Loading...
1999 02 23 PC5 ^' OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California February 23, 1999 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 99-019 Beginning Minute Motion 99-004 L 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 February 9, 1999 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case ..................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-372 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 98-033 Applicant ............... Mainiero, Smith & Associates, Inc./Ray Troll Development Company Location ................ Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street Request ................. Recommendation to the City Council for Certification of an Environmental Assessment and review of the development principles and guidelines for a 7.07 acre commercial project consisting of a 160 unit hotel and two restaurants Action ................... Resolution 99- , Resolution 99- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of February 16,1999 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 February 9, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Tyler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Tyler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. C. Staff present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 12, 1999. Commissioner Robbins asked for clarification on Page 11 relative to Condition #18 of Site Development Permit 98-640. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the condition would be rewritten to be more specific regarding the curb cuts. Chairman Tyler asked that Page 7, Item 21 be amended to read: "Commissioner Abels suggested Condition 23.A. be changed..."; also Page 10, Item 16 be deleted. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to approve the Minutes of January 12, 1999, as amended. B. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 26, 1999. Chairman Tyler asked that minutes be corrected on Page 9, Item 8 by deleting everything after the second sentence and adding the following: "Chairman Tyler expressed concerns about meeting the General Plan Circulation Element requirements for Major Arterials. Washington Street is a Major Arterial. In particular, that section of Washington Street that is in front of the proposed project CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC2-9-99.wpd I Planning Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 is currently one of the most heavily traveled streets in La Quinta. The situation will become worse when the Southwest Community Church campus at Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive and the new tennis venue at the corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street are completed. Plans for improving Washington Street to six lanes from Fred Waring Drive north to Country Club Drive by the end of 1999, will exacerbate the situation. Table CIR-2 of the General Plan requires that property adjacent to a Major Arterial shall have "full access by a signalized intersection only; avoid right in/right out driveways where possible." Since there is no intersection adjacent to this project, that type of access is not possible. Chairman Tyler stated he had concerns about approving two right in/right out driveways, when the General Plan requires that this type of access be avoided where possible."; Page 9, Item 10 insert the words "one of between "of"and and "the" and in fifth line "many" to "few". Page 12, Item 13 change it to read, "...why are the pad elevations along the north boundary so..."; Page 13, Item 16, add a Condition 16.d. "Street Lot "B" shall be named Verbena Drive. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the Minutes of January 26, 1999, as amended. C. Department Report: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 29122 Site Development Permit 99-643, a request of MSG Enterprises, Inc. for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a subdivision of 1.77 acres into 9 single family residential lots and compatibility review of three new prototype residential units ranging in size form 2,294 to 2,353 square feet located on the east side of Laurel Valley, north of Southern Hills abutting the existing Jack Nicklaus Tournament Golf Corse, in PGA West. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Larry Green, representing MSG Enterprises, Inc., stated he had no questions. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant had submitted an alternative elevation as requested by the ALRC. Staff stated the applicant needs only to submit it for staff approval. It was not added to the plans that were before the Commission. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC2-9-99.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 4. Chairman Tyler asked if there was any other public participation. There being none, this portion of the public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. 5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-014 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29122, subject to the Conditions of Approval as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-015 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 99-643, subject to the Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Tentative Tract Map 29121; a request MSG Enterprises, Inc. for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a 2.98 acre subdivision into 17 single family residential units located on Winged Foot, north of Southern Hills, west of Madison Street in PGA West. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. There being none, Chairman Tyler asked that if this tract was within the Coachella Valley Unified School District. Staff stated it was. Chairman Tyler asked that a notation be added to Condition #50 that this model complex will also serve the developments for Tentative Tract Map 29122 and 29125. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Green stated he had no further questions. 4. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There being none, this portion of the public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC2-9-99.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- 016 approving Tentative Tract Map 29121, subject to the conditions as modified. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Tentative Tract 29125; a request of MSG Enterprises, Inc. for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a 1.82 acre subdivision into ten single family residential units located on Riviera Way, east of Shoal Creek, south of 54" Avenue in PGA West. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report Planing Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Green stated he had no further questions. 3. Chairman Tyler asked the applicant what would be happening to Lot 10. Mr. Green stated they intended to build one of the prototype homes on this lot because the cul-de-sac design created an irregular size lot. Chairman Tyler stated there was mention of maintenance of the lot as it was open green space. Mr. Green stated it was a buildable lot, but there is a landscape median between the street and the perimeter wall which they will be landscaping and maintained by the Homeowners' Association on the east side. Staff stated this was covered under Condition #9. Discussion followed regarding the lot. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked about Condition #7 regarding the designation of Laurel Drive being changed from a private street to a private drive and what is the difference. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated a "street" has more of a public use. Even though it is a private street and all the streets in PGA West are private street, they have a generalized public use for the residents that live there. 5. Chairman Tyler asked how the streets would be maintained as stated in the same condition. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that if the City is unable to get them into the PGA West Homeowners' Association, they will have to create some kind of an acceptable homeowners' association to maintain the street. Staff does not anticipate any problem incorporating this street into the existing HOA. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC2-9-99.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 6. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was any way the HOA could not take this. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is his understanding that this was subdivided before and the common area lots are expected to be taken over by the HOA even though the land is now a third party owner/developer. There is a condominium map on file with the City that shows the land is divided into large lots, but it does not show the footprints of individual condominiums. 7. Chairman Tyler asked about the temporary fencing along Avenue 54 being replaced. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this is part of the "catch up" process on the off -site improvements. The condition is written so the applicant will receive credit towards their overall obligation which is yet to be determined. Until KSL produces the information staff needs regarding the total cost of off -site improvements, how much undevelopable land is owned by KSL and how much is owned by third parties. With those three numbers, staff can calculate what this particular applicant's burden would be. 8. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There being none, Chairman Tyler closed this portion of the public hearing and opened the hearing to Commission discussion. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-017 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 29125, subject to the Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLI. CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES; None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN None. D. Site Development Permit 98-644; a request of Sheffield Homes, LLC for approval of three new prototype residential units ranging in size from 2,704 to 3,102 square feet. 1. Chairman Tyler 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. Staff noted an additional condition they were recommending: "The partial wall between the retreat and master bedroom in Plan 2 shall be removed to create one bedroom." 2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain what the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) was asking for in regard to the massing of the stone and what is staff s impression of making this work. Planning Manager Christine CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC2-9-99.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 di Iorio stated the ALRC wanted the stone to be used as a wainscot, sills of lintels only which is typical of some of the Spanish styles. There is some interpretation that allows for this type of stone detail. 3. Chairman Tyler asked if any consideration had been given to using the tile that was not flat or rounded. Staff stated it is a possibility as long as it was not completely flat. The applicant will submitted the tile to the HOA for approval as well as staff. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jose Torres, Sheffield Homes, stated he had read all the conditions and agrees with most of them. With regard to the Elevation B, the HOA did not deny or approve the plan, but they did not like the flat tile. They preferred the stone so they were making the changes. In regard to the condition concerning the partial wall between the retreat room, he asked if the room did not have access to the hall is it still considered a fourth bedroom which requires a three car garage. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated this room is considered a bedroom. 5. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There being none, Chairman Tyler closed this portion of the public hearing and opened the hearing to Commission discussion. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-018 approving Site Development Permit 98-644, subject to the Conditions of Approval as amended. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions. 7. Commissioner Kirk stated that in his opinion this retreat room is not amiable to being turned into a bedroom in that particular location. He would recommend allowing the developer create a partial wall between the retreat and master bedroom. Commissioners Butler and Robbins agreed with Commissioner Kirk that this could not be a bedroom and they would leave it as it is proposed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the condition not be imposed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES; None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC2-9-99.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Chairman Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of February 2, 1999. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:34 P.M. on February 9, 1999. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC2-9-99.Wpd 7 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-373 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 98-033 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN OUTLINING THE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A 140 TO 160 ROOM HOTEL AND TWO RESTAURANTS ON 6.01± ACRES. LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND HIGHWAY 111. APPLICANT: MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES/RAY TROLL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-373 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 98-033 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 19701 AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING/ DESIGNATIONS: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC); REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR). BACKGROUND: The Specific Plan would allow development of a 6.01t acre site at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Highway 111. Lands to the east and south are currently vacant. Lands to the north have been developed for a self -storage facility. A community commercial shopping center occurs immediately west of Adams Street. The General Plan requires a Specific Plan be processed for parcels within the Mixed/Regional Commercial designation. Following approval of the Specific Plan, the individual structures within the site will be subject to Site Development Permit review. PACIIRISTI\PCstff-"A98-373SP98 Project Request The Specific Plan requests approval for a 140 to 160 room hotel, with associated meeting space, restaurant and ancillary facilities. In addition, two restaurants with a total of 12,000 square feet are proposed. The Specific Plan applies the standards of the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to land use. Primary project access will be taken from Adams Street, approximately 350 feet north of the Highway 111 right-of-way. Secondary access will be available, with a restriction to right-in/right-out only, onto Highway 111 at the eastern property line. It is expected that this driveway access point will be shared with future development to the east. Finally, a full access drive will be provided at the northern property boundary, approximately 600t feet north of Highway 111. Should the hotel and/or restaurants not be developed, any use allowed in the CR Zone would be permitted. The Specific Plan deviates from the land use standards in the zone on one point: it will allow the development of the hotel site by right, without a Conditional Use Permit. The only additional discretionary permit required after approval of the Specific Plan would be a Site Development Permit for this use. The Specific Plan also establishes a reduced parking standard for the project, based on Urban Land Institute standards for shared parking. The City's standard for the combined land uses would total 399 spaces. The Specific Plan establishes a total of 318 parking spaces for the project. Pages 17 and 18 of the Specific Plan explain how the reduction was achieved. Individual Site Development Permit applications will be required to meet this standard. Furthermore, a condition of approval has been included which requires that, should additional reductions in parking be sought with a different land use, additional parking analysis would be required. The project lies within the boundary of the Highway 111 Design Theme, and will conform to its standards. A second landscape palette is proposed within the project, which allows for a greater variety of plant materials. Public Notice: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 1, 1999. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval for this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. P:\CI IRISTI\PCstffi:A98-373 SP98 This Specific Plan represents a logical extension of the Regional Commercial land use designation, and will broaden the land uses occurring within the Highway 111 corridor. The Specific Plan, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- , recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-373. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 98-033, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: Specific Plan 98-033 Document Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager P:\CI IRISTI\PCsta'1A98-373SP98 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-373 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 98-033 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-373 APPLICANT: MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of February, 1999 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 98-373 for Specific Plan 98-033, generally located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Highway 111, more particularly described as follows: APN 649-020-029 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 197011(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 98-373) and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 98-033, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending Certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 98-373. 2. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. PApc Res EA 98-373.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 99- Environmental Assessment 98-373 for SP 98-033 February 23, 1999 3. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 does not have the potential to achieve short- term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the Specific Plan as proposed, does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time of development, whether or not the project was implemented. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council Certification of Environmental Assessment 98-373 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of February, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 11:\pc Res EA 98-373.wpc Planning Commission Resolution 99- Environmental Assessment 98-373 for SP 98-033 February 23, 1999 ROBERT TYLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\pc Res EA 98-373.wPc' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Hotel 111 Specific Plan, Case No. SP 98-033 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine Di Iorio 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Highway I I I and Adams Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Del Monte Property Mr. Ray Troll 2323 N. Tustin Ave., Suite F Santa Ana, CA 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed/Regional Commercial 7. Zoning: Regional Commercial with non-residential overlay 8. Description of Project: Review of a Specific Plan of Land Use for a 140-160 room hotel and two restaurants on 6± acres of land. The hotel is proposed to be a mid -range business or convenience facility, with limited resort amenities and on -site services. The maximum square footage of the restaurants is proposed to be 12,000 square feet, including both interior and exterior dining areas. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: The project site is currently vacant. Development to the west and across Adams Street is existing community -scale shopping center. A self - storage facility abuts the northern property line. Lands to the east and south are vacant. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Coachella Valley Water District. P:\CI IRISTT\SP98-033cklst-EA98- 373 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 Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources X Utilities and Service Systems X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics X Water Hazards X Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation Mandatory Finds of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name For PACl1Ris,rl\SP98-033 cklst-F.A98-373 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. P AC31RI ST1\SP98-033 cklst-EA98-373 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) X (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: a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (General Plan X Land Use Map) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by X agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-1 ff.) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General Plan X Land Use Map, General Plan Goal 2-3, page 2-14) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or X farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.1-4, page 4-15) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Aerial Photograph, Figure I of Specific Plan document) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X (General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major X infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1, and policies 2- 3.1.1, 2-3.1.3, page 2-14) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Aerial X Photograph, Figure 1 of Specific Plan document) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X PACI IRI STIASP98-033cklst-EA98-373 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, X Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.) d) Seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 X ff.) e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from X excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan EIR, page 4-41) g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan EIR, page 4-43) X h) Expansive soils? (General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43) X i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7) X IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Figure 2 in Specific Plan document) X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as X flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water X quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Specific Plan document p. 12, letter from CVWD dated 12/30/98) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Specific X Plan document p. 12, letter from CVWD dated 12/30/98) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X (General Pian EIR, page 4-51 ff.) P:ACI IRIS'I'I\SP98-033cklst-EA98-373 V. VI Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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 capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Aerial Photograph, Figure 1 of Specific Plan document) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.) d) Create objectionable odors? (Specific Plan Project Description) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Endo Engineering, Project Traffic Analysis) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Figure 2) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Figure 2) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Figure 2) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated X R. X 09 X Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X M X 10 X KI i P:\C'I IRIS'I'I\SI'98-033cklst-EA98-373 VII. VIII Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Figure 2) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Figure 2) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Genera] Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? General Plan EIR, page 4- 71 ff.) ENERGY AND ]MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) 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? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X Fi X /:/ 91 X KI X X ►0 i P:\CHRISTI\SP98-033cklst-EA98-373 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances X (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X (Specific Plan Project Description) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X (Specific Plan Project Description) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X (Specific Plan Project Description) X. ]NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Specific Plan Project X Description, General Plan MEA, page 6-15 ff., Exhibit 6-4) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan MEA, X page 6-15 ff., Exhibit 6-4) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.) X b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.) c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9) X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan X MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff.) X P:\C'I IRISTI\SP98-033cklst-EA98-373 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26) X b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (General X Plan MEA, page 4-20) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) X e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) X f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) X g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit CIR- X 5) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan EIR, X page 5-12 ff.) c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project Description) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X Determination Study, Community Development Department) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (CRM Tech, Interim Cultural X n,.,.,...«,.o.. no,- -,-r f r . rnnncPrl nrniect) P:\CIIRISTI\SP98-033ckist-EA98-373 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Affect historical resources? (CRM Tech, Interim Cultural Resources X Report for proposed project) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect X unique ethnic cultural values? (CRM Tech, Interim Cultural Resources Report for proposed project) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact X area? (CRM Tech, Interim Cultural Resources Report for proposed project) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other X recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan, Exhibit X PR -I) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X 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 X disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? P:\CHRISTI\SP98-033 cklst-EA98-373 KVII. 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:\CIIRIS'FI\SP98-033 cklst-EA98-373 Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 98-373 III.b) & c) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed Specific Plan is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, adjacent to an inferred and inactive fault. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance. III.f) The project falls within an area of soils at risk for erosion. The proposed Specific Plan, in and of itself, will not cause a hazard. However, construction of the project will have the potential to create unstable soil conditions during earth moving activities. At such time as any phase of the project is proposed for development, the project proponent will be required to submit soils analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. The recommendations contained in this study will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of insignificance. IV.a) The construction of the land uses proposed in the Specific Plan will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The project, however, proposes to control storm flows by directing them to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, located immediately north of the project site. The project has been conditioned to meet the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which has jurisdiction over the Channel. This will reduce the potential hazard associated with increased runoff to a level of insignificance. IV.c) & d) As discussed in item IV.a), above, the proposed project will discharge storm flows into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Such discharge could increase the potential for pollutants entering the Channel. The project will be required to implement NPDES standards for any flows to be discharged, however, which will lower the risk of pollutants entering the Channel. CV WD has implemented standards for such facilities, which will be applied to this project. The Channel is an intermittent stream, which generally carries water only during storm events. The implementation of the proposed project will not represent a significant increase in water traveling in the Channel, and is not expected to cause a hazard in this regard. The Channel has been designed to accommodate such flows, plus a risk factor, to ensure conservative handling of storm flows. CVWD's requirements to implement the Specific Plan will reduce the potential impacts to surface water to a less than significant level. IV.f) The construction of the proposed project will result in an increased demand for domestic water. The Valley's water supplies are recharged through contractual agreement with the Metropolitan Water District, utilizing California Water Project resources. Although the regional groundwater basin is in an overdraft condition, the efforts of the Coachella Valley Water District, the City's water conservation requirements, and other outside agency efforts are mitigating the regional draw -down of groundwater. PACI IRIS"I'I\SP98-033cklst-EA98-373 V.a) An air quality analysis was prepared for buildout of the proposed project'. The air quality analysis was performed for both construction (short term) and operational (long term) emissions from the project site. The analysis utilized the threshold criteria established for the Valley by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as required by the Air Quality Management Plan. The project will not exceed these criteria, either during construction or operation of the hotel and restaurants. The impact to air quality is not expected to be significant. VI.a) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan'. The analysis included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic volumes. The signal warrant analysis reviewed project traffic at the Adams Street entrance to the site. The traffic analysis represents a conservative estimate, insofar as the assumptions used included full occupancy of the hotel. The total estimated traffic generation for the project is estimated to be 2,150 daily trips, of which 152 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 172 during the evening peak hour. Highway I I I is expected, at year 2005, to be at half its capacity (29,500 trips). The project will represent less than 1% of the 2005 traffic volume. The type of development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of the City's General Plan, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into that analysis. The impact of the proposed project is not expected to represent a significant impact to traffic congestion. VI.b) The project proposes its primary access from Adams Street, approximately 350 feet north of the Highway I I I right-of-way. Two concerns have been identified with this access and its associated drive. First, that the access point might generate sufficient trips to meet traffic warrants for a signalized intersection, and second that the access drive easterly of this access point could be hazardous if used as a through route within the project. As mentioned in item VI.a) above, a warrant analysis was completed for the proposed access point. The warrant analysis concludes that insufficient traffic will occur at this access to warrant installation of a signal. The installation of a signal would not have met distance requirements established by the City for signals, and could have posed a hazard. The warrant analysis provides sufficient information to determine that the impact of the access on Adams Street as a potential traffic hazard will be less than significant. "Air Quality Impacts Associated with the Adams Street Hotel and Restaurants," Endo Engineering, November 30, 1998. "Traffic Impacts Associated with the Adams Street Hotel and Restaurants" and "Adams Street Hotel Access Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis," Endo Engineering, November 30, 1998 and January 8, 1999, respectively. P:\C HRISTI\SP98-033 cklst-F,A98-373 The use of the drive through the project from the Adams Street access point to the eastern project boundary could pose a hazard if used as a through road by project and adjacent traffic. The City Engineer, however, has conditioned the construction of the drive to include a raised crosswalk area, to slow traffic and define the pedestrian access point. This condition of approval should reduce the risk of a potential traffic hazard to a level of insignificance. VIA) The proposed Specific Plan has reduced the parking requirements from 399 to 318. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for parking reductions under certain circumstances, and using certain methodologies. The Specific Plan uses one of the approved methodologies to determine its parking reduction. The compatible uses for the site are expected to result in reductions in parking needed. In addition, the project has been conditioned to perform additional parking analysis should the uses proposed change. This is expected to reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. VII.a),b) & c) The proposed Specific Plan occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Fee Area. With the adoption of a Habitat Conservation Plan for this species, payment of a $600.00 fee was established as mitigation for any taking of this endangered species. No further mitigation is necessary. The site also occurs within the boundaries of habitat known to be suitable for the Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket, a Species of Special Concern. Given the sand dunes located on the site, the Cricket is likely to occur. The Specific Plan will not, in and of itself, have an impact on this habitat. However, eventual development of the site will impact these resources. In order to mitigate the potential impacts, the project proponent will, as part of the Site Development Permit process, prepare or cause to be prepared a biological resource assessment, including a field survey prepared by a qualified biologist. The result report is to include appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented through the development of the site. If mass grading of the site is eventually proposed, the biological resource survey must be completed at the first Site Development Permit application. If the site is subdivided and/or developed in discreet phases, individual biological resource surveys may be performed for each phase. VII.e) The proposed Specific Plan will not, in and of itself, impact migratory patterns. Development of the site at a later date, however, could impact such patterns. As discussed above, the project site is likely to harbor sensitive species. Development has occurred to the west and north of the proposed project, somewhat blocking migratory potential for the site. The biological resource analysis required above should, however, include analysis of the potential degradation of wildlife dispersal or migratory routes, and provide appropriate mitigation for impacts, if any. Ka) The Highway 111 corridor is an impacted noise area. Noise levels along this roadway exceed the 60 dBA CNEL level currently. All new development of sensitive receptors is required to mitigate to the City's standards for noise, as required in the General Plan (Table EH-1). The hotel portion of the Specific Plan is considered a sensitive receptor. The City requires that interior noise levels in individual rooms be 45 dBA CNEL or less for this use. The hotel's distance from the Highway I I I corridor, as well as construction requirements to meet the City's codes, will allow the PAO IRI S'17\SP98-033 cklst-I;A98-373 interior noise levels to be sufficiently reduced to meet City standards. Building plans for the hotel will include documentation which demonstrates that construction methods will reduce the interior noise level to 45 dBA CNEL or less within the hotel rooms. This mitigation requirement reduces the impact of noise to a level of insignificance. X.b) The Specific Plan in and of itself will not expose people to significant noise levels, but the eventual construction of the restaurant sites could. The restaurants, however, are not considered sensitive receptors, and impacts to persons using outside dining facilities will be short term, and are not expected to be significant. The design of the restaurants should, however, use landscaped berms, building position and perimeter walls as tools to shield diners from noise sources on Highway 111. These construction methods should be sufficient to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. XIII.a) The proposed Specific Plan lies adjacent to a City- designated Primary Image Corridor. This designation requires added setbacks and enhanced landscaping treatments to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts. The proposed project will conform to the standards and requirements of the Highway I I I Design Theme, which the City adopted to implement its requirements in this regard. This is expected to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. XIII.c) The proposed project will include two restaurants which will operate during the evening hours. The hotel use will require lighting at all times during the night, for public health and safety. No residential land uses occur or are likely to occur adjacent to the project site. The City has implemented, through its Site Development Permit and building permit processes, standards which require lighting to be contained, and at a low level, to preserve the dark night sky. These standards will be implemented for this project, thereby reducing the potential impacts to a less than significant level. XIV.b) & d) An archaeological resource analysis, as well as site investigation, was prepared for the project site'. The results of the survey found that significant resources occurred, and that site testing should be undertaken. Through the testing and data recovery performed for this survey, the conclusion was reached that although the archaeological site extends beyond the boundaries of the proposed project site, data recovery for this portion has been completed. The interim report (pending laboratory testing results) was submitted to the City's Historic Preservation Commission for review and approval. As development occurs on the site monitoring has been recommended, and included in the conditions of approval, for any earth moving activities, to ensure that further artifacts are identified and properly handled. This monitoring will reduce the potential for negative impacts to a less than significant level. "Interim Cultural Resources Report, Hotel I I I Project Site," CRM Tech, December, 1998. P:\CIIRISTI\SP98-033cklst-EA98-373 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 98- 033, TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 140-160 ROOM HOTEL AND TWO RESTAURANTS ON 6± ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND HIGHWAY 111. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 98-033 APPLICANT: MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES/RAY TROLL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of February, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Mainiero, Smith & Associates/Ray Troll for review of a Specific Plan to allow a hotel and two restaurants on 6± acres located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Highway 111, more particularly described as: APN 649-020-029 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Specific Plan: 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and supports the development of regional commercial uses along the Highway 111 corridor, as conditioned. 2. The proposed Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 3. The proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it supports the development of commercial uses in the Regional Commercial District. 4. Development of the proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the parcel on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses as an extension of existing commercial uses along Highway 111. The project will be further reviewed through the Site Development Permit process, allowing for use -specific mitigation at that time. 11ACI iRISTITCRes99-SP98-03 3 Planning Commission Resolution 99- Specifc Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the proposed Specific Plan; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 98-373 assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 98-033 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of February, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT TYLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\CllRISTl\PCRes99-SP98-033 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 98-033 RAY TROLL/DEL MONTE PROPERTY FEBRUARY 23, 1999 GENERAL 1. 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. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this specific plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, 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 County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent received from the CWQCB prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 11ACHRISTASP 98-033-COA.wp 1 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 4. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer required or necessary property rights including easements and rights of way. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Rights of way required of this development include: A. Adams Street - the remainder of the applicant's 44-foot half of an 88-foot right of way plus additional width near Highway 111 for acceptance of traffic from dual westbound right turn lanes on Highway 111. The additional width shall be four feet at the Highway 111 curb return and narrow, northerly, to zero at a 55:1 taper rate. The applicant shall offer to dedicate an additional five feet in width between Highway 111 and the project entry drive to allow installation of dual left turn lanes on southbound Adams Street if traffic contributions from proposed development east of this project cause a need for the additional capacity. If the lane is deemed unnecessary once development plans for that area are firm, the City will vacate the offer of dedication. B. Highway 111 - the remainder of applicant's 70-foot half of a 140-foot right of way plus additional if required by Caltrans, or the design of the improvements. C. Industrial road along north property boundary - fifty -one -foot easement. This requirement may be reduced by the City, if appropriate, once anticipated traffic loadings are known for the area to the east of this property. Dedications or 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. P:\CHRISTI\SP 98-033-COA.wp 2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 If the City Engineer determines that street rights of way are necessary prior to development of this property, the applicant shall grant the rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Highway 111 - Fifty feet B. Adams Street - Twenty feet. In addition, a five-foot reserve shall be held between Highway 111 and the project entry drive in the event the additional five feet of right of way are deemed necessary. Setback requirements apply to all frontage including sites dedicated or granted for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate or grant blanket easements for those purposes. 10. The applicant shall dedicate or grant easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures. 11. The applicant shall dedicate or grant abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage except access points shown on the approved site plan. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets P:ACIIRISTI\SP 98-033-COA.wp Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 14. 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. 15. When final public street plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 16. The applicant shall construct required improvements and satisfy other obligations required by the City or furnish an executed, secured agreement to do so prior to issuance of a grading, construction or building permit. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. 17. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. 11ACHRISTI\SP 98-033-COA.wp 4 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 18. If on -site improvements are phased with multiple administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site and industrial drive obligations shall be satisfied or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 19. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections or otherwise withhold approvals related to the development of the project until the applicant makes satisfactory progress on the improvements or obligations or has made other arrangements satisfactory to the City. 20. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security for applicant's required share of improvements which have been or may be constructed by others (participatory improvements). Participatory improvements for this development include: A. Highway 111 - Contribute 50% of the cost of a 28-foot raised landscape median with turn pockets along this property's frontage. B. Traffic Signals - Contribute 4.89% of the cost to design and construct one traffic signal. The funds are to be utilized for the signal at the Adams Street and Highway 111 intersection or at other arterial/arterial intersections impacted by this development, as determined by the City. The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the participatory improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. GRADING 21. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. The plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. PACIIRISITSP 98-033-COA.wp 5 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 22. 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. 23. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties. 24. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 25. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by a civil engineer or surveyor. The certifications shall list approved pad elevations, actual elevations, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 27. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 28. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or disposed of in the same manner as on -site storm runoff. 30. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 31. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel or the Whitewater Drainage Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 11ACIIRISTBSP 98-033-COA.wp 6 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 UTILITIES 32. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for aesthetic as well as practical purposes. 33. Existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 34. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of underground utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 35. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. Any property within this development which has not been fully developed 60 days after the program is in effect shall be subject to the program as determined by the City. 36. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Highway 111 - Construct 58-foot half of a 116-foot street improvement (between curb faces) plus a six-foot sidewalk. 2. Adams Street - Construct half -width street improvement plus six-foot sidewalk. Half street shall begin at a 36-foot width at the Highway 111 curb return and narrow, at a 55:1 taper, to 32-feet wide. If final development plans for this property and the property to the east indicate the need for a traffic signal at this project's main entry or at the intersection with the industrial drive along this property's north boundary, this property shall share in the cost of the signal improvements. Unless traffic projections are available, the applicant shall post security for this property's share of the signal. If the signal is not required within five years, the security shall be released. P:\CIIRIS"rI\SP 98-033-COA.wp Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 3. Highway 111/Adams Street Intersection: Relocate traffic signal pole on northwest corner of the Adams Street/Highway 111 intersection to its ultimate location. Re -stripe Adams Street and Highway 111, and relocate signal loops if necessary depending on the order of development of the remaining vacant corners of the intersection. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Industrial road along north property boundary - 50-foot travel width (between curb faces). This requirement may be reduced once anticipated traffic loadings from the area to the east are known. C. INTERNAL CIRCULATION The area of textured pavement approximately half way through the curved drive from the project entry to the east property boundary shall be raised as directed by the City Engineer to emphasize its ancillary function as a pedestrian crosswalk. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 37. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Main Project Entry - Full -access drive approximately 350' north of the north property line of Highway 111. Width as approved in the final site plan. B. Highway 111 Entry - Shared right-in/right-out access with the adjacent property to the east. C. Private industrial drive - Full access drive at the northern property line. 38. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 39. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 11ACIIRISTI\SP 98-033-COA.wp 8 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 40. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 41. Street right of way geometry for cuts 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. 42. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 43. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be equivalent to the following: 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" 44. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. LANDSCAPING 45. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks. 46. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the PACHRIS"rnsp 98-033-COA.wp 9 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 47. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 48. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City. QUALITY ASSURANCE 49. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 50. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 51. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans and specifications. Where retention basins are installed, testing shall include a sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 52. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 53. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping and drainage outfalls. This shall include formation of a property owner's association or other arrangement acceptable to the City for maintenance of common areas, perimeter landscaping and drainage improvements. 11ACHRISITSP 98-033-COA.wp 10 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 FEES AND DEPOSITS 54. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 55. Any Site Development Permit applications submitted to the City for review shall substantially conform to the text and exhibits contained in the Specific Plan. 56. Total number of parking spaces shall not be less than 318. Should a different land use be proposed for any or all of the project site(s), a supplemental parking analysis shall be prepared to justify the parking requirement and/or reductions or additions to same. 57. No structure or land use shall be permitted within the landscape setback on either Adams Street (20 feet) or Highway 111 (50 feet). This prohibition includes but is not limited to outdoor dining or seating areas, customer waiting areas, or perimeter walls. 58. A bus turnout shall be provided on Adams Street, near the intersection with Highway 111. The design and location of the turnout shall be approved by the City Engineer and Sunline Transit Agency. Additional amenities, including a concrete bus stop pad, construction of a shelter, trash receptacle and similar improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Sunline Transit Agency. 59. A final archaeological resource report shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit on any portion of the property. 60. All earth disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor. A report on the archaeological monitoring activities shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 61. All plans for storm drainage which is to discharge into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel are to be submitted to the City Engineer and the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. In no case shall nuisance water or any other non -storm related discharge be allowed to be conveyed to the Channel. P:\CIIRISTI\SP 98-033-COA.wp 11 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 98-033 February 23, 1999 62. The Coachella Valley Water District may require the dedication of land for wells, reservoirs, booster stations and sewerage facilities. Prior to the submittal of the first Site Development Permit, the project proponent shall secure from the District a letter indicating which, if any of these facilities are required, and shall provide a map as part of the Site Development Permit submittal detailing the location of such facilities, if any. 63. Any development proposal which includes either a restaurant or a laundry facility shall secure approval from the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District and all other responsible agencies for grease interceptors and lint traps, respectively. 64. All school mitigation fees shall be paid as required prior to the issuance of any building permit. 65. Prior to the approval of the first Site Development Permit, the project proponent shall establish or cause to be established, a property owner and/or tenant association, which will be responsible for the maintenance of parking areas, interior roadways, sidewalks, landscaping and other common area amenities. 66. Any area of the site which is graded but which is not to be developed as part of the phase under construction shall be turfed to limit blowsand hazard and provide an aesthetically pleasing vista. 67. No sign program is approved with this Specific Plan approval. A master sign program shall be submitted, reviewed and approved with the first Site Development Permit application. 68. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 98-373. PACIIRISTI\SP 98-033-COA.wp 12 Z W Q W �fl w CL 0 W Iul N C� G O L) M M \ ca P N O Z O C ` _ F— O -o U >, as CD a� (> Q j i LO to = > > C > > O L7 L as as 0.►..P QN P � to QQ QQ CC o UU UU CLU w Z CLU CLU E 0 mnc a� EN°'scot° N N �v a) 'E' o °.?E o� C w E 0.0 V a a,+, CD v" ° c ° rnv CD° o coi v �- p C O cD"5oi v w,yU co •n O � O CD L -. �.CM O U ° v OO O C O a+ nc m a. E� co *' ° a c a cc c= O N Q °°° L W c E CD H a~. caorOi°t°Cv°°� ��° :� �0 � o 3 ��. _ �d c�acia) •. oo•c- Ec CD Nayi CL CD 0 O F' C P O D O U J'a 4- U L co > a) C p inC Rv to ¢ cl) ° y CDE L t�0 C op Uo Q >o CD —c ° � CC :� w tOro w w w cc tao) W O ' c =° o C ° E w CD © 00 O D E oCc O ` M. O c Eai >o � °aMoo L %® aE wCL dO a� La. C� 5tOq ° °a . oEao O cV N N N M Q a 0 a E CO a. L %-CL L ca 00 w W a) t0 �= CdcJmC UCML doCJU Uj Q U CO�w 00 > W DD >�p •�. E CL E w e a . a N y C.4 ° U in o °' -a a� a 00 c ° o °' ° Q E owo a to co ° o oo t= °C co Ln 4) M 00 O • O ~= M J M N v "J a- CL C tV M wd 0 .J Q M (j Q a to N cn U �- rn O a J to M ch ° to aL U 0 a?S N COS. f- N CD n N w CL a as a7 > Q a Q QfL a� 0 a. > °o Q a Q cc a. > o N.. a s CL Q Q fLv cO N C%4 Q- N a.0 O 'cu E c E �; U O E +. coo CD iO>s OpwW U. Q Q a Q cc Qa- a> - Cl. a a CL Q Q (v 0 oo ". " a CL CL CL Q Q (L O n Vcf <a O W v a o Qv 3 s ®o > o. L- � ? 0 cu U O E U 0 O .` a w 4- M CD W a 0 o LO O L LO ° z +� E as d 0 �> wE ,� a ®E� w`'►n vs n7 cCC D C CN 0 C y I cd N ° U` O C N 4- O >> L N +, a 0a) �N, C:e d - 4- Ct) ° M tC U CDO C L QO Lo C O N L a� ® 3.1 co a) = M O M O L +., 4- O 0)> Q >, COj w� C �' �c� +�' O aL O C a� C Q o� 00 p C° ®v L a +� o c — a) cc 't Q O r c° C N C co U L o v�E v�+=— �°�o cNUv O 4- �,Nc goy -c n 0 fl c a N `!_ CL E C N N a) x 0 O C a7 .> vs O �n a. U co c N 4- N a a) Cc C ca o C U) C v O � n -o CD� a� ro O y ® 4 a U M C cva Q "� °� N° c a�i w' > CL L m o. N E vc E � c 0 4- C7 �- ,�' N E 0 co o o y c O� o a� y E c o +, N U E co a ai0o U�Q voo U *'c O O �. a�iE L >�°c'E oc°i>, cao y° o N 0 tcn _ n' �° O a) n a w C +� V L 00 a) N CL C © Q' a) to C C ^ O N Q M y C O- W + N m v(D O C O tC +L-a 4W- E O �_N' co O O M° �0 -p .X a ca o00 y 0 C C oocnc C O E 4- o� C ®'cm O m or- 4 0 �? y o�,w vs O O O O U co O o a a 4�- y C) C r- > O a) w > a) + , U (0 > 4- +� t�0 wto tq > C > .N � m > m U O O M O L = .. ,� O O ..� cfl O O O C 4-7 0) 4- o Q wa> Q +� _ O O a V a CLa w + Q Q H CL Q, CL Q CL N Q Q V1 cc a a� a O O® CL OO 0) +� C7 c c`C W 'D ,G Q M co L cfl o L6 O z O C U v M N a) 0 � •� cu CD [- E_ 0 Y v p- Q O Q U)X O LO OD OCt to O CV)d1 ca co 0 cg .- 0 O } co CV) LO � 00 00 r M co 00 00 r- t- LO 00 M M M M tD M M M co CO N a. a, cFlq- N m aQ. 0 ® ® U 0 M to U) cn > U)F-- 'a () `� C1N QM , aU cs a) 0 rn C1N CL aU "0 (1) 0 m O.N QM CL� CD > �s o a) a 0 Q O. ' Q U //��,,�p1 4Q•C cn rn N rn C'M - 6 M U U, YiQ•(L rn m �-, rn '' r d U , LQiate.v sy+ Y CD CD N to C O 00) UC,4 N L O C D C C I� P� CM t a) O c d yOL- O + 0CD , a) O p O p erg U Q m '' +-f u) cCL r C7 cao v c E 'a� C0 o o � 5 >aE O Q C c O c >` O a7+•' N) N) CO) � to o f N a) > ca •> p L cc n O n C w 0 0LID C >, +L+ 00 A O O O N V O 4- ca 'C7 c .Clj m 'E CL CL a m c N c �. co CD a) CD O O O�UE Co LO v O a) OOO U d O vc cp cr CmpNE(�CO C N 46 00 O ca O o y r- .D a) pa) M c a) c U) CL > N _ .1- co v a) N `O CO CD �j co a- CV) It ,F. N F- O o O O +O+ Q o p o O O >, ca -) C N d N O O tG to O c 0 0 'v) O + O O O C O e- c p Q > O > O >> a) O E >_' C C -Op a� CL -c C •� a a. a a a a Cl. °- E E n co a E Q O Q to Q C Q Q Q U 4-- U w C) cc E IL tM 0 a 0 = o coo rn n = on. cn a� x � 6 C'i w w w4- (D c N if) N U C.)rn M 't CD N It It It r 1O N CD CD CD O r N N CN 1 to t� Cn cA CA Cn Cn to U? Cn Cn 0 N HIGHWAY 111 x ' 12' 12' 1 12' 1 12 15' 1 12' i 14' 1 U7 N _5 a RT T T L 0' 12' 12' 12 7' 12' 14' n 19' x �8 �m 13' 10' 10' LT LT a C:\MYDATA\DCWIN\PROJ ECTS\ADAMS111 ef 1 z°9 Revised 1/21/99 12/9/98