the food mart as we see them as needed ser%nces for our community. Rather. we would like to see the food mart expanded to better accommodate the needs of the community instead of the space being wasted on the car wash. 4. We are not versed in the fast food business and as such do not feel qualified to offer any opinion on this portion of the application. In closing we offer that Jim Jarnagin was a marketing executive with Exxon Company USA., retiring with thirtv five (35) years of service, amassing extensive experience in the areas of gasoline sales, general marketing of service bays, convenience stores and car washes. These comments have been furnished for your review and reflect the combined opinions of the undersigned. Res ly, Duane Younker Ji �' TO: FROM- DATE. - SUBJECT I MEMORANDUM Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Jerry Herman I Community Development Director April 28, 1998 Revised Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 2, Rancho La Quinta Pursuant to discussions with the applicant, the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department recommend the following revisions to the proposed conditions of approval and the amended Specific Plan document: Revise the Recommended Conditions of Approval to Read as Follows: 10. The applicant shall grant flood easements to CVWD for all areas of the development below the elevation of 50.00 feet which are not drainage isolated (to elevation 50.00) from the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The applicant shall endeavor to offer easements over currently -improved portions of the channel within six months of the approval of this specific plan update. Easements over unimproved portions shall be offered for dedication when subdivided or otherwise approved for construction. 25. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. The applicant shall coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program and take steps as necessary to ensure that residential properties abutting the La Quinta Evacuation Channel are not subject to the flood insurance associated with the Flood Zone A designation of the Channel. 39. The applicant shall develop all internal roads in accordance with the design standards specified in the specific plan and the structural standards in effect at the time of tentative tract approval. All internal roads shall remain private. The minimum street width shall be 36 feet as measured between curbfaces or flowlines except as follows: a. Single -loaded residential streets - 32-feet minimum. b. Streets may be constructed to minimum widths of 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking is prohibited, if there is adequate off- J: \S P \84-004revisions Printed 4/28198, Page t of 4 street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association. 41. The minimum rate of progress on the applicant's remaining responsibility for off -site streets (approximately 2.1 of the original 3.1 miles of improvements) shall be as follows: A. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of improvements to Avenue 48 between Dune Palms Road and Adams Street at the time of approval of the next final map or other development approval providing additional residential or resort guest property. B. The applicant shall secure the estimated cost of Jefferson Street improvements (or reimburse actual costs if already constructed) as follows: 1) Prior to construction of permanent, non -emergency access to this street, or 2) At the time of approvals allowing residential or resort guest uses in the portion of the specific plan area lying within one quarter mile of the centerline cf Jefferson Street. This obligation may be pro rated with development approvals for the first 80 percent of such property within that area until permanent non -emergency access is provided to Jefferson Street or the City Engineer determines that improvements are needed, in part, because of traffic generated by the specific plan area. 3) Construction or reimbursement shall be complete prior to approval of the final 20 percent of the residential or resort guest acreage within this area. C. The applicant shall secure the estimated cost of Avenue 50 along applicant's frontage and Avenue 48 between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson Street (or reimburse actual costs if already constructed) concurrently with approvals allowing residential or resort guest uses in the portion of the specific plan area lying east and south of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and more than one quarter mile west of the centerline of Jefferson Street. The provision of security and construction/reimbursement of these improvements shall comply with the provisions listed above for Jefferson Street improvements except that reimbursement for the Avenue 48 improvements shall precede securing/constructing Avenue 50 improvements until the pro rata contributions are needed for pending construction of Avenue 50 improvements. The above notwithstanding, off -site street improvements determined necessary to serve developing portions of the specific plan area shall be secured or reimbursed at the time of approval of those portions of the development and shall be constructed concurrently with those portions. All off -site street improvements shall be completed no later than five years after the approval of this Specific Plan unless otherwise A \COA pc revisionsmpd Printed 4/28/98, Page 2 of approved by the City Council. Improvements and reimbursements so required may .exceed the minimum rate of progress outlined above. 65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Phase II archaeological investigation for this Specific Plan including consultation with designated local Native American representative. If a site is determined to be significant as a result of the Phase II investigation, the site shall be retained as open space, capped for preservation per current acceptable methods, or excavated for data recovery per acceptable methods. The applicant shall submit to the City of La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission, for review and approval, a proposal for Phase III archaeological mitigation as recommended by the Phase Il investigation report. A final report of all archaeological mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for each component of work, subject to a grading permit, within the specific plan area. Section 2.5.2 of the Proposed Plan: Replace the third and fourth paragraphs of this Section with the proposed language for Condition No. 39 (see above). A \COA pc revisions.vrpd Pdnted 4/28/98, Page 3 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND Tll GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-057 APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of April, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider 1) amending the City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram to modify the location of the Tourist Commercial land use generally described as the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 48 and to modify the configuration of the golf course and residential component, as shown on Exhibit A; and::-).;Io:::tod :. .:: ;... : .: • " lL Tf GC TT thE3 iaiUn ii[ 3 :: j? `t! l�ft3f 1 # F3 $> £3�: `QW £ 3t : G caegc�ie> T i:l:_.::as>sar:a'tW..tote: as. aw-ow as. Cvite':iytty tf`:aja::pts::p: .+&):fir tle eve .pment. t��t:on s a g :: n r :pa lr ;r c#��a�s>a}e arced by the horn,owners :0,60.40 0104 WHEREAS, said the General Plan Amendment request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial study (EA 98-357), reviewed a previously certified Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 90 for Specific Plan 84-004 and determined that the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; 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: This Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment affects land uses and circulation which already exist as a part of the Plan. That the General Plan Amendment is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Jefferson Street as a Primary Image Corridor and Avenue 48 as Secondary Image Corridors; it will have street improvements with a landscaped median and abundant landscaping contiguous to the street right-of-way consistent with Circulation Policy 3-4.1.2. The landscape setbacks are consistent with Circulation Element Policy 3-4.1.11. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. 2. The d rin::€ane or both PCRESOGPA 98-057 Planning Commission Resoiution 98- General Plan Amendment 98-057 sides 4f the street depet"g on str >widd >to ensur. s unimpeded two-way traffic. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission or Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. 4. The new land use designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission and/or City Council review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 6. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. 7. That the General Plan Amendment is within a project that will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case, 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 98-357, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval, That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES. - ABSENT: PCRESO 98- Manning Commission Resolution 98- General Plan Amendment 98-057 ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PCRESO 98- L U) a �Y we J c No o CL A-F-)Fal. Fc3l Fa-.1 a w f w EXHIBIT B Table CIR-2 to be modified by adding the following to the last two columns: Private Local Streets or Private Cul-De-Sac: 32 feet wide, parking restricted on one side (preferably on alternate sides every few hundred feet). Private Local Streets or Private Cul-De-Sac: 28 feet wide, parking restricted on both sides.