Loading...
2000 02 08 PCF`y og T�9 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 8, 2000 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2000-005 Beginning Minute Motion 2000-002 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on January 25, 2000 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-38S GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-064, ZONE CHANGE 99 092, SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAI 29323 Applicant ......... Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering Location .......... Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street Request .......... Recommendation for: 1. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration c Environmental Impact; 2. Approval of a Pre -Annexation General Plan Designatio from County Designation 2b (2-5 unit per acre) to Loy Density Residential (2-4 units per acre); 3. Zone Change from County Designation of R-1-9000 t Low Density Residential; 4. Specific Plan for development standards and desig guidelines for a residential development; and 5. Tentative Tract Map to allow 379 residential units on 11 acres. Action ............... Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- , Resolution 200C Resolution 2000- , and Resolution 2000- B. Item .................. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29613 Applicant.......... RJT Homes, LLC Location........... Between Calle Rondo and Cypress Point Drive and south c Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways. Request............ Approval of the subdivision of 0.58 acres into two residenti; and other common lots within the boundaries of Specific Pla 83-001. Parcel B proposes emergency and exit only acces onto Calle Rondo, a public street. Action .............. Request for continuance to the February 22, 2000. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item .................. STREET VACATION 2000-041 Applicant.......... Victor L. Villeneuve of MDS Consulting Representing Steve Walker Homes Location........... Portion of the Spanish Hills Lane public utility easemei adjacent to Lot 52, located within PGA West Tract 28603-1 Request............ Determination of a General Plan finding of consistency for th proposed ten foot wide public utility easement vacation Action .............. Minute Motion 2000- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of February 1, 2000 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 January 25, 2000 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 11, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, Item #7 be amended as follows: "Commissioner Tyler stated only one color palette had been received." Page 4, Item #3 be amended to correct the spelling of the last word to "plane" There being no further change$, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 99-389 General Plan Amendment 99-064. Zone Change 99-092 Specific Plan 99-040 and Tentative Tract Man 29323; a request of Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering requesting Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a Pre -Annexation General Plan Designation from County Designation 2b (2-5 units per acre) to Low Density Residential (2-4 units per acre), Zone Change from County Designation of r-1-9000 to Low Density Residential, a Specific Plan for development standards and design guidelines for a residential development; and Tentative Tract Map to allow 379 residential units on 117 acres, to be located on the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCI-25-20.wpd Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio informed the Commission that a request had been received from the applicant to continue this case to February 8, 2000. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to continue this item to February 8, 2000. B. Zoning Code Amendment 2000-064; a request of staff for a recommendation to the City Council of an amendment to Section 9.100.1409(1) and (5) Temporary Outdoor Events, of the Zoning Code. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff asked the Commission to consider additional changes to the Amendment: Page 004, Item #1 "50 people or more"; Page 005, clarify the bold print to read "provided however fine art and craft shows may be approved for 10 calendar days in a 30 day period (the maximum four events requirement would not applicable) except during City sponsored events." The object is that fine art and craft would not adhere to the four events. They would be allowed to have up to 10 calendar days in a 30 day period or as many as 12 events per year, every weekend for the entire year. 2. Commissioner Tyler suggested it read "ten days in each month". 3. Commissioner Robbins asked what events were City sponsored. Discussion followed regarding City sponsored events. 4. Chairman Kirk stated he did not think the City's Zoning Ordinance should be used to restrict any type of competition, whether City sponsored or not. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked why the City did not want any events during City sponsored events. Staff stated the City has made an investment in the event and the City wants the best participation possible. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not think the language as presented met what the Chamber was requesting. It should read "ten calendar days each month." 7. Commissioner Robbins suggested the amendment be more specific to state what a City sponsored event is. Staff stated the issue is only with "fine art and craft shows" and the amendment could be stated as such. CAMy Documents\WPI)OCS\PCI-25-20.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 8. Commissioner Butler asked if this would refer to Home Depot and other commercial events. Staff stated those types of events are covered by other Code sections depending upon who the sponsor is. Discussion followed regarding the definition of a Minor Use Permit, Temporary Use Permits, and Minor Outdoor Events. 9. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain the three alternatives reviewed by the City Council. Staff stated Alternative 3 was a rewrite of the Code Section; Alternative 2 was referring all applications to the Planning Commission; and Alternative 1, as preferred by the City Council, allows the Community Development Director to make the decision whether or not to refer to the permit to the Planning Commission. 10. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission discussion. 11. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-004 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2000-064, as amended: a. Item #1 "50 people or more". b. Calender days each month except during City sponsored fine art and craft shows. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: , A. Sign Application 2000-489; a request of Dave Stark, Mazda KIA Superstore for approval of two wall mounted channel letter signs on split building elevations for the property located at 83-333 Highway 111. 1. Chairman Kirk 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 Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked if any other car dealerships had submitted their sign requests. Staff stated that to date no others had been received. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PCI-25-20.wpd Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the anyone would like to speak regarding this project. 4. There being no discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation and opened the issue for Commission discussion. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2000-001 approving Sign Application 2000-489, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Pllanning Commission to be held February 8, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:20 P.M. on January 25, 2000. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCI-25-20.wpd 4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1999 CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 25, 2000 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-064, ZONE CHANGE 99-092, SPECIFIC PLAN 99- 040, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 2. APPROVAL OF A PRE -ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION 213 (2-5 UNIT PER ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UNITS PER ACRE) 3. ZONE CHANGE FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION OF R-1-9000 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4. SPECIFIC PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW 379 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 117 ACRES LOCATION: THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET. APPLICANT: WADE ELLISIWARNER ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN/COUNTY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING/PROPOSED CITY GENERAL PLAN: DESIGNATIONS: 213/2-5 UNITS/ACRE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 StfRpt.WPD COUNTY ZONING: R-119,000 PROPOSED CITY ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission at their meeting of January 25, 2000 and the City Council at their meeting of February 1, 2000, continued the public hearing as the applicant requested additional time to revise the plan. The applicant is now requesting the application remain as originally proposed. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item on December 14, 1999, (Attachment 1) . The public hearing was continued with the recommendation that the applicant modify the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map increasing the size of the smallest lots and provide recreational amenities. The subject property is currently located outside the City limits, at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The applicant has requested annexation unto the City of La Quinta. Prior to annexation, the City requires that the General Plan designation and Zoning be established to City standards. In addition, the applicant has filed applications for a Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map to establish design standards for the development, and subdivide the 117 acres, respectively. Project Request The General Plan and Zoning designations proposed by the applicant are for Low Density residential development. The proposal allows 379 dwelling units on 117 acres, resulting in an overall density of 3.23 units per acre. The designations are compatible with surrounding development in the area, which is characterized by single family residences, either in traditional neighborhoods or around golf course development. The Tentative Tract Map subdivides the land into three planning areas which are envisioned in the Specific Plan to allow three types of residential development. Planning Area 1 would result in 132 residential units on lots averaging 4,840 square feet. Specific deviations from City standards proposed in this planning area are discussed further below. Planning Area 2 includes 129 residential units, on average lots sizes of 9,333 square feet. Planning Area 3 proposes 118 homes on lots averaging 10,923 square feet. The Specific Plan includes design standards, road standards and landscaping standards for common areas. Site Development Permits and additional California Environmental Quality Act review will be required for development of each of the planning areas. In addition, no signage is proposed within the Specific Plan. Further review of project signage will occur at a later date. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 StfRpt.WPD Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 22, 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 THE ISSUES: Based on the provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the following overview of the project is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency The project area is not currently under the City's jurisdiction. However, lands to the south, which are within the City limits, are designated for low density residential development. Current development to the west and north of the subject property, under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside, is also of a low density residential character. Overall, the project will provide for 3.23 units per acre, consistent with the City's Low Density Residential designation. The proposed project significantly reduces the City's zoning standards within its Planning Area 1. Further discussion of Zoning standards is provided below. The design of public roadways adjacent to the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. Issue 2 - Project Design/Improvements The Tentative Tract Map and Specific Plan provide for three Planning Areas. Planning Areas 2 and 3 are proposed to conform to City standards within the Low Density Residential Zone, with the exception of the garage setback. The garage setback is allowed to be reduced to 20 feet in the Zoning Ordinance, if roll -up doors are utilized. Spectc Plan Condition #68 has been included to require the use of only roll -up garage doors, and amendment of the Specific Plan to reflect same. Planning Area 1 proposes significant deviation from the City's standards, including lot size; minimum dwelling unit size; front, side and rear setbacks; lot frontage; and maximum lot coverage. Each of these deviations is discussed individually below. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\SP99-040 StfRpt.WPD Lot Size Planning Area 1 proposes the subdivision of 15t net acres into 132 lots. The average lot size within this area is 4,840 square feet. The Specific Plan states that open space areas are provided around the planning area to allow common recreation. No specific amenities are proposed or required. Lot C, which surrounds the Planning area on three sides, totals 6.25 acres, and is primarily provided to satisfy on -site retention requirements. Although lot sizes in this planning area are much smaller than the City standard, the residential product described in the Specific Plan is typical of many residential country club products provided in the City and elsewhere in the Valley, but does not provide the typical recreational amenities. Private recreational amenities will be limited or impossible to construct on 4800 square foot lots. The Specific Plan does not mandate common area amenities, but states that further details will be provided in the Site Development process. Without a mandate in the Specific Plan for specific amenities, they are unlikely to be constructed. Staff would recommend that Specific Plan Condition #72 be included, which requires the addition of specific recreational amenities to the Specific Plan text, thereby insuring that future merchant builders will adhere to minimum standards. Minimum Dwelling Unit Size The Specific Plan proposes that minimum dwelling unit size in Planning Area 1 be reduced to 1200 square feet. The Planning Area is not proposed for either low income or senior housing, both of which could justify a reduction in standards. Staff therefore recommends the inclusion of Specific Plan Condition #69, which requires that the dwelling unit size be increased to a minimum of 1400 square feet, to conform to the City's standard. Setbacks Within Planning Area 1, the Specific Plan allows for reductions in front setbacks. from 20 feet to 15 feet; rear setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet; and side setbacks from 5/10 feet to 0/10 feet. The proposal in this area is to allow zero lot line construction, with a mandated 10 feet on one side of each home, resulting in a 10 foot separation between houses. In order to achieve the size of units contemplated and recommended above, such standards are necessary. Lots are generally 45 feet in width, and 100 feet long. In order to construct a 1800 square foot house (the largest proposed in the Specific Plan), plus a garage, the house will have to be 35 feet wide and 65 feet long. With a 15 foot front setback, as proposed, the house would -have up to 20 feet of rear yard. Lot Frontage As discussed above, the construction within Planning Area 1 is proposed to be on very small lots. Based on Exhibit H-a of the Specific Plan, each home would have a 20 foot driveway, a 10 foot side yard setback, and approximately 10 to 15 feet of house frontage on a lot. CAMy Documents\WPDOMSP99-040 StfRpt.WPD Lot Coverage As discussed above, in order to provide for up to 1,800 square feet of living space, plus a garage, on a 4840 square foot lot, increased lot coverage is required from the Zoning Code of 40% to 45%. As currently planned, the largest home could not be sited on lots less than 4,900 square feet in size. As depicted on the tentative tract map, the majority of the lots in Planning Area I are 4,500 square feet in size. These lots can accommodate a house of 1,625 sq. Ft (plus a 400 square foot garage) at 45% lot coverage. As stated in the setback section above, the rear yard of a house in this Planning Area will be approximately 20 feet in depth. After deduction of the patio areas, the usable rear yard is likely to be about 10 or 12 feet deep. This area will not allow for significant private recreational amenities, thereby supporting the need for common area amenities as discussed above under Lot Size. Site -specific design issues can .be further reviewed and refined through the Site Development Permit process for individual planning areas, which will be required. Western and Northern Boundary Wall The Specific Plan proposes to simply abut the existing residential walls which occur behind the homes at Bermuda Dunes Country Club. No new wall construction is proposed on these boundaries. The location of these existing walls, based on examination of Exhibit A of the Specific Plan, is not continuous. In addition, some of the homes appear to have either constructed fences or nothing at all on their rear property line. Since neither the location or condition of the walls is clearly established, and since this project is envisioned as a planned integrated community, a Condition of Approval has been added (#70) to require amendment of the Specific Plan to include a continuous wall on the western and northern boundaries of the project. Circulation The City Engineer will allow only right -in, right -out and left -in turning movements for the proposed project entry ways, in conformance with City General Plan and Zoning ordinance standards. The project will be required to widen adjacent portions of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street to their ultimate rights -of -way. The proposed project includes private roadways ranging from 41 feet in width to 33 feet in width. The City Engineer has expressed a concern regarding the narrowing of any street which provides ingress or egress for 100 or more homes. Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Condition #7 has been added which requires that Sandy Point Drive, South Beach Drive, White Cloud Drive, and Spanish Wells Drive be constructed to a minimum of 41 feet paved width. These modifications can be made to the Final Tract Map, subject to City Engineer's review and approval. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 StfRpt.WPD In addition, the Fire Department has requested restricted parking on the narrow residential streets, in order to ensure that their equipment can travel through these streets. Condition of Approval #71 has been added which requires amendment of the Specific Plan to reflect restricted parking. Issue 3 - Health and Safety The Specific Plan requires the extension of all public services to the site as part of project development. In addition, conditions of approval and environmental mitigation measures have been included for this project which address safety and welfare issues, including circulation, flooding and seismic safety. As the Specific Plan is built out, through the Site Development Permit process, site -specific issues which might affect the public health and safety will be further addressed. CONCLUSION: As conditioned, the proposed General Plan amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map will be consistent with General Plan goals, policies and programs for a varied housing stock. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-389. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 99-064, subject to the findings. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 99-092, subject to the findings. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 99-040, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. 5. Approval of Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29323, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. Attachments: 1. Planning Commissioner Minutes for December 12, 1999 2. Specific Plan 99-040 Document 3. Tentative Tract Map 29323 CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 StfRpt.WPD Prepared by: Submitted by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 StfRpt.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-064, ZONE CHANGE 99- 092, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389 APPLICANT: WADE ELLIS/WARNER ENGINEERING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 141h day of December, 1999, the 251h day of January, 2000, and 81h day of February, 2000, held a duly noticed Public Hearings to consider an Environmental Assessment prepared for General Plan Amendment 99-064, Zone Change 99-062, Tentative Tract Map 29323 and Specific Plan ,99-040, ("the proposed project") generally located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs 609-380-022 and 609-380-023 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 99-389) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval for Specific Plan 99-040, 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. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 99-389. CAMy Documents=PDOMSP99-040 PC Reso EA.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ Environmental Assessment 99-389 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 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 proposed project 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 99-389 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 81h day of February, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: CAMy Documents=PDOMSP99-040 PC Reso EA.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ Environmental Assessment 99-389 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents=PDOMSP99-040 PC Reso EA.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Sand Harbor Specific Plan (SP 99-040) General Plan Amendment 99-064 Change of Zone 99-092 Tentative Tract 29323 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 lorio 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Wade Ellis 41-865 Boardwalk, #212 Palm Desert, CA 92211 6. General Plan Designation: Riverside County: 2B, 2-5 units per acre Proposed La Quinta: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Riverside County: R-1/9,000 Proposed La Quinta: RL, Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the oroject, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Pre -annexation application to establish General Plan designation, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Maps for vacant lands located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Specific Plan will establish standards for the development of 379 dwelling units on 117 acres. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Lands to the north and west are developed single family residential neighborhoods. The Bermuda Dunes Golf Course is also located to the north. Lands to the south are vacant, and lands to the southwest are developed as single family dwellings. Lands to the east are partially developed with a golf course and single family residential. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Local Agency Formation Commission P°CHRISI VenvirAlist sp 91)-040.H,pd Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources X Utilities and Service Systems X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Aesthetics X Water Hazards X' Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation Mandatory Finds of Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed flame AC IIRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd 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 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. PAIMISTI\cnvincklist sp 99-040.wpd Sample question: Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) (Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (General Plan Land Use Map) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General Plan EIR p. 4-1 ff.) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General X Plan Land Use Map, Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to X soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p. 2-32 ff. ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly X (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? (General,Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1) ACHRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd IV. Potentially Potentially Significant Less 'than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant Impact ( pp 9 i Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: r�X a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan X EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page X 4-30 ff.) e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X from excavation, grading, or fill? (Southland Geotechnical, Geotechnical investigation, June 24, 1999) g) Subsidence of the land? (Southland Geotechnical, Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999) h) Expansive soils? (Southland Geotechnical, Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7) 1 1 1 1 X WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorptior rates, drainage patterns or the rate and X amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 19 ff., Tract Map 29323) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53) 1 _L 3A HRISTI\cnvincklist sp 99-040.wpd Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ISSUeS and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No pp Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Discharge into surface waters. or other alteration of surface X water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X (Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General X Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4- X 57 ff.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 57 ff.) V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.) c) Alter air movement, moisture; or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.) d) Create objectionable odors? (Specific Plan project description) X 3ACIIRISTI\cnvirAIist sp 99-040.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (RKJK & Assoc., X Traffic Impact Analysis, November 23, 1999) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (RKJK & Assoc., Traffic Impact Analysis, November 23, 1999) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X (Specific Plan Site Plan) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan, X p. 17) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific X Plan, p. 17) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan p. 17) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) X VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ' Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4- 71 ff. ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (General X Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.) ':\CI IRISTI\envincklist sp 99-040.wpd Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Unless Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact ant Mitigated Impact gnificant Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4- 69, and page 4-71 ff.) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? X (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, X page 4-71 ff.) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General X Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) c) Result in the doss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of future value to the region and the residents of IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X (Specific Plan Project Description) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Specific Plan Project.Description) ACHRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd F3 XI. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or X trees? (Specific Plan Project Description) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & X Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & X Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.) b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.) c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) I X I e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 X ff. ) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26) b) Communications systems? (Genera[ Plan MEA, page 4-29) PACHRIs'menvincklist sp 99-040.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page X 4-20) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit X CIR-5) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan p. 26) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: ion a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X Determination Study, Community Development Department) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Archaeological X Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999) c) Affect historical resources? (Archaeological Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999) ACHRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than SignNo Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Unless Significant Impact PP g � Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Archaeological Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X impact area? (Archaeological Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan, Exhibit PR-1) 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? 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 oast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? P:`.C'IIRISTI\cn%Jr.cklist ;p 99-040.wpd 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. \CHRISTRenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-389 I. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction. The County General Plan designation, however, and that sought by the applicant as part of this application, are consistent. Differences between the two general plans relating to the intent of the land use designations are insignificant. Through the annexation process, the project will be assigned a City designation, which is compatible with existing development both under County and City jurisdiction. II. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction, nor was it analyzed for future annexation in the existing General Plan. As such, the project area, and the 948t people it will generate at buildout were not previously analyzed by the City. However, the land use designation assigned this site by the County is compatible with the proposed land use designation, and the additional population would therefore have been analyzed under County plans. The project is not likely to significantly impact population projections for the region. Ill.a), b) & c) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed project is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The project site is not within a liquefaction hazard area. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards. A geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed project'. It recommends specific foundation and soil compacting requirements which will mitigate the impacts of seismic activity. These mitigation measures will ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance. lll.f), g) & h) The project falls within a blowsand hazard zone, and is composed of potentially unstable soils. Construction of the project will be subject to City Engineer review, the preparation of dust control plans, and the mitigation measures contained in the geotechnical study cited above. The recommendations contained in this study, and continued City review of the project, will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of insignificance. All earth moving activities shall be coordinated to ensure that the mitigation measures contained under section XIV (Cultural Resources) of this addendum shall be properly implemented. IV.a) & b) The construction of structures on currently vacant lands will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The City will require the retention of the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site, and the Tentative Tract Map has been prepared to reflect the "Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract 29323 La Quinta, California, Southland Geotechnical, June 24, 1999. \C11RISTI\cnvincklist sp 99-040.wpd 13 construction of a number of retention basins. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project proponent shall submit hydrologic analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval which will demonstrate that the planned retention basins are sufficient to retain the 100 year storm. This will reduce the potential hazard associated with increased runoff to a level of insignificance. V. a) The Coachella Valley is currently in a non -attainment area for PM10 (particles of 10 microns or less). The proposed project will result in 379 single family dwelling units. The primary long term air quality impact caused by these units will be from the operation of automobiles; short term impacts are also likely from construction activities. The proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures to mitigate impacts to air quality. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic interference. 5. Construction of improvements on Fred Waring and Jefferson shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. 6. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 7. The project shall submit a PM10 Plan to the City which includes adequate provisions forfugitive dust and wind erosion control, both during and after grading operations. The PM10 Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of any grading permit on the site. 8. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 9. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. ACHRISTRenvincklist sp 99-040.wpd 14 10. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 11. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 12. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 13. Construction roads other than temporary access roads shall be paved as soon as possible, and once paved shall be cleaned after each work day. All unpaved roads shall be posted with a 15 mile per hour speed limit. 14. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 15. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 16. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulatoons. VI. a), b), d), & e) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan z. The analysis included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic volumes. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 3,627 daily trips, of which 284 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 382 during the evening peak hour. The improvements required with or without project implementation include the signalization of Jefferson Street at both Country Club Drive and Miles Avenue, and the widening of Fred Waring and Jefferson to their ultimate rights of way in the vicinity of the proposed project. The traffic impact analysis includes the following mitigation measures, which shall be implemented as part of the development of the project site: 1. The project proponent shall improve both Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, along their entire property boundary, to their ultimate 120 right of way (half width) in conjunction with the first phase of development. 2. Sight distances shall be reviewed to conform with City of La Quinta standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping and street improvement plans. "Tentative Tract Map No. 29323 Traffic Impact Analysis (revised)," RKJK & Associates, November 23, 1999. :\C1IRISTI\envirAhst sp 99-040.wpd 15 3. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee program. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned improvements associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) at project buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant impact on the circulation system. The Specific Plan includes an interior trail system. The trail system interfaces with the interior street system at a number of locations. In order to ensure that no significant hazard occurs to pedestrians using the trail system, the project proponent shall be required to install stop signs and crosswalks at all intersections between the trail and a paved roadway. The stop signs shall be for pedestrian traffic. VI I. a), b) & c) The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Giant Sand Treader Cricket in the General Plan. In conjunction with the first application for Site Development Permit, the project proponent shall submit a focused survey for Giant Sand Treader Cricket to the City for review and approval. The survey shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, and a mitigation monitoring program. The project also occurs in the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. The project proponent shall be required to pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts to this species. Should the project, or any portion of the project, occur after implementation of the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan, any mitigation required by that plan shall be applied to the project, or any portion of the project. X. a) & b) A noise analysis was prepared, and subsequently amended, for the proposed project3. The project area lies in a currently impacted noise corridor. Residential dwelling units are considered sensitive noise receptors. The City's General Plan requires that exterior noise levels for any portion of a residential lot not exceed 60 dBA CNEL, and that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The study found that varying heights of walls were needed to mitigate exterior noise levels along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The study also recommended the elevation of certain pads to mitigate noise levels. Finally, the study requires the preparation of additional analysis to recommend mitigation measures for interior noise levels for any home to be constructed with a second story which has a full or partial view of either Fred Waring or Jefferson. In order to ensure that noise levels are mitigated to meet City standards, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. "Acoustical Analysis Report," Douglas Eilar & Associates, August 15 & November 29, 1999. :\01RIST1\envincklist sp 99-040.wpd 16 1. In conjunction with Site Development Permit application for any phase of development which includes homes with a partial or full view of Fred Waring or Jefferson,. a noise analysis based on final pad elevations shall be prepared which demonstrates that both exterior and interior noise levels shall meet or exceed City standards. 2. The design and location of the outer perimeter wall shall conform to the recommendations of the November 29, 1999 amendment to the noise analysis, and shall combine a six foot block or slumpstone wall, constructed to City standard, with adequate berming to achieve the needed heights shown on the table labeled " Barrier and Berm Heights at Perimeter (Lots to Achieve 60 CNEL." XI. a) - e) The proposed project is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to public services. The residences within the project will impact the school system, and such an impact must be mitigated through the imposition of school fees. XII. a) - g) The proposed project is served by local utilities and water and sewer districts. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall be required to demonstrate, through "will serve" letters, that all services are available to the site. No significant impact to service providers is expected from this project. Xlll.a) The proposed project occurs along one of the City's Primary Image Corridors. The General Plan requires a setback of 20 feet, which the project has proposed on its map. The implementation of the setback requirement will lower the impact to scenic resources to a less than significant level. XIV. a) The site occurs above the recorded shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, as mapped on City maps. No significant impact to paleontologic resources is expected from this project. XIV.b), c), & d) A site specific Phase I cultural resource study has been completed for the proposed project4. The study found a potentially significant sites within the project boundary. Site CA-RIV-6349 was found to be potentially significant, and necessitate further study. The following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented: J "An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29323...," Archaeological Associates, August 311, 1999. \CHRIS'MenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd 17 1. In conjunction with the first Site Development Permit application for the project, the project proponent shall submit, for review and approval by the City, a comprehensive Phase II archaeological investigation, performed in conformance with City standards. The Phase II study shall include mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring plan. 2. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving or excavating activity. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he or she shall be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the resource is properly identified and studied. The monitor shall file a report with the City of his or her findings, including disposition of any resource identified. THRISTBenvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ASSIGN PRE -ANNEXATION LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 117 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.:GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-064 APPLICANT: WADE ELLISIWARNER ENGINEERING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 141h day of December, 1999, 25th day of January, 2000, and 81h day of February, 2000, held duly noticed Public Hearings for Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering for review of a General Plan Amendment to assign a pre -annexation land use designation of Low Density Residential to 117 acres located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 609-380-022 and 609-380-023 WHEREAS, 'at said public hearings, 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 General Plan Amendment: 1. The General Plan Amendment 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 a range of housing opportunities. 2. The General Plan Amendment 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. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. The General Plan designation is compatible with the parcels on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses as an extension of existing residential uses in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: C \My Documents\W13DOMSP99-C40 PC GPAReso.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ General Plan Amendment 99-064 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 99-389 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 99-064 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of February, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 PC GPAReso.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE, ASSIGNING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO 117 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 99-092 APPLICANT: WADE ELLISIWARNER ENGINEERING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of December, 1999, 251h day of January, 2000, and 81h day of February, 2000 held duly noticed Public Hearings for Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering for review of a Zone Change to allow the pre -zoning of 117 acres, pending annexation to the City, at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 609-380-022 and 609-380-023 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearings, 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 Zone Change: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The Zone Change 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. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. The Zone Change, to be effective upon annexation of the property, supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 PCCZ Reso.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Zone Change 99-092 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 99-389 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 99-092 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution effective upon annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 81h day of February, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\SP99-040 PCCZ Reso.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 379 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 117 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 APPLICANT: WADE ELLISIWARNER ENGINEERING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of December, 1999, 251h day of January, 2000, and 8th day of February, 2000, held a duly noticed Public Hearings for Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering for review of development standards and design guidelines to allow the subdivision of 379 residential units on 117 acres located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 609-380-022 and 609-380-023 WHEREAS, at said public hearings, 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: The Specific Plan, once annexed to the City, 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 a range of housing opportunities, as conditioned. 2. The 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 Specific Plan is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. Development of the proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the parcels on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses as an extension of existing residential uses in the vicinity. The project will be further reviewed through the Site Development Permit process, allowing for use -specific mitigation at that time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California., as follows: Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Specific Plan 99-040 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 project; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 99-389 assessed the environmental concerns of the Specific Plan; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 99-040 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 8t' day of February, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California CAMy DocumentsUPDOMSP99-040 PC SP Reso.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 25, 2000 GENERAL 1. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, 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 • Myoma Dunes Water District • Coachella Valley Water District • 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 CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent 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. PICHRISTRSP99-04000A.doz Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 4. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of final map approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. Jefferson Street - The remainder of applicant's 60-foot half of a 120- foot right of way. 2. Fred Waring Drive - The remainder of applicant's 60-foot half of a 120- foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential: 37-foot width. Width may be reduced to 33 feet with parking restricted to one side and 29 feet if on -street parking is prohibited provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant makes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. 2. Collector: 41-foot width. Collectors consist of Bodega Bay Dr., South Beach Dr., White Cloud Dr. from Spanish Wells to Sandy Point, and Spanish Wells Dr. and Sandy Point Dr. from Bodega Bay to White Cloud. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPRCVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 C. CULLS DE SAC Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset); Public - 45-foot radius, Private - 45.5-foot radius. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Jefferson Street - 20 feet. B. Fred Waring Drive - 20 feet. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map.. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY" 8, 2000 15. 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. 16. 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 17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date 'of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage 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. 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 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. 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDPTIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 20. 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. 21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 22. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of the a map, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 23. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 24. 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. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 25. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 26. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 27. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 29. 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. 30. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition are not an entitlement and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 34. 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. PICHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 35. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2Y2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 36. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 37. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 38. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 39. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 40. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 41. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriffs Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 42. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any well sites granted or -dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 43. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 44. Existing aerial dines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 45. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 46. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial, Option A) - Construct 51-foot half of a 102-foot improvement including 7-foot half of a 14-foot median, plus six-foot sidewalk. 2. Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial, Option B) - Construct 39-foot westbound travel way (between curbfaces), full 18-foot median (subject to reimbursement for the south half as funds become available), plus eight -foot sidewalk. 3. Traffic Signal at Fred Waring & Jefferson - Necessary modifications to accommodate the improved roadway sections. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners' association. C. CULS DE SAC 2. Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset). Public Streets: 38-foot curb radius; Private Streets: 45-foot curb radius. PICHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 47. 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. 48. 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). 49. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 50. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 51. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 52. 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 as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.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" PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 53. 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. 54. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. if on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 55. General access points and turning movements cf traffic are limited to the following: A. Fred Waring Entry Drive - Sixty nine -foot divided roadway (between outside curbfaces) centered approximately 690 feet east of the westerly track boundary - Left and right turns in, right turn out. B. Jefferson Street Entry Drive - Sixty nine -foot divided roadway (between outside curbfaces) located at the north end of the tract's Jefferson Street frontage right turns in and out allowed. Left turn in allowed with appropriate median improvements and a right -directed egress drive. LANDSCAPING 56. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 57. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of Myoma Dunes Water District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND'HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY8, 2000 58. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 59. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 61. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 62. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 64. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 66. Any Site Development Permit applications submitted to the City for review shall substantially conform to the text and exhibits contained in the Specific Plan. 67. Following City Council review and approval of the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit amended documents which reflect all the Conditions of Approval included in the City Council's approval. The final Conditions of Approval shall be appended to the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan cover shall be amended to read "Adopted date." Copies of the final document shall be provided to the Community Development Department, City Engineer and City Clerk. 68. The Specific Plan shall be amended to require that only roll -up garage doors shall be allowed for any home in the project area, unless a minimum garage setback of 25 feet is provided. 69. The Specific Plan shall be amended to increase minimum unit size in Planning Area 1 to 1,400 square feet, in conformance with the City's standards. 70. The Specific Plan shall be amended to include the construction of a continuous perimeter wall on the northern and western boundaries of the proposed project. Such a wall shall be of slumpstone or painted block construction, in conformance with City standards, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City during the Site Development Permit process. 71. The Specific Plan shall be amended both textually and graphically, to allow parking on one side of streets of less than 36 feet in width. Parking may be allowed on both sides of streets of 36 feet or more in width. 72. The Specific Plan shall be amended to include specific recreational amenities, including pools, spas, volleyball and basketball courts, etc. on the elevated portions of retention basins shown on Exhibit H-c, subject to approval of the Community Development Director. PACHR!STRSP99-04000A.doc Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY8, 2000 FIRE DEPARTMENT: 73. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD Standard W-33 shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants. 74. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lots. 75. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. 76. Gate entrance/exit openings shall be not less than 16 feet in width. All gates shall be located at least 40-feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Gates shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key Operated switches, series KS-2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of Knox Company. Gates shall have either a secondary power supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate in the event of loss of primary power. 77. Any and all portions of the proposed project shall be subject to the mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 99-389. PACHRISTRSP99-04000A.doc Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 117 ACRES INTO 379 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 APPLICANT: WADE ELLIS/WARNER ENGINEERING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14':h day of December, 1999, 251h day of January, 2000, and 81h day of February, 2000 held a duly noticed Public Hearings for Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering for review of a Tentative Tract Map to allow 379 residential lots on 117 acres located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 609-380-022 and 609-380-023 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearings, 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 Tentative Tract Map: 1. The Tentative Tract Map, once annexed to the City, 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 a range of housing opportunities, as conditioned. 2. The Tentative Tract Map 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 Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. Development of the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the parcels on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses as an extension of existing residential uses in the vicinity. The project will be further reviewed through the Site Development Permit process, allowing for use -specific mitigation at that time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: CAMy Documents=PDOMSP99-040 PC Reso TTM.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Tentative Tract Map 29323 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 project; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 99-389 assessed the environmental concerns of the Tentative Tract Map; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 29323 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 8th day of February, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN; TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\SP99-040 PC Reso TTM.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 GENERAL 1. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, 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 • Myoma Dunes Water District • Coachella Valley Water District • 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 CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent 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. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 4. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of final map approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. Jefferson Street - The remainder of applicant's 60-foot half of a 120- foot right of way. 2. Fred Waring Drive - The remainder of applicant's 60-foot half of a 120- foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential: 37-foot width. Width may be reduced to 33 feet with parking restricted to one side and 29 feet if on -street parking is prohibited provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant makes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. 2. Collector: 41-foot width. Collectors consist of Bodega Bay Dr., South Beach Dr., White Cloud Dr. from Spanish Wells to Sandy Point, and Spanish Wells Dr. and Sandy Point Dr. from Bodega Bay to White Cloud. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 C. CULLS DE SAC Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset); Public - 45-foot radius, Private - 45.5-foot radius. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Jefferson Street - 20 feet. B. Fred Waring Drive - 20 feet. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map.. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 15. 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. 16. 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 17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage 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. 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 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. 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 20. 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. 21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 22. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of the a map, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 23. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 24. 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 utems not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE: TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final ,acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 25. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 26. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 27. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 29. 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. 30. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition are not an entitlement and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential, 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 34. 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. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY8, 2000 35. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'h acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 36. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 37. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 38. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 39. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 40. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft.. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 41. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriffs Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 42. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 43. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY8, 2000 44. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 45. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 46. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial, Option A) - Construct 51-foot half of a 102-foot improvement including 7-foot half of a 14-foot median, plus six-foot sidewalk. 2. Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial, Option B) - Construct 39-foot westbound travel way (between curbfaces), full 18-foot median (subject to reimbursement for the south half as funds become available), plus eight -foot sidewalk. 3. Traffic Signal at Fred Waring & Jefferson - Necessary modifications to accommodate the improved roadway sections. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners' association. C. CULS DE SAC 2. Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset). Public Streets: 38-foot curb radius; Private Streets: 45-foot curb radius. P1CHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 9 PLANNING COMMIS&ON RESOLUTION 2000- TENTP,TIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY8, 2000 Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 47. 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 fighting is not required. 48. 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). 49. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 50. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 51. 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. tf a wedge curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 52. 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 as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.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" PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESQLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 53. 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. 54. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 55. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Fred Waring Entry Drive - Sixty nine -foot divided roadway (between outside curbfaces) centered approximately 690 feet east of the westerly track boundary - Left and right turns in, right turn out. B. Jefferson Street Entry Drive - Sixty nine -foot divided roadway (between outside curbfaces) located at the north end of the tract's Jefferson Street frontage right turns in and out allowed. Left turn in allowed with appropriate median improvements and a right -directed egress drive. LANDSCAPING 56. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 57. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of Myoma Dunes Water District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. PACHRISThSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 58. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along ,public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 59. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 61. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 62. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 64. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 - SAND HARBOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 8, 2000 FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 66. Following City Council review and approval of the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit amended documents which reflect all the Conditions of Approval included in the City Council's approval. The final Conditions of Approval shall be appended to the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan cover shall be amended to read "Adopted date." Copies of the final document shall be provided to the Community Development Department, City Engineer and City Clerk. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 67. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD Standard W-33 shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants. 68. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lots. 69. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. 70. Gate entrance/exit openings shall be not less than 16 feet in width. All gates shall be located at least 40-feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Gates shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key Operated switches, series KS 2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of Knox Company. Gates shall have either a secondary power supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate in the event of loss of primary power. 71. Any and all portions of the proposed project shall be subject to the mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 99-389. PACHRISTRSP99-040-TT29323 COA.wpd Page 13 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2000 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29613 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: RJT HOMES, LLC REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 0.58 ACRES INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER COMMON LOTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001. PARCEL B PROPOSES EMERGENCY AND EXIT ONLY ACCESS ONTO CALLE RONDO, A PUBLIC STREET. LOCATION: SITUATED BETWEEN CALLE RONDO AND CYPRESS POINT DRIVE AND SOUTH OF AVENIDA ULTIMO IN LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS BACKGROUND: On February 3, 2000, the Community Development Department received a letter from the applicant requesting this subdivision application be continued for a two week period (Attachments 1 and 2). RECOMMENDATION: Move to continue this project to February 22, 2000, based on the applicant's written request. Attachments: 1 . TPM 29613 - Reduced 2. Letter from RJT Homes dated February 3, 2000 by: I i--N-- jell, Assoc Submitted by: Planner Christine di lor' , Planning Manager STTPM29613Cont - 38 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29613 gF7fF 37 Bam s �4'-PARICEL OLT) e------------_ - + j 1, i 40 i T •.�'1.� ,I I (, , ---------------41 lip,✓ , y42 1 43 ,4 4 44 .8.3 LRCEL Z.. , \: TOM 5: F- H O Z 0 20 40 80 160 Remm.. DECEYBER V. 1999 VKVM MAP PLOT TO SCALE BEING A SUBWAS10N OF LOT33 OF TRACT NO. 25389-4 AS FUM 91 BOON 284. AT PAGES 9 TNROIM 11. MMMSIVE OF YAPS. IN T1+E CNY OF IA OUINTA. COUNTY OF RNERSIDE. STATE OF CN'FORNA WATER- OACHEL A VALLEY WATER OISTRXT SEWER - COACNW VAl1EY WATER DISTRICT GAS - SOUMERN CAL60RN4A GAS COMPANY TnEPHORE - GOMM TnEPNONE ELECTRUI' - INPERK IRRIGATION DbTRICT iN4Wl Tn- TINES WARNER 79-799 OLD AVENUE 52 LA Ol9ORA CA 92253 CKTRS J. CH DATE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29613 RJT HOMES, LLC 50842 Grand Traverse (760) 584-6555 P.O. BOX 810 FAX (760) 584-6505 La @uinta. CA 92253 _COIF TA�'L MDSI/08 CONBULTims ws 991901 WNnit omwM-Moo 9N /woos 6t LFAK 171LsOAAO p 32 fpl nt-mn *4+ KNOW amRmm suWrWYRm :'µtaonclew.wmeua+a iVz,.>a f�&auk FAIRWAYS %Jy A 0 M ZS P.O. Box 910 La Quinta CA, 92253 February 3,2000 City of La Quinta P.O.Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 RE: Tenative Parcell Map # 29613 Mr. Greg Trousdell: We are asking for continuance of 2 weeks, till the next planning commission meeting. Pending a traffic study. Thank You : Chad Meyer Project Manager j r,1 DATE: CASE NO.: REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANT: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2000 STREET VACATION 2000-041 DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED 10' WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION. PORTION OF THE SPANISH HILLS LANE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ADJACENT TO LOT 52, LOCATED WITHIN PGA WEST TRACT 28603-1 VICTOR L. VILLENEUVE OF MDS CONSULTING REPRESENTING STEVEN WALKER HOMES Pursuant to State law', street right of way or public easements being vacated by the City Council, require that the "Planning Agency" make a finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the Planning Commission. The northerly 10 feet of Lot 52, adjacent to Spanish Hills Lane in PGA West Tract 28603-1, is dedicated to the City of La Quinta as a public utility easement, as shown on the final tract map recorded May 10, 1999. The home builder of this development constructed a 2' x 2' concrete pad footing anchoring a decorative column that supports a patio roof at the rear of the dwelling structure 1.68 feet within the 10 foot wide public utility easement. The applicant desires to have the entire 10 foot wide easement adjacent to their Spanish Hills Lane frontage vacated rather than a small portion of it. Spanish Hills Lane is a private cul-de-sac street within PGA West, with eight lots on the northwest side of the street, but only a single lot on the southeast side, (the applicants Lot 52). The applicant has contacted some of the potentially effected utility purveyors and received preliminary comment that no existing utility facilities exist on the applicants side of the street. It appears that the utility companies located their facilities on the northwest side of the street, where the majority of lots are located. The City will contact all utility purveyors to ensure that said public utility easement is not required for current or future facilities. Street Vacation 2000-041 is specifically described and shown in Exhibits "A" and `B", and contains a portion of the Spanish Hills Lane 10 foot wide public utility easement. It appears at this time that the public utility easement is not needed by public agencies or other property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties. There are no street improvements within the proposed vacation area. Government Code Section 65402 F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV_2000-041\2000-041_Planning_Commission ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: On February 4, 2000, staff mailed notices to potentially affected public agencies, informing them of the proposed easement vacation. No public agency or utility company is expected to provide negative comments toward this easement vacation case. FINDINGS. The proposed easement vacation will have no environmental effects that adversely impacts the human population, either directly or indirectly, because the easement segment is currently unused by, the public, any public agency or utility company, and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the easement will have no physical environmental effect. 2. The public utility easement proposed for vacation meets the definition of a local residential street, which by definition is intended to provide access to abutting properties, with movement of traffic given secondary importance. This portion of the public utility easement is not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties, and is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. The easement vacation will not impact public agencies or utility companies. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion adopt the findings that the vacation of the 10 foot wide public utility easement adjacent to the Spanish Hills Lane frontage of Lot 52 is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Prepared by: 11 ROMANO VERLENGIA, Assistant Engineer II Submitted by: 1 CHRISTINE DI IORIO, :Planning Manager F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV_2000-041\2000-041_Planning_Commieeion Attachments: 1. Exhibits "A" and "B" 2. Index Map of Tract 28603-1 3. Plot Plan of Lot 52 4. GTE & Time Warner Cable -Utility Clearance Letters F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV_2000-041\2000-041_Planning_Commission f� '� ATTACHMENT' .,XHIBIT A SHEET 1 OF "T R E ET VACATION 2000-041 OT 52 - TRACT NO. 28603-1 THAT PORTION OF THE 10.00 FOOT AS FILED IN BOOK 279, PAGES 77 RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN LOT THROUGH 83, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 52 OF TRACT NO. 28603-1, THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 52; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH— EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 52, SOUTH 39'40'00" EAST, 10.00 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 10.00 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 50"20'OO" WEST, 63.70 FEET, TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 121.50 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS, NORTH 39'4O'00" WEST, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39'37'12", AN ARC LENGTH OF 84.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 79'17'12" WEST, 10.00 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 52 AND SAID 10.00 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 131.50 FEET, A RADIAL. LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 79'17'12" WEST; THENCE NORTH— EASTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39'37'1t, AN ARC LENGTH OF 90.93 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 50'20'00" EAST, 63.70 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. LANp `rG PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: LS. L%s * Exp.12-31-03 ]AM Dow P CHRIS J. BER04, L.S. 6_'r_ bAlt EXP. 12/31 /0 .jXHIBIT "B" 'TREET VACATION 2000-041 OT 62 — TRACT NO. 28603-1 TqAr-T NO. 2r3603-1 10 SHEET 2 OF Mg, 210111- B0 � � 1 LOT C \ 9 11-1 EXIST. 10' P.U.E. PER --� ` �,GJ � v, TOACT NO. REMAIN. 28603-1 / �� '`�'' � EXIST. 10' P.U.E. PER 8 � '� ` P.O.B. TO Rf�l' N.28603-1 ,ALE 1" =50' I /1 ill 0o ca I N 39' 40' 00' W �4vtio�o io.00 LOT E � oti 52 �8•S' 18,S l0� ,I N 791r�1 LOT H R.S 01196-9,18 TRACT NO, 28603- J �A& 710177-B0 51 EXIST. 10' P.U.E. PER TRACT NO. 28603-1 TO REMAIN. I 50 HERMITAGE (PRIVATE STREET) \o�P� LANQ s REPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: J. a0 z� 1 LS. 6M Exp. 12-31-03 O O C O N 19 L T/ A ras • of / • to MD ;HRIS J. BE H. L.S. 8 DATE 9TF CA�\F \ � am .�,. . XP. 12/31 /03 K,,..,o DONUMB sum ATTACHMENT 2 a -90 •tea � —j estarz-ea ar war / easa Mu/ Worn J/ �� 09rz ea v�•n� T3�!!Vd J r sex 05, � I IR 1 0 V If 1 J, m / V° 1 \R j / �� �yi Lodi y r0l 0 bo\, T Ile s bb 5 go 19 b a I y 4ol L" will �I I p N. i r- 1"W5111s1111a11 419.8 412'8 os ATTACHMENT 3 47�?2 p0 � 5°I° • . ho bt 3.9 FL 41.51 ,,nn,, 'Y ��• ° %' 4° 74.0 FL, HP 479.3 413.1 % 100 Gla 101 �� h� oo• F 'o. ��' °i 0.72% 4 7 4 h'',�15' \ ,. ��1 �" GB ir'� '� � � •sue C� 0 10 �� 41� 1`` • _ � •o T �o �! h 472. 47z. FL, 472• 472 0.5% FG �17,0 b \ �i ��o F N � MI 1y� F\�, G6 4 .96 TC �� 472.2 471.3 TF c FL 478.2 TW I 199 .:472.5 471.E TF Z F.L.':G8=473.2 7.4 / , : 41 /o P=472.7 �� _ LAJ 3�R FF = 47 A� 13 o La! FF=472.8 P=4 Fl. 2 �G o/ 'n. � = P=472.3 cs V) \ 478.2 TW I 471.2 TF &0' °1 -- W 1 477.8 TW vi 1 0 © 470.8 TF 1\\LGB GF=472.3 ® GF=471.9 . I ` c L 0-.55,w hG h�Ri 1 970.5 4 .h/ >4g� 4 ATTACHMENT 4 ® GTE Network Services 295 North Sunrsa Way Palm Springs, CA 92262-5295 December 1, 1999 Mr. Victor L. Villeneave M.D.S. Consulting 79-799 Old Avenue 52 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Villeneave: Subject: 10 FT. WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, HERMITAGE @ PGA WEST, LA QUINTA, CA LOT 521, TRACT # 28603-11 MAP BOOK 2799 PAGES 77-83 In response to your letter dated November 19`", GTE is not in the southeasterly right of way of Spanish Hill Lane. Please contact me should you have any questions or require further information. Tbank you. Sincerely, Robin Jones Contracting Engineer -- Access Design 760/864-1720 A part of GTE Corporation TIME WARNER CABLE December 3, 1999 41-725 Cook Street Palm Desert. CA 92211 (750) 340-1312 FAX.- (760) 340-2384 RE: 10-foot wide Public Utility Easement, Hermitage at PGA -West, La Quinta, CA Lot 52, Tract No. 28603-1, Map Book 279, Pages 77-83 MDS Consulting 79-799 Old Avenue 52 La Quinta, CA 92253 ATTN: Victor L. Villenueve To Whom It May Concern: We have checked our system maps and have determined that we have no system existing in the area referenced. Therefore, we see no conflict with your proposed construction project. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact me at 340-1312 ext. 351. Sincerely, Don Knox Designer CITY OF LA- Q UINTA 5 PLANNING COMMISSION OF ° NOiICE OF PUBLIC HEARING )TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC TARING on February 22, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78-49"' ille Tampico, on the following item: EM: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-666 2PLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY .QUEST: APPROVAL OF AN AUTO RETAIL CENTER )CATION: SOUTHEAST OF HIGHWAY 111 AND ADAMS STREET INTERSECTION, WITHIN THE LA QUINTA AUTO CENTRE GAL: PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 28525-2 ie La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the. request has bei •eviously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report (Clearing House Numb 701 1055, Specific Plan 97-029) which was certified by the City Council in 1996. A Supplement R was prepared and certified on December 31, 1998. No changed circumstances or conditions a -oposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report pursua i Public Resources Code Section 21166. ny person may submit written comments on this case to the Community Development Departme ,ior to the Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at t me of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raisi! rely those issues that. you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in writt :)rrespondence delivered to the Community Development Department at, or prior to, the Pub earing. The proposed file(s) may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:1 .m. at the Community Development Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, �uinta, California. The public comment period starts from the date of this notice and continues throu ie Public Hearing on February 22, 2000. i the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities if 1990, the Community Development Department requires that any person in need of any type pecial equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meetir lust inform the Community Development Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the schedul ieeting. 'UBLISH ONCE ON FEBRUARY 11, 2000 ::\My Documents\WPDOCS\hnpcSDP99-666.wpd CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that HEARING on February 22, 2000, Quinta City Hall Council Chamber, on the following items: the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBL at 7:00 p.m. in the La 78-495 Calle Tampico, —� ITEMS: TENTATIVE TRACT 29657 APPLICANT: NORMAN ESTATES II, LLC LOCATION: NORTH OF AIRPORT DRIVE, EAST OF MADISON STREET WITHIN THE NORMAN COURSE. REQUESTS: APPROVAL TO-RESUBDIVIDE: 58 SINGLE FAMILY (SF) LOTS, STREET LOTS, AND A GOLF COURSE LOT TO ADJUST EXISTING LOT LINES TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED UNIT TYPES AND GATED ENTRIES. LEGAL: LOTS 1 THROUGH 58 OF TRACT 291489-2, LOTS 24, 27, AND E OF TRACT 29136. 52nd JAVENUE 53rd AVENUE 54tl► AVENUE TRACT N0.• 29657 T!" l AIRPORT BLVD. � O 5ft AVENUE VICI " MAP The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this request have be previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report (Clearing House Numl 90020731, Specific Plan 90-015) which was certified on December 3, 1991 and addendu certified on December 1, 1998. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which woi trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resourc Code Section 21166. Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Community Development Departmi prior to the Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at 1 time of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to rais. only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in writs correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed file may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Commur Development Department., La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. 1 public comment period runs through the City Council Public Hearing on March 22, 2000. In the City`s efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilit Act Of 1990, the Community Development Department requires that any person in need of any t) of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City pul meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. PUBLISH ONCE ON February 10, 2000 P. I STANI hnpc tt 29667. wpd CITY OF LA Q UINTA PLANNING COMMISSION Fop OF Tt� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of :ebruary 22, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the he following item: La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARII La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampit A: TRACT 27519, AMENDMENT #1 'LICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES :ATION: APPROXIMATELY 100-FEET SOUTH OF DESERT STREAM DRIVE AND WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD WEST: 1) REVISE CONDITION 92 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 99-07 TO REMOVE THE EXISTING EUCALYPTUS TREES BEHIND SINGLE FAMILY LOT NUMBERS 38-42, AND 2) AMEND THE FINAL MAP TO ELIMINATE A CITY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FROM A 70 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON 17.6 ACRES. iAL: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 604-061-009 PROJECT SITE _ Auso DEL REY PALM DESNIff in Case: Tract 27519 VICINITY ' MAF N.T.S. tative Tract Map 27519 was approved by the City Council on January 5, 1999 by adoptioi oiutions 99-06 and 99-07. Resolution 99-06 certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the prc 98-370). No changed circumstances or conditions exist that would trigger a new environme essment for this revision request. La Quinta Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to the City Council for the prop( division at the Hearing. The public comment period will continue from the date of this notice thrc City Council Public Hearing on .March 21 2000. t person may submit written comments on this case to the Community Development Department 1 he Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time & firing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those is t you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered tc nmunity Development Department at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed file(s) ma wed by the public Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Community Developr )artment, La Quinta Civic Center, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. :he City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities A 90, the City requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistanc ;ommodation(s) in order to communicate at a public meeting, must inform the Community Developi Dartment a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. BUSH ONCE ON FEBRUARY 9, 2000 P. %ruFrr,khnmTrW7519AmdCentury.wPd