Loading...
2000 04 25 PCT4 *'&fp 4 4 Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now Available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 25, 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 2000-018 Beginning Minute Motion 2000-010 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11. 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 April 11, 2000 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TI I VII. A. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ........... Request ............ Action ............... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25389, AMENDMENT #2 La Quinta Fairways Homeowners' Association East side of Calle Rondo, north of Avenida Tujunga. Approval to modify Condition #9 of City Council Resolutior 91-1 15 for Tract 25389 to expand an "Emergency Only' access to allow a resident exit access from La QuintE Fairways onto Calle Rondo. Resolution 2000- , Resolution 2000- B. Item .................. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29702, PARCEL MAP 29724, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant.......... KSL Casitas Corporation Location........... East side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando, within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds. Request............ Approval to re -subdivide 3.17 acres into 30 resort residential and miscellaneous lots; subdivide one parcel intc two, and development of a 21 space parking lot plus eight additional spaces. Action .............. Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- Resolutior 2000- C. Item .................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-04f Applicant.......... Madison/P.T.M. La Quinta, L.L.C. Location........... Northwest corner Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street. Request............ Recommendation for certification of a Mitigated Negativ( Declaration of Environmental Impact; recommendation fo. approval of the design guidelines and developmen- standards for a 72,950 square foot commercial center, anc a conditional use permit for a service station. Action .............. Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- Resolutior 2000- BUSINESS ITEMS: CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Discussion regarding summer meeting schedule. A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of April 18, 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 April 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Vice Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Robert Tyler, and Vice Chairman Steve Robbins. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to excuse Chairman Tom Kirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Mr. William Lee, 80-130 Palm Circle Drive, stated his concern was regarding the Westward Isle, a development of 28 homes with CC&R's. These homes have an individual value of approximately $120,000. In addition there are eight homes on Jefferson Street, also worth approximately $120,000 each, that are not a part of Westward Isle, but will be affected by the elimination of three golf holes due to the rearrangement of the Indian Springs Golf Course. His concern is that currently three holes, 10, 1 1, and 12, are located behind the Westward Isle homes. Renovation of Indian Springs Golf Course is proposed to eliminate these three holes which would hurt their property values. When they purchased their homes it was with these golf holes. If they were to sell their home, they must abide by the CC&R's and holes 10, 1 1, and 12 will no longer be a part of the golf course. They are proposing to donate them to the Desert Sands Unified School District. He does not think this is legal and they have never been notified of this. He asked how the City of Indio could vote a plan in and hurt property values without the City of La Quinta being notified. He questioned who would be responsible for maintaining this property now. He asked that the City look into this. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated CC&R's are private agreements enforceable by the private owners. The City does (':\MN I)ocumcnts\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 not get involved in the enforcement of them. These holes are zoned and approved for a golf course or open space. The City of La Quinta would have no jurisdiction over the transaction of private entities. Mr. Lee stated he was not asking for any action on the CC&R's, but as a public golf course, which gave its word that it would maintain the golf course and now is proposing to get rid of this section. Vice Chairman Robbins stated the City would look into the issue as it pertains to the City of La Quinta. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated there is no development occurring within the City of La Quinta. The entire project is within the City of Indio. The three holes are designated and zoned as golf course. If the developer tries to change this designation, then they would have to apply to the City of La Quinta. Mr. Lee stated that if this area is not maintained, it would drastically affect them as homeowners. He asked if the City could obtain a copy of the CC&R's for them. Staff stated it is a private, civil matter and he would have to obtain the copies on his own. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Vice Chairman Robbins stated a request had been received to rearrange the Agenda to move Business Item A to the first item. There being no discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to rearrange the Agenda taking Business Item A first. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of March 28, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 16, Item 38 be amended as follows: "The small group of ten new homes wll have their own HOA and will thus have more power to enforce their CC&R's than other communities without an HOA."; Page 17, Item 41 be amended to read, "Commissioner Tyler stated that he too, had been somewhat surprised to see the name Quinterra being used. In view of the numerous public comments about this, he asked if the applicant might consider using another name for this project." There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: Staff informed the Commission of the joint meeting with City Council, Planning Commission, and Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee would be May 101h at 7:00 p.m. CWN, Documents\WPD0CS\11C4-11-20 wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-674; a request of T.D. Desert Development for approval of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units within Rancho La Quinta Country Club. 1. Vice Chairman Robbins requested the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-008 approving Site Development Permit 2000-674 as recommended. Unanimously approved. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 29702; a request of KSL Casitas Corporation for approval to subdivide 3.17 acres into 30 resort residential and miscellaneous lots on the east side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds. 1. Vice Chairman Robbins opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the applicant had requested a continuance of this application to allow time to resolve issues. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to continue Tentative Tract Map 29702 to April 25, 2000. Unanimously approved. B. Continued - Site Development Permit 200-667; a request of M & H Realty Partners for approval of development plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial pad building and addition to Von's Supermarket located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 11, within Plaza La Quinta. 1 . Vice Chairman Robbins opened the continued Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff stated that per the City's Zoning Code Section 9.150.060(d)(1) does require CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-1 I-20.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 that adequate off-street parking be provided for uses even if that use is providing parking at the minimum required level and therefore, additional parking can be required if it is deemed necessary. Staff noted an additional Condition #24 should therefore be added stating: "The final proposed parking program for Plaza La Quinta employees be implemented prior to issuance of a building permit for construction authorized by this permit." In regard to the Von's Supermarket expansion, staff is not recommending it at this time as staff does not have adequate plans to understand what that addition will look like. 2. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces. Staff stated the figure noted in the staff report includes the five extra parking spaces proposed with the implementation of the new plan. Commissioner Tyler stated he likes the parking program especially the employee parking, but asked if it was under the Commission's purview. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that it does so long as the critical issue being looked at is trying to deal with the parking on this site and in order to approve the environmental and find under the Zoning Code that adequate parking is being provided, it is reasonable to include that type of a parking condition on this site. Otherwise if the Commission did not know the parking plan was to be in place, the Commission would not be able to make the findings that are necessary. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if this is increasing the number of spaces for employee parking in the back of the building. Staff stated there is an area behind Von's where there can be spaces, but it has been re -stripped which eliminated some of the spaces. They could add seven spaces in this area. Commissioner Butler asked if they could realign the parking to one way to get more spaces. Staff stated they did not believe it would help. 4. Commissioner Abels asked if the traffic was two-way with the parking spaces. Staff stated it is an odd shape area which follows the back of the building. Commissioner Abels asked if parking could be increased if the traffic was one way. Staff stated parking already exists and is a truck loading are as well. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that by reducing the traffic to one lane they would not gain any additional spaces. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-11-20.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 With implementation of proposed employee parking these spaces would then be used. Commissioner Abels commended the developer for trying to meet the Commission's request. 5. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the new building would use the hanging wooden signs. Staff stated there is some provision for wall signs, but the signage would be required to match the existing sign program. The applicant does have the option to come back for a revision to the sign program. 6. Commissioner Abels stated the proposed expansion for Von's shows the expansion going down to the Fred Sand building with the front exterior being the same. Staff stated that is true, but if you look at the site, the area to be added onto is immediately adjacent to the tower over the Fred Sands offices. Their proposed plans do not show how the expansion will fit in with the tower. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the last meeting, a question was raised about underground parking; has this been looked at and is it totally out of the question. Staff stated they did not consider it and is not aware whether or not the applicant has. 8. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Geiser, M & H Realty asked to speak after the others had spoken. 9. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this issue. Mr. Rob Parker, owner of Groomingdales, stated he may be going to the new building, or somewhere due to the expansion of Von's and this is a major concern to him. He is not opposed to the expansion of Von's, or to whatever would be a benefit to M&H Realty Partners, but he is concerned about tenants who are in partnership with M&H in this entire project and its viability in the community. He would like to know where Von's freight vehicles will load and unload if this area is to be for employee parking. He has 12 employees parking there where there are 20 parking spaces that will be removed. This whole area behind Von's that is stripped for parking is a problem for parking because of the freight trucks are unloading. His other concern is the corridor in front of the proposed building as it is C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 dangerous now and more so with the new construction. He recollects this pad originally showed a development on this pad, but the Von's expansion of 4,000 feet is not a part of the original plan for the Center. It seems to him that if the developer is wanting an exception to the plan they should provide mitigation measures and the only place to mitigate is in this strip and that is where it is drastically needed. He knows of three accidents this year in this corridor in front of the proposed building. This is one of the main entrances/exits into the Center. The traffic conditions and flow are a nightmare which concerns him. Two of his clients have had accidents and he has heard of a third. There should be some other way to mitigate these problems. He is not opposed to any of the proposed changes, but with the expansion of Von's, there is more that could and should be done with this pad area as it is the only other alternative to mitigate it. There will be a high volume fast food restaurant, currently there is a highly successful Beer Hunter restaurant, and the Beachside Cafe all located at one end of the Center with their parking extending all the way down to Von's parking area now. Adding the new fast food business, that is known to be very successful, will be a major nightmare on that end of the Center. When you look at the parking the least amount is at the east end and the most on the west end. If they wanted to put the proposed building in the middle of the Von's parking lot no one would care. 10. Commissioner Abels asked if this proposed building was reduced to two stores, would this help. Mr. Parker stated he suggested this, that if spaces are needed for the Von's expansion and to move the dry cleaners and his business, they needed to look at the traffic flow and additional parking, for all the tenants. There is no way to mitigate the problem once the changes are made. He is not relocated to the new building yet and not involved in the parking problems that exist, but if he does move to the new location he is going to miss his current location. 11. Mr. Dan Held, General Manager and Partner in the Beer Hunter restaurant, stated his concern is the parking problem. The parking is tight as it is now and he is not sure the employee parking would be of any great benefit. They are currently asking their employees to park on the west side of Downey Savings. Parking is not adequate now and with the additional business, it will clog the parking even more. He agrees that if it were constructed on the west side of Downey Savings, it would not be of any concern. C':\My I)ocuments\WI'DOC'S\PC4-11-20.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 12. Mr. Parker, Groomingdales, asked if the proposed expansion of Von's could be conditioned to require 100% relocation of the dry cleaners and his business prior to issuance of a building permit so they would not lose any customers. 13. Mr. David Geiser, M&H Realty Partners, stated the option of building anywhere else is not possible as they do not have any control over Von's parking lot and they would not approve any construction in that area. The issue of mitigation is valid. The original approval for the Center allowed the construction of a 10,000 square foot building on Pad 5 and a 4,500 square foot building on Pad 7 next to the Beer Hunter. They are proposing a 6,600 square building on Pad 5, which is a 3,400 square foot reduction from what was originally proposed and approved and parking instead of building on Pad 7. In their opinion, they are voluntarily placing more restrictive mitigation measures, more than goes to their desire to develop their property as well as address the parking issue. As far as Von's expansion, the desire is to increase the ability of Von's to maintain their market share with all the new markets that have come into the area. This is a requirement Von's has to keep them at this Center. Currently, the plans across the street for development includes a Von's Supermarket. They need the expansion to keep Von's as an anchor for this Center and he believes the tenants would agree with this. The Von's expansion is more important than the pad building as far as the success of the Center. This is a successful Center and the parking lot is full because of this. It is a tenant mix problem they acquired with the purchase of the Center. They are trying to address this parking problem with the parking program to increase the amount of parking for the patrons. As all the tenants observe the employee parking program, and as their manager on site enforces this program, they should see a difference. As to requiring them to implement this program before they obtain a building permit, this is a draft program and the tenants have not seen a copy of the parking program and they need time for their review and input. He asked that they tie it to the tenant improvements. He then gave a clarification on parking count. The 11 parking spaces on Pad 7, next to Beer Hunter are not included in the parking count of 599. The Von's expansion is 9,300 square feet, but only adds 4,400 square feet to the total building area. He has submitted new elevations based on what has been asked by the Commission. They have not backed off their original sign request to allow the channel letter signs for the new tenants. It is important to pad building tenants that signs can been seen at C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-I1-20.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 night. In addition, they will have revised landscape plans consisting of the same plant material. They have added parking on the east side of the Pad 5, which caused them to lose some of the parking on south side of Pad 5. Again, they would request tying the parking study with final inspection rather than issuance of a building permit to allow them time to work with a civil engineer and the tenants. 14. Commissioner Abels asked about the relocation of the tenants. Mr. Geiser stated the tenant would be relocated before any Von's remodeling would take place. Commissioner Abels asked if the tenants would incur any expense. Mr. Geiser stated it is all spelled out in the lease before anything starts. Community Development Director stated the tenant issue is not a purview of the Commission. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated currently on the south side of Pad 5, there are a number of parking spaces including two handicapped spaces, and he understands they may reduce the number of spaces in this area and he wanted to know why. Mr. Geiser stated there were no handicapped spaces at this location. They are in front of the building on the west side. They moved the patio from the east side of the building on the drive isle of Pad 5, which caused the elimination of two parking spaces to accommodate moving the building to the west so they could add the spaces on the east side of the building. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was any thought to underground parking. Mr. Geiser stated underground parking is very expensive and not feasible. It would require them to dig opening a hole the size of the parking lot allowing for no parking during the construction and would probably close the Center. 16. Commissioner Tyler asked if he would have any problem with having two tenants instead of three. Mr. Geiser stated that with 6,600 square feet they may have one tenant, or could have up to four tenants. Currently, it appears there will be three. They design for the greatest flexibility for an undermined number of tenants, over a period of time. 17. Commissioner Butler stated he had a concern with the maximizing of the parking when looking at his map, showing employee parking with no indication as to whether or not it will be re -stripped, or is C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 that all that will be designated for employee parking. Second, is there a problem with the parking behind Von's due to the loading and unloading of trucks. Mr. Geiser stated that in the employee parking agreement, it is not a re -striping or designation on the parking stalls as to employee parking. Instead, the employees will be educated to understand this is their area. Commissioner Butler asked if the area could be re -striped to add more parking spaces. Mr. Geiser stated they have looked at re -striping to gain more, but because of the planted parking islands, they cannot gain any more spaces. In regard to the parking in the rear behind Von's, they are required to have a 24 foot wide fire access as well as truck access. The trucks are not to be using this area except for their loading/unloading area. If there is a problem, they will have to address the issue with Von's. 18. Commissioner Butler asked if Mr. Geiser had a problem with continuing the Von's expansion. Mr. Geiser stated all they were looking for was approval of the site plan. The elevations would come back to the Commission for review and approval. 19. Commissioner Butler stated that in regard to the signage and use of illuminated channel letter, he was uncertain. Mr. Geiser stated all the pads buildings had illuminated channel letters. 20. Commissioner Abels asked if there would be additional dialog with tenants regarding the parking. Mr. Geiser stated that if the Commission would hold the building final till there was an approval of the parking plan. This would allow them the time to work a solution with the tenants regarding the parking. 21. Commissioner Tyler asked if Von's could come back for review of the elevations. Staff stated the conditions were written to require the elevations to come back to the Commission. In regard to the sign program, only the major tenants have the individually mounted illuminated signs and this is a multiple tenant building. Mr. Geiser stated that is in keeping with the Center across the street, such as Starbucks, Airtouch, etc. 22. Mr. Jim Elmer, Beachside Cafe, stated his concern is parking spaces. This new site will have only 11 new spaces and those will be taken up by the employees; where are the customers going C':\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-I1-20.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 to go. His restaurant does not have enough for their business as well as the Beer Hunter. The need is for 50 more parking spaces. If the new restaurant is going to seat 100 people, where are they going to park. 23. Ms. Donna Corde, Lumpy's, stated her concern was the issue of deliveries and whether the parking spaces would be blocked with the deliveries. 24. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing for Commission discussion. 25. Commissioner Butler stated that with some conditions, the applicant has addressed the issue of the elevations, but the parking is still not resolved. When you have a shared parking policies, it is hard to resolve issues of this kind. He would feel more comfortable having the applicant coming back with a parking program. In regard to the Von's expansion, he has no problem approving the expansion concept. In regard to the signs, he still has a problem with their proposal. 26. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the redesign of the building. The parking problem has improved, but is still a problem and he is not sure there is any solution to the problem. Employee parking program is viable, but may have an enforcement problem. He is not sure about the Von's expansion, but if it comes back, then he has no objection to approving the concept. 27. Commissioner Abels stated this is a situation where everyone wins or loses. The applicant has done all he can do with its limitations. In regard to Von's expansion, he has no objection to the concept. Glad to see a viable center that is active all the time and the applicant should be commended on such a successful center. 28. Vice Chairman Robbins agreed with the redesign of the building and that the parking is a problem, but no real solution is available. He asked staff if the parking problem could be tied to the issuance of occupancy. Comomunity' Development Director Jerry Herman stated the problem with occupancy is that when you construct the building, tenants move in. Now, we are saying the tenant cannot be there and it becomes a problem with enforcement. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is difficult because you affect third party rights; the tenant who is ready to move in and CAM), I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC4-I 1-20.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 economically, for reasons not in their control, the City says they cannot move in. The City prefers this be resolved before permits are issued rather than before occupancy. It would be to the applicant's advantage to resolve the parking, before constructing a building that a tenant cannot move into. Vice Chairman Robbins stated he did not want to put a stop to the applicant's ability to continue developing. 29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-012 approving Site Development Permit 2000- 667, as amended. a. Condition #1: The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2000-667, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The site plan expansion of Von's Supermarket is conceptually approved. The elevation of the expansion shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. b. Condition #23: Add, "specify the parking area is referenced as Attachment 5 on Pad 7". C. Condition #24: The final parking plan program for Plaza La Quinta employees shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and for approval and implemented prior to issuance of first tenant improvement plan for construction authorized by this permit. The building shell can be built. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk. Vice Chairman recessed the meeting at 8:47 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:53 p.m. C. Continued - Environmental Assessment 99-382, Tentative Tract Map 29624 Site Development Permit 99-675, a request of World Development for approval to subdivide 2.44 acres into ten single family residential lots, one street lot, three landscape lots, and approval of architectural and landscape plans for four prototype residential units. C:\My Documents\WPI)OCS\PC4-11-20.wpd I I Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 1. Vice Chairman Robbins informed everyone this was a continued Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. The applicant is proposing a unit size of 2,078 square feet of livable area for the smallest unit. Staff noted a change to Condition #7.B. and 36.B.1. to state that "for cul-de-sac bulbs, a standard similar in form to Riverside County Standard 800 should be used; Condition #32 typographical error that should say Tentative Parcel Map. 2. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked about the minimum lot size. Staff noted it was 7,303 square feet. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if Condition #1 1 would be modified to allow the temporary construction access off Adams Street. 4. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if sidewalks were proposed. Staff noted they would not be on a private street. Vice Chairman Robbins stated he did not like the idea of forcing people to walk in the streets and would like to see sidewalks required of all developments. He noted the street width was decreased to 28 feet, and he assumes no parking would be allowed on the street. Street stated that was correct, additional parking would have to be provided on site and the applicant has proposed three car garages as well as the ability to park three cars in front of the garage spaces. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if a condition should be added requiring the HOA to enforce the no parking on the street. Staff stated a condition would be added. 6. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the Commission had any objection to reopening the public comment. There being no objection, Vice Chairman Robbins re -opened the Public Hearing. 7. Mr. Kim Job, 79-100 Ladera, stated he liked most of the proposed changes, but asked if the plans were still the Wildflower homes with the exception of the new Plan 1. Staff stated yes. Mr. Job stated the Wildflower homes are being advertised as selling for $170,000 and Mr. Snellenberger stated at the last meeting the homes would be sold at $230,000. He can not believe the houses can go from $170,000 to $230,000 with only the addition of a gate and being a private community. I-- ram _ ------ --._1 wr1-111 c-rni. e - In ..._ A t 1) Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 8. Mr. Tom Hanes 79-180 Ladera, stated he is glad to hear their comments were considered by the applicant. His only concern is that their home value included the cost of the retention basin. Now another developer with a completely different project does not have to supply his own retention basin. If he has to save costs, this is not a very nice way of doing it. 9. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Butler asked if the retention basin can be utilized by another developer. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City has a duty to protect property from the 100 year storm. This retention basin is designed to have what is known as a foot of freeboard. That is when the 100 year storm is contained in the retention basin, there is still a foot of room to hold additional water. When the Parcel Map for the First School of the Desert split this property, the City asked the engineers to look at whether or not the retention basin had the capacity to hold an additional four acres of drainage. The engineers confirmed it would increase the 100 year storm water surface elevation by six inches, so it is still protecting the homes at the 100 year storm level. The retention basin is maintained by the City through two funding sources: the Lighting and Landscaping District and the General Fund. Rather than create an additional retention basin for the City to maintain, staff found it appropriate to send the drainage from this development to this retention basin as it would only raise it 6 inches. 1 1 . Commissioner Butler asked if the water run off from Miles Avenue would also go into this basin. Staff stated yes. 12. Commissioner Tyler asked about the additional information he had just received. Staff stated a survey had been submitted and signed by residents in the community stating they supported the Desert Flower development based on the criteria contained in the survey. The survey was distributed by the developer and is being submitted for Commission review and information, as well as their proposed sign. Commissioner Tyler asked about the signature page that referred to the design for the project's east perimeter wall. Staff stated it referred to a condition that allows the developer the option of doing a retaining wall or adding two courses to the existing block wall depending upon what the i1.�X4.. r—.....Y_-.a1zmTN�f'Vmnn i I vA...-J 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 neighbors were in favor of. The developer did contact each of the neighbors that are adjacent to this tract and explain that they have options. Mr. Stittsworth, representing World Development, stated they went out and met with the homeowners of Quinterra. They contacted 75 homes and those that did not sign were people not home and they were unable to reach. Of all the signatures acquired, there was not a homeowner that did not agree with the project. The four signatures acquired tonight are homes abutting the project both on the north and east side. The other two were not home and one home had been sold and no one was home. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-013 certifying a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-382. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-014 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29624, subject to the Findings and Conditions as amended: a. Condition 7.13.1.: "...similar to Riverside County Standard 800..." b. Condition 11: Add "except for temporary construction access." C. Condition 36.13.1.: "...similar to Riverside County Standard 800..." d. Condition #55: At locations where the proposed development shares a common property line where an existing wall encloses properties in an adjacent development, the applicant shall accomplish the Zoning Code required five foot minimum wall height in accordance with one of the following methods: a) If permission from the adjacent property owner is received, and the additional wall height can be structurally achieved, add additional course(s) of matching block to the existing wall. This alternative shall be rejected by the adjacent landowner before the utilizing the second alternative. b) If the adjacent property owner does not consent to the first alternative, the CAM), Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-11-20.wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 applicant shall achieve the five foot minimum wall height by constructing a new wall with matching block, as close as physically possible, adjacent to the existing wall, and fill the empty space between the two walls with pea gravel and slurry cap. The two walls shall be structurally bound together with tie rods. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, . Tyler, and Vice Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-015 approving Site Development Permit 20000-675, subject to the Findings and Conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk. D. Site Development Permit 2000-673; a request of Bill Hobin, c/o La Quinta - SPC, LLC., for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a storage facility within La Quinta Corporate Center located on the northeast corner of Adams Street and Corporate Centre Drive. 1 . Vice Chairman Robbins opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #36.0 regarding channel lining. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the channel lining is approved by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the applicant's engineer must have this approved and corrected. 3. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Rick Bollis, Valli Architectural Group, stated he had a question regarding Condition #36.C., can they do both concurrently. Also, could Condition #58 be concurrent with fire hydrants as the building is all steel and masonry with no wood, so there is no fire hazard. CAM), Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-11-20.wpd 15 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 4. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the existing building and stated that if this building was to look the same, he is all in favor. 5. Commissioner Butler stated he was not sure the Commission could overrule the Fire Department. He then questioned the number of RV storage spaces. Mr. Bollis stated they anticipate part of the RV area would be covered. Building 3 in Phase 3 would be covered and about 12 feet high. Commissioner Butler asked if it could be conditioned to be covered. Staff stated it could be. Mr. Bollis asked if it could be an option, depending on a market study. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if any of these units would be air conditioned. Mr. Bollis stated Building D would be. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was any problem with vandalism. Mr. Bollis stated none. Commissioner Tyler asked about survalience camera on the additional gate. Mr. Bollis stated it was an option. 7. Vice Chairman Robbins asked about the view of the back of Building "C". Staff noted it would have popouts as the existing building. The inset areas would have landscaping as well. 8. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins closed the public participation and opened the issue for Commission discussion. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-017 approving Site Development Permit 2000- 673, as amended. a. Condition #72: Add an option for covered parking b. Condition #36.C.: Delete prior to obtaining on site building and replace with on site paving and driveway work. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: B. Site Development Permit 2000-671; a request of Toll Brothers for approval of 'architectural plans for eight new prototype residential units to be constructed adjacent to the Greg Norman Signature Golf Course, on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-11-20.wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 1. Vice Chairman Robbins requested the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if Plan 6 would have a three car garage. Staff stated it was a typo in the staff report and it was a full three car garage. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-009 approving Site Development Permit 2000-671 as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of April 4, 2000. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 25, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:43 P.M. on April 11, 2000. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California CAM), I)ocuments\WPI)OCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 17 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 25, 2000 CASE NO.: TRACT 25389, AMENDMENT #2 APPLICANT: LA AVAILUiNTA PROPEFAIRWAYS RTY MANAG OMENOWNERS' ASSOCIATION (C/O REQUEST: APPROVAL TO MODIFY CONDITION #9 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 91-115 FOR TRACT 25389 TO EXPAND AN "EMERGENCY ONLY" ACCESS TO ALLOW A RESIDENT EXIT ACCESS FROM LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS ONTO CALLE RONDO. LOCATION: ON THE EAST SIDE OF CALLE RONDO, NORTH OF AVENIDA TUJUNGA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (2000-398). BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. BACKGROUND: La Quinta Fairways is a part of Specific Plan 83-001 (Duna La Quinta, t Phase 8). This portion of the Specific Plan is bounded by Park Avenue on the east, 50 Avenue on the north, Calle Tampico and Avenida Ultimo on the south, and Calle Rondo and La Quinta Evacuation Channel on the west. A total of 254 houses are proposed (Attachment 1). Full turn access for La Quinta Fairways exists on Park Avenue. Emergency access to the development is permitted from Calle Rondo. Currently, temporary access for construction traffic is allowed on Park Avenue, north of Calle Tampico. Calle Rondo is a Local Street providing access to Desert Club Estates, a development of approximately 98 single family lots to the west of La Quinta Fairways. Access to Calle Rondo was not contemplated during review and approval of SP 83-001, nor was it addressed during subsequent amendments over the last few years. On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission, on a vote of 5-0, adopted Resolution 2000- 011 approving Tentative Parcel Map 29613 for RJT Homes allowing one single family lot and one common lot for property located on Cypress Point Drive generally in the vicinity of Calle Rondo and Avenida Tujunga. Initially the Parcel Map included a request for La Quinta Fairways to exit onto Calle Rondo. Property owners within Desert Club Estates, west of Calle Rondo, objected to a resident P:\GREG\Tract 25389, #2 Stfrpt.wpd access (exit only) request from RJT Homes onto public streets outside the gated development. The applicant then withdrew the request on February 25, 2000. Letters of protest from adjacent residents are on file with the Community Development Department. RJT Homes is currently completing Tract Phases 3 and 4 (Final), which would complete the development of La Quinta Fairways. Project Request The La Quinta Fairways Homeowners' Association has requested a 14 foot wide "exit only" access gate at the intersection of Calle Rondo and Avenida Tujunga for residents (Attachment 2). This gate would be located to the south of the emergency fire access gate required for this development. Public Notice: This Amendment request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 3, 2000. Not only property owners within 500-feet of the project site were mailed hearing notices, but also property owners in the Desert Club Estates tract to the west of the Amendment Request. Additionally, property owners located on the south side of Calle Tampico and west of Calle Rondo (approximately 99 single family lots) were sent the public hearing notice for this meeting pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission on March 28, 2000. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Finding necessary to deny this request pursuant to Sections 13.12.130 and 13.12.115 of the Subdivision Ordinance and can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. An additional finding to deny this request pursuant to Government Code Section 66472.1 is also contained in the attached Resolution. A discussion of the four of the seven findings are included herein: Finding A - The proposed Map is consistent with the City General Plan and any applicable specific plans. Finding B - The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The request to allow access for egress to homeowners within La Quinta Fairways to Calle Rondo is incompatible with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan Circulation Element which states traffic improvements shall " . . . specifically minimize the disruption of established neighborhoods, schools and commercial centers (Policy 3-1.1.2)." The proposed egress on Calle Rondo represents an over concentration of traffic at one point onto a local, public street. A Local Street defined per the General Plan, is "designed primarily to provide access to abutting properties with the movement of traffic given a secondary importance (Policy 3-2.1.1 (d))." The intent of the City's General Plan Circulation Element is to limit traffic to that generated by single family residences directly associated with the immediate neighborhood. PAGREG\Tract 25389, #2 Stfrpt.wpd The Public Works Department suggests consideration of a secondary access on Calle Tampico, because 1) sight distances and traffic speeds would allow a full turn access, 2) internal site traffic flows would be enhanced, and 3) the width of Calle Tampico supports traffic striping for turn lanes into and out of the development. Access/egress from Calle Tampico, a collector street would not have the same environmental impact as this proposal, as the General Plan defines a Collector Street as "... providing connections between local streets and arterial roadways. Collector streets generally serve shorter trips either within neighborhoods or connecting to higher level facilities." However, consideration of this alternative would require a separate development review process. Finding E - The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. According to the Environmental Assessment, allowing egress from The Fairways onto Calle Rondo will negatively impact the neighborhood due to an over concentration of traffic, disruption of its circulation pattern as a Local Street and inconsistency with the General Plan. Therefore, it is inappropriate to process a Mitigated Negative Declaration. FINDING (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66472.1) - There are no changes in which would make it necessary to modify Condition #9 of Resolution 91-115 for Tract 25389. Government Code Section 66472.1 contains limited authority to modify a condition of a tract map due to changes in circumstances. In order to approve the change, the City would need to find that there are changes in circumstances which made the condition no longer appropriate or necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- recommending to the City Council that it deny Tract 25389 (Amendment #2), or in the alternative, that it require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Attachments: 1. Tract Map 25389 - Reduced 2. Calle Rondo Gate Design reg dud-ell, Associate Planner p:\GREG\Tract 25389, #2 Stfrpt.wpd Submitted by: Christine&—�ilorio, Pla ping Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT DENY TRACT 25289, AMENDMENT #2, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT IT REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-398 LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of April, 2000 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2000-398 prepared for Tract 25389 (Amendment #2), a request to have a resident exit gate for La Quinta Fairways at the intersection of Calle Rondo and Avenida Tujunga; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-398); and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation to the City Council to either deny Amendment #2 to Tract 25389, or to adopt the conclusion of said Environmental Assessment that an Environmental Impact Report is required to assess the potential environmental impacts of Amendment #2: 1. The proposed Calle Rondo access gate will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the adjacent neighborhood based on the findings of Environmental Assessment 2000-398. 2. The proposed Amendment to Tract 25389 has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question is not consistent with City's General Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives. 3. The proposed Amendment to Tract 25389 may create long-term environmental problems for Calle Rondo residents due to an over concentration of traffic. 4. The proposed Amendment to Tract 25389 creates environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as the proposed project will funnel La Quinta Fairways traffic onto Local Streets. 5. That there are no changes in circumstances which would make it necessary to modify Condition #9 of Resolution 91-115 for Tract 25389. A:\resopc EA398GATE EIR.wpd NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council that it deny the project on the above -stated grounds or order the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) based on the project's Initial Study (i.e., Environmental Assessment 2000- 398). PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of April, 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 AAresopc EA398GATE EIR.wpd FA 3 Environmental Checklist Form Project Title: Tract Map 25389-4/Amendment to Condition of Approval Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Greg Trousdell 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: North side of Calle Tampico, east side of Calle Rondo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: La Quinta Fairways Associates 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential/Golf Course 7. Zoning: Medium Density Residential/Golf Course 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Request to amend Condition of Approval No. 9 of Tentative Tract Map 25389 (The Fairways), to allow access for egress only to homeowners within the project to Calle Rondo. The access is currently emergency access only, as originally conditioned. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. The proposed project is surrounded on all sides by residential development. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Aesthetics Water Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality X Noise Recreation Mandatory Finds of Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 Printed Name Date For EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (General Plan I I I I X Land Use Map) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted X by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General Plan EIR, c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General X Plan Land Use Map, TPM 29613) __7d) 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)? (TPM 29613) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly X (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Figure 4 of Specific Plan) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 from X excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-41) g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan EIR, page 4-43) h) Expansive soils? (General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, p. 8-7) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: F----]:S X X a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and X amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 28 & Figure 5) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface X water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (TPM 29613) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water F7= � - - Tx-- X EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd V Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General Plan X EIR, page 4-55 ff.) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 X ff.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff. ) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (TPM 29613) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.) d) Create objectionable odors? (TPM 29613) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (RKJK Traffic Analysis, February, 2000) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm EA 00-39 8/Envi ron mental Checklist Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (RKJK Traffic Analysis, February, 2000) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (TPM 29613) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (RKJK Traffic X Analysis, February, 2000) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (RKJK Traffic Analysis, February, 2000) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, & birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit4.4-1, p. 4-69, and p. 4-71 ff.) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4- 69.) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, X EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd X. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the 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)? (TPM 29613) 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 (TPM 29613) E_ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? (TPM 29613) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or X trees? (TPM 29613) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit X 4.9-1) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan EIR, X Exhibit 4.9-1) EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan X MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 X ff.) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26) b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29) 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) I I - ---------- -1 X g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page 4- X 20) EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact (Ill. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic h ig hway? (General Plan Exhibit X CIR-5) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan X EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project Description) X KIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X Determination Study, Community Development Department) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Historical/Archaeological X Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) c) Affect historical resources? (Historical/Archaeological Resource III I X Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X impact area? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 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, X Exhibit PR-1) EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd NI. 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 X the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? KVIL 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. General Plan EIR and MEA are available at the Community Development Department at City Hall. X 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. EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-398 VI. a) The proposed amendment to Condition of Approval #9 would allow the residents of The Fairways to exit onto Calle Rondo. The egress is planned to be aligned with Calle Tujunga. Calle Rondo is classified as a Local street, with a 60 foot right-of-way and 36 to 40 foot paved width. All streets within the existing Fairways development are also classified as Local streets. The neighborhood adjacent to The Fairways is partially built out, and consists of low density single family residential units. The Fairways project, at buildout, is expected to generate approximately 2,431 trips per day. Current traffic volumes on Calle Rondo are 201 trips per day (ADT). The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed amendment estimates that with an exit only drive, there will be approximately 566 exit trips per day onto Calle Rondo, but still well within the Local Street capacity of 3,000 ADT (LOS C). Total trips on Calle Rondo would therefore double. The City's General Plan defines Local streets as': "...designed primarily to provide access to abutting properties with the movement of traffic given secondary importance." Collector streets are defined asz: "designed to facilitate both mobility and access, providing connections between local streets and arterial roadways. Collector streets generally serve shorter trips either within neighborhoods or connecting to higher level facilities..." The General Plan further states that3: "The circulation Element shall define improvements which specifically minimize the disruption of established neighborhoods..." The proposed egress onto Calle Rondo represents an over -concentration of traffic at one point onto a Local street, and is in conflict with the intended design, as specified above. The intent of the General Plan policy is to limit traffic on Local streets to that generated by a single family residence. The concentration of trips generated by over 250 residences is inappropriate and a potential significant impact on this Local street. VI. b) As discussed above, the egress as requested by the HOA is planned to align with Calle Tujunga, to create a 90 degree intersection. The design of the proposed egress is therefore not a significant impact. City of La Quinta General Plan, Policy 3-2.1.1 d). Ibid, Policy 3-2.1.1 c). Ibid, Policy 3-1.1.2 EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Incompatibility of land uses is a potential impact. The General Plan policies enumerated above require only traffic from abutting single family uses. The over - concentration of traffic flow from the egress onto Calle Rondo is not compatible with the low density character of the existing neighborhood. Egress at this location represents a potentially significant impact. X. a) & b) The proposed amendment would result in higher noise levels in a single family neighborhood. Single family neighborhoods are sensitive receptors, and should not experience exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dBA CNEI_4. Current noise levels in this neighborhood do not exceed the standards established by the General Plan'. The increase in noise levels from 426 trips distributed over a 24 hour period is not expected to represent a significant impact. The mitigation measure provided under the traffic and circulation discussion above would result in noise being increased at a Collector roadway. Although there are sensitive receptors, in the form of single family dwellings, located adjacent to this roadway, the existence of walls from surrounding developments provides added mitigation to the increase in noise levels. There would not be a significant impact to these receptors should this mitigation measure be implemented. City of La Quinta General Plan, Noise Element. City of La Quinta General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.9-1. EA 00-398/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd ATTACHMENTS sw Attachment 1 .1=IS,150101 'Al 471101-5 MIA v,!,v �o o�� G ( I IP g'h S N a � I l i i I I I ►DIE O SO GOLF COURSE s Gaye .Q J . S � Avenida iJitimo — - Q�eS QU Aolif Phase 4~ o = © ® ® J Phase 1 Phase 3 CALLS TAMPICO a w a Calle Tampico Attachment 2 - k i19at.n a � 0 LL 5 f � t t � ! 4 i t i . i NZWKI 00. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 25, 2000, CONTINUED FROM APRIL 11, 2000 CASE NOS.: 1.) TENTATIVE TRACT 29702; 2.) PARCEL MAP 29724; 3.) SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: KSL CASITAS CORPORATION AND KSL DESERT RESORTS REQUESTS: 1.) APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE 3.17 ACRES INTO 30 RESORT RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS; 2.) SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS; AND 3.) DEVELOPMENT OF A 21 SPACE PARKING LOT PLUS EIGHT ADDITIONAL SPACES. LOCATION: EAST AND WEST SIDES OF AVENIDA OBREGON, SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO, WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB GROUNDS. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PARCEL MAP, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 FOR WHICH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1997. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CHANGES PROPOSED WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC LAND USE DESIGNATION: ZONING: Tourist Commercial (RSP) TC (Tourist Commercial) p:\stan\tt 29702 pm 29724 sdp 97-607 am #1 pc rpt.wpd BACKGROUND: On September 16, 1997, SP 121-E, Amendment #4, GPA 97-054, ZC 97-083, SDP 97-607, SDP 97-608 and Tentative Tract 28545 were approved for the La Quinta Resort. The approval included a total of 119 resort homes with one parking space per bedroom on the subject site and property to the west across Avenida Obregon. 68 homes have been constructed on the west side of the street. This Tentative Tract Map resubdivides the area on the east side of Avenida Obregon for the last phase (30 homes) of the project (Attachment 1). PROJECT REQUEST: With Tentative Tract 29702, the applicant is requesting approval for 30 residential lots and miscellaneous lots to accommodate 30 resort homes with a total of 58 bedrooms requiring 58 parking spaces (Attachment 2). The previous subdivision (TT 28545) provided 29 residential lots on this portion of the site. This revised layout of this map opens the interior common areas to create larger spaces and adds one carriage resort home over a parking area (proposed Lot 21) adjacent to Avenida Obregon. The Map also eliminates 21 Resort Home parking spaces previously approved within Tentative Tract 28545-3. Parcel Map 29724 (Attachment 3) proposes to divide the 1.93 acre tennis club area on the west side of Avenida Obregon into two parcels, creating a 23' by 213' parcel (Parcel 2) along Avenida Obregon and the remaining tennis club parcel (Parcel 1). Parcel 2 is proposed to be used for parking spaces for the Resort Homes proposed by the amendment of SDP 97-607. Amendment #1 to SDP 97-607 proposes to create 21 parking spaces on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 29724 (Attachment 4). These spaces will be east of the sunken tennis court. These spaces will be 9' by 19' (including 2' overhang) perpendicular spaces with back out access to Avenida Obregon. In order to install these spaces, the existing slump block wall with brick cap and citrus trees behind the wall will be removed. One Palm tree will be removed to relocate a sidewalk. The parking area plan shows the wall being reconstructed with a three foot deep planter between it and the spaces. The plans do not indicate relocation or replanting of the trees. With the resubdivision of Tentative Tract 29702, parking spaces are being eliminated. Amendment #1 to SDP 97-607 proposes 21 spaces. Due to changes to earlier phases, eight additional spaces in close proximity to the Resort Homes are needed for compliance with the Specific Plan. The applicant has submitted a plan showing the provision of eight additional spaces (Attachment 5). PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on April 14, 2000, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the Projects. To date, one letter has been received regarding the proposed project (Attachment 6). o:\stan\tt 29702 am 29724 sdq 97-607 am #1 Dc mt.wpd PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file in the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. REQUIRED FINDINGS: The Findings needed to recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map to the City Council to provide for 30 Resort Home lots can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. The Findings needed to recommend approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to the City Council to create two parcels can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. The Findings needed to recommend approval of the Amendment to the Site Development Permit to the City Council to provide parking spaces can be made as noted in the attached Resolution, except for the finding pertaining to site design. The plan does not indicate that the trees behind the wall are to be relocated or replaced. Staff recommends that specimen size citrus trees be planted behind the new wall to replace those removed (Condition #17 of SDP 97-607, Amendment #1). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolutions 2000- , and 1. Recommending approval of Tentative Tract 29702, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval; 2. Recommending approval of Parcel Map 29724, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval; 3. Recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-607, Amendment #1, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval; respectively. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tentative Tract Map Exhibit (Large Copy for Planning Commission only) 3. Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit (Large Copy for Planning Commission only) 4. Proposed Parking Area Plan (Large Copy for Planning Commission only) 5. Plan for eight additional parking spaces (Large Copy for Planning Commission only) 6. Letter received dated April 9, 2000 p:\stan\tt 29702 pm 29724 sdp 97-607 am #1 pc rpt.wpd Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: dz"2� Christine di lorio, Plqhning Manager p:\stan\tt 29702 pm 29724 sdp 97-607 am #1 pc rpt.wpd RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF 3.17 ACRES INTO 30 RESORT RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29702 APPLICANT: KSL CASITAS CORPORATION WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11 th day of April, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued hearing on the 251h day of April, 2000, to consider the request of KSL Casitas Corporation for resubdivision of 3.17 acres into 30 resort residential lots and miscellaneous lots, and revision to the parking provisions located on the east of Avenida Obregon, approximately 350 feet south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort Homes area, more particularly described as: Lots B and C, Tract 28545-1, Lots 1-29 and Letter Lots B and C, Tract 28545-3 WHEREAS, said Map Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 97-343 for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified on September 16, 1997. No changed circumstances or changes proposed would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 29702: The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 121-E in that its amended lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the amended subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the amended Map is graded or developed and mitigation measures and conditions have been imposed. p:\stan\tt 29702 pc res.wpd Resolution 2000- Tentative Tract Map 29702 KSL Casitas Corporation April 25, 2000 3. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access to the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 29702 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of April, 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 {psi p:\stan\tt 29702 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29702 KSL CASITAS CORPORATION APRIL 25, 2000 GENERAL 1. Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting that City Conditions of Approval for development applications exist and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded against the property with the Riverside County Recorder's office. 2. Tentative Tract Map 29702 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of March 21, 2000, on file in Community Development Department) • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review and acceptance by the Public Works Department. , P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this Tentative Tract approval, Parcel Map 29724 shall be recorded and the parking lot, wall, and landscaping improvements to Parcel 2 shall be constructed per the approved Conditions of Approval for said Parcel Map and Site Development Permit 97-607, Amendment #1. 6. All applicable conditions of City Council Resolution 97-75 for Tentative Tract 28545 shall be met prior to recordation of this Map. PROPERTY RIGHTS 7. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 8. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 9. 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 unless the owners specifically agree to the proposed diminishment of access rights. 10. The applicant shall dedicate private street, parking and utility easements or rights of way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and as required by the City Engineer except as approved in a revised specific plan for the project area. P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 11. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 12. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MANS) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 13. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer", "surveyor", or "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 14. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers or landscape architects, as appropriate. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 15. 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. 16. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 17. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization 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. 18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 19. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. 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 unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 20. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, site development permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 21. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 22. 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. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 23. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 24. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. �f P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate certification document, bearing the seal and signature of a qualified engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: 27. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development or directed to an approved retention area unless otherwise approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 28. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 29. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 30. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 31. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 32. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater to off -site locations, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant and, subsequently, the applicant and the applicant's successors and assigns shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention programs and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. UTILITIES 33. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 34. All private street, parking and pedestrian improvements shall comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and current policies except as may be approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by a qualified engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. t ' i P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 38. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. QUALITY ASSURANCE 39. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 40. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 41. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 42. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 43. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 44. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 45. Final Maps under this Tentative Tract Map shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee Program in effect at the time of final map approval. FIRE MARSHAL 46. Prior to issuance recordation of final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company IL0 P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APRIL 25, 2000 with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 47. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD standard W-33 shall be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,500 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. 48. The required water system, including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 49. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum with of 28 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum of 36 feet. 50. Provide an approved means for turning around fire department apparatus at the end of Lot "C". Provide revised plans for review and approval prior to recordation. MISCELLANEOUS 51. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97-343. 52. This map shall be subject to all requirements of SP 121 E, Amendment #4, and SDP 97-607 and shall be revised if necessary prior to recordation. 53. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the applicant/developer shall demonstrate that all parking facilities required by SDP 97-607, Amendment #1 are guaranteed for a period of at least as long as the permitted use in accordance with Section 9.150.030 (B 3 a-c) of the Zoning Code. 54. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. L t7 P:\stan\tt 29702 pc coa.wpd RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29724 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 251h day of April, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts for subdivision of a 1.93 acre parcel into two parcels located on the west of Avenida Obregon, approximately 380 feet south of Avenida Fernando in the La Quinta Resort Homes area, more particularly described as: Lot 4 of Tract 28545-1 WHEREAS, said Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this Parcel Map request Is categorically exempted from environmental review pursuant to Section 15315, Class 15, by the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Parcel Map 29724: 1. The Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 121-E in that its amended lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the amended subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the amended Map is developed. 3. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban pAstan\pm 29724 pc res.wpd La Resolution 2000 - Tentative Parcel Map 29724 KSL Desert Resorts April 25, 2000 improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the amended subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access to the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 29724 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 251h day of April, 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 p:\stan\pm 29724 pc res.wpd `' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29724 KSL CASITAS CORPORATION APRIL 25, 2000 GENERAL 1. Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting that City Conditions of Approval for development applications exist and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded against the property with the Riverside County Recorder's office. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 29724 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of April 11, 2000, on file in Community Development Department) • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review and acceptance by the Public Works Department. � a) P:\stan\am 29724 Dc coa.WDd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by Tentative Tract Map 29702, Parcel Map 29724 shall be recorded and the parking lot, wall, and landscaping improvements to Parcel 2 shall be constructed per the approved Conditions of Approval for said Parcel Map and Site Development Permit 97-607, Amendment #1. PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 7. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 8. 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 unless the owners specifically agree to the proposed diminishment of access rights. 9. The applicant shall dedicate private street, parking and utility easements or rights of way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and as required by the City Engineer except as approved in a revised specific plan for the project area. 10. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. P:\stan\pm 29724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 11. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 12. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer", "surveyor", or "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers or landscape architects, as appropriate. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. P:\stan\pm 29724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 15. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 16. 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 agendization 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. 17. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, parcel map P:\stan\pm 29724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 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. 18. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of construction within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 19. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, site development permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 20. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 21. 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. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 22. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 23. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 24. A grading plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A P:\stan\pm 29724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate certification document, bearing the seal and signature of a California qualified engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: 26. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development or directed to an approved retention area unless otherwise approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 27. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 28. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 29. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 30. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. P:\stan\pm 29724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 31. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater to off -site locations, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant and, subsequently, the applicant and the applicant's successors and assigns shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention programs and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. UTILITIES 32. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 33. All private street, parking and pedestrian improvements shall comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and current policies except as may be approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. 34. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 35. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by a qualified engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 36. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: P:\stan\pm 29724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. QUALITY ASSURANCE 37. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 38. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 39. The applicant shall employ or retain California qualified engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 40. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped P:\stan\pm 29724 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL 29724 APRIL 25, 2000 and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 41. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 42. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 43. Final Maps under this Tentative Parcel Map shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee Program on effect at the time of final map approval. FIRE MARSHAL 44. Maintain the 20 foot easement and fire apparatus access turnaround between the tennis court and spa building. MISCELLANEOUS 45. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97-343. 46. This map shall be subject to all requirements of SP 121 E, Amendment #4, and SDP 97-607 and shall be revised if necessary prior to recordation. 47. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the applicant/developer shall demonstrate that all parking facilities required by SDP 97-607, Amendment #1 are guaranteed for a period of at least as long as the permitted use in accordance with Section 9.150.030 (B 3 a-c) of the Zoning Code. 48. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. r� ., 6 RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PERMIT A PARKING LOT WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25t" day of April, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts for approval of a parking lot, located on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately 380 feet south of Avenida Fernando, more particularly described as: Parcel 2 of Proposed Parcel Map 29724 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit Amendment request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" in that this Site Permit Amendment request is categorically exempted from environmental review pursuant to Section 15311, Class 1 1(b), by the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 approval of Amendment #1 to Site Development Permit 97-607: 1. The project, as amended, is consistent with the General Plan because the use is supporting the operation of the permitted resort and golf courses within the Specific Plan area. 2. The project, as amended, has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions. 3. Processing and approval of this amended project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that it is categorically exempted. 4. The architectural design of the project, as amended, is adequate and compatible materials and colors will be used in the reconstruction of the relocated wall. 5. The site design will be acceptable in that the parking lot is similar in layout to others along Avenida Obregon. S P:\stan\pc res sdp 97-607 am #1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 97-607, Amendment #1 April 25, 2000 6. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort provided the citrus trees and palm tree behind the wall are relocated or replaced as recommended.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an amendment to Site Development Permit 97-607 to the City Council; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of April, 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 P:\stan\pc res sdp 97-607 am #1.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, AMENDMENT #1 KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC. APRIL 25, 2000 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97-607, Amendment #1, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. Amendment #1 permits construction of a 21 parking space lot and eight . additional spaces on or adjacent to Avenida Obregon. 3. The approved Site Development Permit Amendment shall be used within one year of the date of approval; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit or beginning of demolition for installation of the parking. A time extension may be requested as permitted in the La Quinta Zoning Code Section 9.200.080. 4. 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. b. Final working drawings for the parking lot and additional spaces, substantially conforming to this approval, including all revisions required by the permit shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the Building and Safety Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of a demolition, 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 Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) 04 P:\STAN\sdp 97-607 am #1 Dc coa.wr)d PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, AMENDMENT #1 KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC. APRIL 25, 2000 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. 7. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition. Construction, and upon site development/operation. A) prior to issuance of a demolition/building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction/demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. 8. Site and other applicable plans shall be revised pursuant to requirements of the Historic Preservation Commission prior to issuance of first building permit for "residential specific plan" units. 9. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, and Tentative Tract 28545 and 29702, and Parcel Map 29724 shall be met. 10. Exterior walkway lighting shall be provided. Lighting to be low profile and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. FIRE MARSHAL 1 1 . Fire apparatus roads shall be provided for every building when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This requirement shall be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. Other requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be determined during the plan check process. R+ J P:\STAN\sdp 97-607 am #1 pc coa.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, AMENDMENT #1 KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC. APRIL 25, 2000 FEES 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the development impact fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. MISCELLANEOUS 15. Prior to final map approval of Tentative Tract Map 29702 by the City Council, the applicant/developer shall demonstrate that all parking facilities required by Tentative Tract Map 29702 and provided by this approval are guaranteed for a period of at least as long as the permitted use in accordance with Section 9.150.030 (B 3 a-c) of the Zoning Code. 16. Parking provided by this approval shall be to fulfil the parking requirements for Tentative Tract 29702 and Tract 28545 (Resort Homes). 17. Final landscaping and irrigation plans for the area adjacent to the new wall along Avenida Obregon shall be submitted to the Comunity Development Department for approval prior to issuance of the building permit for the wall. Landscaping to include eleven specimen (minimum 60" box size) citrus trees to replace those removed to install the parking spaces. P:\STAN\sdp 97-607 am #1 pc coa.wpd ATTACHMENT(S) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29702 ATTACH LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB CrrY OF LA QUWA Lb-r, oo, vxxmww LDT 13 TR 28f5- i F w f wa TO SI 177 i mgm OF I= a ED ED— or ASSEBSOM PARM& U7 AC. LOT mlm w MMWK m ;25 ,IM!I TFL = 11 K L r = 0 UWMM... IN c FEo9!II`III`I` a xm 1-0 A "Lar - FAIM LN L. w AM -,t un 0 UWM T UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF ;40 It" an do tm "K 2= eum L 3 4 WK 30 IMIII osm rm - M!o CmMf QV 4L= aX.Ta A646-1 w im an Dom www Pwm La Lm mom a.,= LOT- a uQm ED itiiit WAM LOT 30 TR. 28646-3 u" E 031\ rop s T Rss Rua n� TYWCAL CROW qTSAVEWA OWEGM a am 0 11 m PREPARED: MARCH 3, 2000 REVISED:MARCH 9, 2000 REVISED: MARCH 24, 2000 IM — - — ------------- - aw-- Dow -am 0 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 55-M PGA Bo.1—d (760) 564-MM IA Quinta. CA 92253 FAX (780) 664-8005 MDSmoo comsvL rija ENT 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29724ATTACH LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB cxrY OF LA QUM TRAIJ �. L4Z sue. LDT Z } - PARCH.IIAP R0. 2Ym LlJT 3 • s.d.y I VKyITY MAP Wff 10 509E 6_' 4 ilf LOTS TR. 28646 9 v - t }a s 'WT 4 _ Low= ; �{ nit9at omv , 4 r stets r. snot A L.OT A DATE PREPARED: MARCH 14. 20M ° �' a ra ;. 4 • 1R,29645-'3 3�- =--- ---- -- ---- -------- wwrttV y�_ CO Q4tORA WIRN Oa/MR 0V4M AGOVAM .. i. m�•r.l ��" I i� _ - LOT TABlLAT10N tEW CM RFE12 - _ 1 _ la iY r 0 k am"" eoa - am wiotDow rf sa IN on c wta wee m„u ww 'r -- +Rtrto.-a3mmetoR L w r soy I t 'M 2864fi-3 MAIN= uu �twemt mwu meer wpm toLK ------------ m Ell . e - amne cmme ws � f lei6e:t A m ^am m 4 u aelw v m r Ku ➢E1lgpp� 'A r f i 1r r ® DESERT RESORTS, INC. rear „� nam — 0 xt- '-'i•tml-""`� 56-920 PGA %ulevnrd (790) 594-1098 La QuWW CA 92253 FAX (780) 584-4880 • wo as S?e!Q t��,�%�J�, rtt cowtts>•iw• mvs AVE?oA TCBR6OON >� ! ■� Ram WENT ATTACHMENT 6 PHELT MASCHKA, D.D.S. NCR 10,E 9 April 2000 City of La Quinta Planning Commission Re KSL Casitas Corp. Application Item 29702 Gentlemen: This KSL project involves eliminating a parking lot for approximately 90 cars which is now fully utilized for parking. If this area is converted to 30 additional residential lots where will these cars be parked? A further concern is that the population density is being so impacted that the charm of La Quinta is largely lost. Further construction of hotel accommodations will eliminate the small amount of open space that remains. I urge the Planning Commission to consider these concerns and act in the interest of the City and it's residents rather than allow KSL to dominate the area in a drive for ever greater profits. Philip VMaschka PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 25, 2000 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-049 REQUEST: 1. RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 72,950 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER 3. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-049 FOR A SERVICE STATION LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET APPLICANT: MADISON/ P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L. C. REPRESENTATIVE: MIKE PERONI, DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES PROPERTY OWNER: LINCOLN TRUST COMPANY AND WASHINGTON CROSS DEVELOPMENT ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: County of Riverside - (CC) Community Commercial SOUTH: Community Commercial (CC) EAST: Regional Commercial WEST: Community Commercial (CC) BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Property Description The currently vacant project site, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, consists of 7.834 acres (A.P.N. 604-050-002) and 1.965 acres (a portion of A.P.N. 604-050-035) totaling 9.779 acres . The project is bounded by the Whitewater Stormwater Channel on the north, Washington Street on the east, Highway 111 on the south and a rock outcrop on the west. A portion of Highway 111 frontage has been improved with curb and gutter near Washington Street. A bus stop pull-out is located on the Highway 111 frontage. The Whitewater Stormwater Channel with concreted side borders the northern portion of the site. 1. Specific Plan The request is for approval of "Point Happy Specific Plan" establishing guidelines and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The proposed Point Happy Specific Plan is a commercial center consisting of nine building clusters designed around centralized parking. The project site will ultimately be broken into twelve development parcels with the final configuration determined with future submission of a parcel map. The uses proposed include retail, fast food, restaurant, office, bank, financial and a service station/convenience store/car wash. Each proposed building will require a site development permit and the proposed uses may move or change location among the development pads at time a site development review permit is processed subject to the total parking provided for the commercial center. In addition, each building pad size may be modified subject to the total parking provided for the commercial center. The following table identifies building square footage for the twelve areas for development in the proposed Specific Plan. POINT HAPPY SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY Parcel Proposed Use Proposed Building(s) Square Footage (used to calculate required ap rkina) 1. Fast Food 2,500 2. Restaurant 3,450 N 3. Restaurant 9,000 4. Restaurant/Office/Retail 7,000 5. Bank/Financial 5,500 6. Fast Food 2,300 7. Service station/ convenience store/car wash 3,100 8. Office 10,000 9. Office 9,000 10. Office 4,000 11. Retail 8,000 12. Retail 9,100 TOTAL 72,950 The applicant intends to construct the project in two phases. The first phase will include site grading, parking lot, key driveway improvements, landscaping, and infrastructure improvements. The second phase will include structure improvements for each building area subject to the Site Development Review process. Access to the site is taken from three locations: one at the northeast corner of the site on Washington Street at an existing signal; two entries are located on Highway 111 at an existing signal on the southwest corner of the site, and the third entry is at the middle of the site with right in and right out access only. The main internal access corridor for the site runs between the two signalized intersections. A secondary internal access corridor is provided from Highway 111 into the center of the project. Adequate vehicle stacking for vehicles leaving and entering is provided at each entry allowing traffic flow on Washington Street and Highway 111. Pedestrian access is provided along both Highway 111 and Washington Street frontages. A new bus stop shelter meeting the City of La Quinta design requirements is provided at the existing bus pull-out on Highway 111 connecting to the pedestrian walkways. Interior parking lot aisles and access drives are provided throughout the site serving the future building pads. There are 379 parking spaces provided and 379 spaces are established as the performance criteria for total building size square footage allowed on the site. Development Standards In general, project development standards meet or enhance Zoning Code requirements. Maximum structure height proposed is 36 feet and limited to 22 feet within 150 feet of Highway 111 and Washington Street; Zoning Code would allow 40 feet for the entire project. Maximum number of stories proposed is two, Zoning 3 Code would allow three. Interior Parking Lot landscaping proposed is 5.7% of the net project area; Zoning Code requires 5.0%. Non -parking area landscaping proposed is 6.0%; Zoning Code requires 5.0%. All additional development standards are consistent with Zoning Code requirements including Floor Area Ratio, landscape setbacks, building setbacks (subject to the previously identified height limitations), required parking spaces and permitted uses. • -•U M..• • The conceptual grading plan shows pad height elevations for each parcel varying by eight feet (from 81 feet to 89 feet) This will require approximately 103,000 cubic yards of earthwork. Excavation of the rock outcrop (Attachment 1) will be required on the southwest portion of the site to allow a driveway extension to the traffic signal on Highway 111. The drive is elevated near Highway 111 and therefore reduces the required cut in this location. Excavation will be approximately 320 feet from Highway 111 extending to the north into the project site. There is an accumulation of debris at the base of the incised rock face along the western project boundary. The proposed horizontal excavation ranges from daylight to approximately 30 feet where there is an identifiable break between the rock face and alluvial debris at its base. The maximum horizontal excavation when measured from the outer limits of the debris slope varies from daylight to approximately 85 feet. The overall site grading will "fill" in adjacent to areas located below the access drive. The vertical distance of cut ranges from daylight to approximately 40 feet. A retaining wall as needed will be provided along portions of the excavated and graded area. UNUMORTAMEMMS&MIMCMCttiT� The proposed design guidelines use a illustrative of a Colonial Spanish style and is characterized by hipped and gabled 'flat clay" the roofs; flat roofs with ornate cornice details; deep set multipaned windows; and colonial details such as shutters and wrought iron rails and smooth plaster exterior walls. The Specific Plan exhibit "Illustrative Architecture Detail" is a guideline for future buildings and does not depict a specific building. Allowed materials and colors (base and accent ) are designated by manufacturer's specifications. The Landscape Concept Plan provides a visual layout of street, building and parking lot landscaping with conceptual drawings and details of landscape treatment for a typical building elevation, entryways, parking and street frontages . Landscaping guidelines identify a pallette of plant material for shrubs, groundcover, and trees for Highway 111, Washington Street, Parking lot(s) and buildings. Ground cover material are to enhance the appearance of the project, protect soils from erosion and used to 0 screen undesirable areas such as trash enclosures. Water efficient landscaping materials, including native plants are suggested where possible. R • ' • • _ t1 The proposed sign program allows each business to have a wall sign within their store front width compatible with exterior building colors, material, and finishes. Signs will be required to have individual illuminated letters with a channel metal return with 3/4 inch trim cap. "In -line shops" will be required to use letter sizes of 9" to a maximum of 16" in one line of copy; Freestanding pads will be required to use letter sizes of 18" to a maximum of 24" in one line of copy. If double line copy is necessary for "In -line shops" and freestanding pads the total height is not to exceed 25" or 10" character/letter height, double line. Sign lengths are not exceed 80% of the leasehold business frontage width and/or 50 square feet. Non -illuminated awning and canopy signs will be allowed with limitations on locations and size. One main and three secondary monument signs are proposed. Each monument sign will be eight feet in height with 13" "Point Happy" script. The main monument sign is located at corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street and serves project identification. Two secondary monument signs are located at each of the vehicular access points and serves as business marquee identification for three major tenets. A separate secondary monument sign will allowed at the service station site subject to a separate sign application. Exterior Parking Lot Lighting Plan Exterior lighting for the parking lot consists of 33 steel pole mounted light standards, mounted at twenty one and one half (21.5) feet in height (a 20 foot pole with a 2.5 foot base) The lights are high pressure sodium shoe boxes which illuminate in all parking areas. 2. Conditional Use Permit The applicant is also requesting approval of the required Conditional Use Permit for a Service Station use. The project consists of a maximum building 3,100 square footage containing a service station/food mart with pump island bays under a canopy. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment 98-357 for the project. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 5 The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public agencies on February 25, 2000, requesting comments returned by March 17, 2000. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on April 3, 2000. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. All findings can be made that the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Code. There are no issues. Specific Plans are designed to allow flexibility for future development of the property. Proposed development in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the Specific Plan, as conditioned, will provide the unique environment within the planned commercial development "Point Happy". The proposed development standards reflect high quality development. The proposed site planning, conceptual architectural designs, landscape guidelines, and sign program for commercial development at Point Happy are consistent with or enhance current Zoning Code requirements and all structure development is subject to further review under a Site Development Permit. The proposed grading plan and excavation of the rock outcrop is essential for site access. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2000-043) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending approval of pont Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit to ATTACHMENTS 1 . Digital photo enhancements of rock excavation Prepared by: -mod Baker, Principal Planner Submitted by: Ji L Christine di lorio, Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-049 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of April, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Specific Plan 2000-043 and Conditional Use Permit 2000-049 herein referred to as the "Project"; and, WHEREAS, said Project 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 2000-395); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. A:\PC.Reso. EA. SP2000-043.wpd 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Environmental Assessment 2000-395 April 25, 2000 3. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 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 2000-395 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 25th day of April, 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 A:\PC.Reso.EA.SP2000-043.wpd 2 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Point Happy Specific Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Madison Development 938 North Mountain Avenue Ontario, CA 91762 6. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial/Non-residential Overlay 7. Zoning: Community Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Specific Plan establishing development standards for a 9.8t acre site. The project will include 12 individual lots, with project buildout expected to include a gas station, restaurants, general retail space and office space. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. The site is bordered on the north by the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, on the west by steep hillside, on the south by the Vons Shopping Center, and on the east by the Albertson's/WalMart project. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Aesthetics Water I Hazards X1 Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation Mandatory Finds of Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 Christine di lorio Printed Name Date City of La Quinta For P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier anaylses 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) agencies are free to use different ones. This is only a suggested form, and lead P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd 3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (General Plan X Land Use Map) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted X by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General Plan c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General X Plan Land Use Map, Figure 4, Figure 4 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)? (Figure 2 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 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Figure 4 of Specific Plan) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts inv6ving: a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 from X excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-41) g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan EIR, page 4-43) X h) Expansive soils? (General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43) X i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7, X Specific Plan text) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and X amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 28 & Figure 5) 1 J b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Specific Plan document, p. 28) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Specific Plan document, p. 28) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water I I I I X P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd V. M Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 Plan X EIR, page 4-55 ff.) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 X ff.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Project Description, X Specific Plan document) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any X change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.) d) Create objectionable odors? (Project Description, Specific Plan X document) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Wildan, letter X report dated February 16, 2000) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Wildan, letter report dated February 16, 2000) P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Specific Plan Land Use Plan) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan X Land Use Plan) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific Plan X Land Use Plan) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Exhibit 5) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) X s 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 Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4- 69.) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corrddors? (General Plan EIR, X page 4-71 ff.) P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposa0 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 X hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Specific Plan Project Description) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit X 4.9-1) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan EIR, X Exhibit 4.9-1) P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd XI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan X MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 X ff. ) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26) b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page 4- X 20) PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?(General Plan Exhibit X CIR-5) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan X EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project Description) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X Determination Study, Community Development Department) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Historical/Archaeological X Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) c) Affect historical resources? (Historical/Archaeological Resource X Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X impact area? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 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, X Exhibit PR-1) P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd 10 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 X the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER Anaylsis. Earlier anaylses 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 anaylsis used. Identify earlier anaylsis and state where they are available for review. General Plan EIR and MEA are available at the Community Development Department at City Hall. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd 11 Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 00-395 Ill.a),b) & c) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed Specific Plan is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, immediately south of an inferred and inactive fault. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a less than significant level. Ill.f) Construction of the proposed project will have the potential to create unstable soil conditions during earth moving activities. At such time as any phase of the project is proposed for development, the project proponent will be required to submit soils analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. The recommendations contained in this study will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of insignificance. III. g) & h) The proposed project does not occur in an area susceptible to subsidence or expansive soils. The potential for ground subsidence during a seismic event is considered to be low at the site'. In addition, the provisions of item Ill.f), above, will ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. IV.a) & b) Construction of the proposed project will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff, as well as degrade the quality of such runoff. Leakage from automobiles onto parking lots can cause water pollution. It is not expected that the quantity of leakage at the project site will represent a significant impact. IV. c) & d The Specific Plan area is part of the Lake La Quinta Master Drainage Plan, previously approved for this area. The proposed project will direct flows to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and discharge surface water into this Channel. The channel is under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The project proponent will be required to meet the standards of CVWD in order to discharge into the channel. These standards assure that contaminants in the water are eliminated prior to their entering the channel. The impacts of discharge into surface waters is therefore not expected to be significant. IV. f), g),h) & i) The proposed project will result in the construction of retail and office development, in conformance with the City's General Plan Community Commercial designation. As such, the potential impacts of the project were previously analyzed under the 1992 General Plan EIR. Impacts to water resources were determined at that time to be mitigated for Geotechnical Engineering and Limited Geologic Report, Earth Systems Consultants, March 8, 1999. P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd 12 development at the proposed project site. The City also implements water conserving and water protection measures. Such measures shall reduce the potential impacts to groundwater quality and quantity to a less than significant level. V. a) & b) The implementation of commercial land uses on the project site was analysed under the 1992 General Plan EIR. City-wide, impacts to air quality are expected to continue as buildout occurs. Improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future have the potential to reduce impacts. The City determined at the time of certification of the General Plan EIR that air quality impacts required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined, as regarded air quality, that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulative only when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its boundaries. The implementation of the proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have a significant impact on air quality resources. VI. a) &b) 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 proposed project will take access from three points: a signalized driveway extending Channel Drive on Washington Street; a right in/right out access at the mid -point of the project along Highway 111; and a signalized intersection at the western property boundary, extending Plaza La Quinta on Highway 111. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 6,085 daily trips, of which 305 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 575 during the evening peak hour (these numbers reflect a pass -by trip reduction typical for retail commercial centers). At project buildout plus five years, all intersections in the project area are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The type of development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of the City's General Plan in 1992, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into that analysis. The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) controls access on Highway 111, designated a state Highway. CalTrans will require that the access from the westerly drive into and out of the proposed project be aligned to the existing Plaza La Quinta intersection'. CalTrans will be responsible for approving final design of this intersection. In order to assure safe ingress and egress at this intersection, all such improvements shall be complete to the satisfaction of both the City Engineer and CalTrans prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit for the proposed project. 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. Traffic Study for "Highway 111 and Washington Retail Center," Wildan, February 16, 2000. California Department of Transportation, Vetter dated March 15, 2000. P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd 13 VII. a) & b) The site has been highly impacted by roadway construction on its east and south boundary, billboard installation, and use by off road vehicles. Its value as viable habitat has therefore been significantly reduced. In addition, the site is isolated by the above - referenced roadways, the occurrence of the Stormwater Channel, and the rock outcropping at Point Happy. The site occurs outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts to biological resources on the site are not expected to be significant. lX. a), c) & d) The proposed Specific Plan includes the location of a gasoline service station in the southwestern portion of the project site. Such service stations store and dispense hazardous materials which have the potential to explode. Service stations are highly regulated, however, and are required to implement technological safety measures in both their construction and operation. The implementation of these safety measures will adequately reduce the potential impacts of the service station to less than significant levels. X. a) & b) The Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection is an impacted area for noise levels, based on analysis performed for the General Plan EIR. The proposed project, however, is not considered a sensitive receptor, and must meet a exterior noise level of 75 d6A CNEL. No sensitive receptors occur adjacent to the project site. No discussion of outdoor dining is included in the project Specific Plan. Should outdoor dining be proposed for the project site, the proponent shall be required to demonstrate that noise levels will not exceed 75 d6A CNEL in the outdoor dining area. Such analysis shall be completed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impacts of noise to a less than significant level. XI. All public services were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992 General Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant impact to public services is expected from the proposed project. XII. All utilities were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992 General Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant impact to utilities is expected from the proposed project. Xlll. The proposed project occurs along the Highway 11 and Washington Street corridors, designated Primary Image Corridors in the General Plan. The City has established standards for structural setbacks within such corridors, which will be met by the proposed project. The project proponent will be required to implement the Highway 111 Design Theme to connect the project site to other projects along this corridor. No significant impacts are expected to result from the project to the aesthetic environment. P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd 14 XIV. An archaeological and historic resource analysis was performed for the project site 4. Previous investigations had also been conducted in 1989 and 1990. The 1989 and 1990 on -site investigations identified and recorded two potential archaeological sites on the project site. Historic investigations on the project site in conjunction with the current archaeological investigation identified a historic component to one of the previously identified archaeological sites. The current investigation also identified a new archaeological site, east of the known site. The investigation resulted in a recommendation that further site testing be performed on CA-RIV-3659/H. This recommendation was confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The following mitigation measures shall be required of the project proponent: A Phase II site investigation of CA-RIV-3659/H shall be performed, meeting the standards of the City of La Quinta. A final report shall be provided to the Historic Preservation Commission for its review and approval prior to issuance of the first building permit. 2. Artifacts visible at CA-RIV-6385 shall be collected. 3. An archaeological monitor shall be on -site during all grubbing, excavation and grading activities on the site. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts on cultural resources to a less than significant level. "Historical/Archaeological Resource Report," CRM Tech, December 21, 1999. PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 72,950 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043 MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of April, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider, a 72,950 square foot commercial development consisting of a mixture of retail, office and restaurant uses on 9.779 acres, generally bounded by; Washington Street, Highway 111, and a CVWD Storm Water Channel. The project area is located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: APN: 604-050-002 and a portion of 604-050-035 WHEREAS, said Specific Plan 2000-043 has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA 2000-395), and determined that the Specific Plan will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan: 1. That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. 2. That the proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses and circulation will require Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions Planning Commission Resolution 2000- of approval. 2. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation. 2. That the proposed Specific Plan is conceptual; further review will be required under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be attached to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 2000- 395, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development City of La Quinta, California A:\PC.Reso.SP2000-043.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043 APRIL 25, 2000 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of 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) • Caltrans • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the 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. 3. This development shall be subject to the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of permit approval. A: \PC . C OA. SP2000-043.wpd PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. 5. The applicant may be required by Caltrans to furnish additional Highway 111 right of way to accommodate the proposed bus turnout and dedicated right -turn -in lane. If so, the right of way shall be deeded to the City in fee simple. 6. If the applicant cannot obtain permission from CVWD for location of the bikepath (required below) within the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall grant an easement across the north end of this property for that purpose. 7. The applicant shall dedicate or deed cross -access easements to all private lots or parcels existing or created on this property. The easements shall cover all parking and circulation areas and routes within the development. 8. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows: A. Highway 1 1 1 - 50 feet. B. Washington Street - 20 feet. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 9. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures. 10. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage except access points described herein. 11. 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. 12. Prior to placement of any privately -owned buildings or other costly structures in the City's drainage easement along Washington Street, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for that purpose. The permit will require that in the event the City finds it necessary to construct, reconstruct or maintain facilities therein, the applicant shall indemnify the City from expenses exceeding those which would have been incurred with hardscape or landscaping. A: \PC . C OA. SP2000-043.wpd IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & 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. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 15. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans for any public street improvements on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 16. 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 construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. A:\PC.COA.SP2000-043.wpd In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City after the date of approval of the original conditions of approval for this property, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 17. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map, or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 19. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., access drives, traffic signal improvements & perimeter landscaping) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 20. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 21. 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:\PC.COA.SP2000-043.wpd 22. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 25. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 26. If the applicant does not discharge stormwater to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, stormwater shall be retained on -site and disposed of in facilities approved by the Clty Engineer. 27. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in facilities approved by the City Engineer. UTILITIES 28. 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, A:\PC. COA.SP2000-043.wpd but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 29. 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. 30. 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 31. 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 AND BIKEPATH 1) Highway 1 1 1 - Complete construction of north side of the street. Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bikepath. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at the west access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection. 2) Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bike path. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at the north access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection. 3) Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel - Construct eight -foot bikepath along the top bank of the channel from Washington Street to the west end of this development. If the applicant is unable to obtain permission from CVWD for placement of this improvement, the bikepath shall be constructed on the applicant's property and the applicant shall grant an appropriate easement to the City. 32. 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). 33. 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. A:\PC.COA.SP2000-043.wpd 34. 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" 35. 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. 36. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Highway 111 1) Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the southwest corner of this property. 2) Right-in/Right-out drive centered approximately 435 feet east of the centerline of the westerly drive. B. Washington Street 1) Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the northeast corner of this property. LANDSCAPING 37. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in landscape setbacks and in on -site areas as designated in the landscape plan for this Specific Plan. 38. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the A: \PC. C OA. SP2000-043.wpd 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. 39. 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 40. The applicant shall provide an improved bus turnout and shelter on Hwy. 1 1 1 as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 41. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvements constructed within City or Caltrans' right of way. 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 45. 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS 46. 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. A:\PC.COA.SP2000-043.wpd FIRE MARSHAL 48. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the water district, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. 49. Automatic fire sprinklers providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with La Quinta City Ordinance 8.08.090. 50. All interior fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width and ab unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. Any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of any building shall be located within 150 feet from apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. MISCELLANEOUS 51. The final Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated in the Final Specific Plan document. Applicant shall work with staff to correct internal document inconsistencies prior to final publication of Specific Plan document. 52. Applicant will provide an acceptable treatment of the exposed rock outcrop to return it to the appearance of the adjacent uncut rock. A:\PC.COA.SP2000-043.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO ALLOW OF AN AUTO SERVICE STATION AND A CAR WASH CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-049 MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25T" day of April, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit 2000-049, to allow a service station with service bay canopy generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: APN: 604-050-002 and a portion of 604-050-035 WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit 2000-049 has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA 2000-395), and determined that the Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Conditional Use Permit 2000-049: 1. That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. 2. The proposed commercial building and car wash are consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Specific Plan as conditioned, supplement, replace, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. AAPC.Reso.CUP2000-049.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- 3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or incompatible with surrounding properties. The adjacent properties are designated and zoned for commercial use and the site is located at the intersection of two Arterial roadways, which commonly attracts automotive -based commercial uses. The conditional uses proposed are a consistent representation of the uses which would be proposed for surrounding sites. The adverse impact of the project will be mitigated to an acceptable level and generally in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance with a soft lighting design which includes limiting the height, direction and wattage of the lights fixtures, shielding the light fixtures, and limiting the hours of night operation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above -described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman, City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC.Reso.CUP2000-049.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-049 APRIL 25, 2000 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Lighting Improvements for the canopy structure shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the Community Development Director. Applicant agrees to limit the lighting of the service bay canopy by minimizing the number of luminaries for the ceiling of the service bay canopy structure and, 2) to recessing said luminaries into the ceiling of the service bay canopy to reduce lighting and glare levels. 2. Any and all exterior lighting modifications are to be approved by the Planning Commission as an Amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. MISCELLANEOUS 3. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. 4. Service Station fueling and/or refueling of the 15,000 gallon tanks shall occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. COATC.CUP97-036 La f\'71► Q w� C�MOF C19 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 18, 2000 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH Attached please find a copy of the Community Development Report which outlines the current cases processed by staff for the month of March. 1 AMonthly Department Report.wpd H Z W H a a W Z W E CL W LU cl i' Z D U 0) "a c c a) :t a) > -0 ca o a) 0 Q) '}75 uw a• c c n — o 0 4- Q c c CD p U , 0 0 p O U U L , � +,;t 000 0 0 O 000 > ?� O O O 000 000 co ° `00 00 t, a a) N N N +, > M F �- CO , 00 V)-0 C VL 0 a) V- r N V- r- 0� NN Mgt Md 1 o UJJ N M d E a) o •�UU UUU a) M i , ++ U) C) +J 0 U) ca 0 c �} O E 0 ca c F f- O ca w`-- Q ++ CO e-- N 7 m CDO C a. Q a) � a) � (n � I- � a) 0 �i Co e- M to �- ° co m 0 C a) a) c U) ], to N O 0) o C° p ` C O N O L 4F O Q O -p C 0) �. to i C LL }' U a) 4- C C a) —_ ca C C a) a) N a) a o v > c (n 4- D °) ° c E w c`a N = cn + % co c o —_ > a) ca ca c E +� 0 E -o -C t° cca '*- CD ai + o -° ca rn ca T E U o a) ca ca ° ?' c —� CD o }c—, a) CL ca +, am E co c '� cn Ep M f° O a) d cn N C`. +' c N N E o � u 0 N N' N C C U) C) 0 C co a) E O cn .� p p a) 00 ca a) CL �+- a) m cm co a) -0 C O U) fl Q is E' a. cn -0 N -0 a c N O — o > .�- Q C ca C co cn O N +� O N co > CN N a a) o U N +L+ a) U C O• N cu r" O a) 3 O E° Q 'D >• C O D cn ca � fl v- ' t4 �` E a) C E M a) ~ is p `- `- '� O N s +' n. N O° V-- N E Q +'= Co CD L Ct) U "O > O O7 0` C ca N °) a M p ca ° c -- 0 +� a m .,_ o CU ca CD 0 0 C a t� a) •� o tm w -0 >' > '0 t_C: L 0 a" a 00 s c C7 0 0 -O00 N E L a) W c0 O = C cc 07 cc r- -0 CL -0 �a CL +"' 0 ca 0 0 v Q' 4 O U) v Q a) +T' o Cj >- E co CL E f° O Q N E w C '++ C y O co U N c a) p 0 `- a a) 0 7 Q ca cn 0 c U) C D cn = O E co 0 O C -0 0= `+- O d — .1 a) a) 0 c`a o E — cn ca �, aci o +, 'o 0 +, > o ° J o N -0 M .0 ca 0 ►O o O O cn .0 0 o o o n O O N O .� 1 aE0cLDE a) 03 0•a)Eaca a�°-o° 6cca �E —o 0 0 m a a a) c o 0 0 a) c a) c— a) ca CC �+`- ca 0 — CA Q + ca Q fr ►� cn CC OC J . ca U DC cn a. OC �«- Q U) a) 0 • +J Cn � a C" o rn cn m Lo 0. off= It 00 _ > rn rn 1 c 'C? a o?S CD cn U) U) > Ln ca a) 3 N c c0 n ri °� - oC O o c° � c° p� c rU Lr)o ca O NO C� 0 �) >• O — 0 CO O CL n 00 > N o) N aQ.. N 'c F- a) n- d 0 I-- 0 U C7 0 U) (n v 0 0 nQ a Q Q O 0 M ULo cM < > O a Q Q co N_ cM a LO N_ N_ �t Lo (LU a) 0) > O o L a- a Q Q Q d- r- .- N M M (LU (+r) N cD to CD CLv r- .-- QCL r- r- d <CL N CN (0r- d aU 4- 0 0 L ++ + a) ca J C O+ D O) O C C L- 0 cn o 0 - 4' -C 0 a) 0) co 0 -1 c O O t6 c0 C N Co O 0 ++ Co +'C,., C O_ O = 0 0 CL a N O N O 'O M o .- O N F, > C [O Cl) O O O i' C O L U c0 'O C 0 LO O 0 C .> .D U r- O U O Q -0 +- .� +� ca O a) *' N U U p co r O coo m+1 Co � .. N 0 > co — cn M► _ E - p "aca �- 0 C .r — C L 0 C p O U U O cd w c. cB +' C a C OL o C +� U O O 0 4-0 0 ` 0 co 0 a+' O ca o +J O O m J U U) M U ca S O UN O C C O) L. >, _ cn ++ C c6 0 L � Q + to N� +- 0 6 ip N N 'M U a V C N Q �' p U to — C O '0 In U +� C` 0 0 0 O 0 , � a) 'a � a) C 0 0 � U ,_ >, N m 2i co L. O O 0 c 0 .� E E 0 c _ 'a_ O Cow L E O 'a O O U .- c tL Q O Q cpn O (0 O N 0 U Q � > Q a• C C L ca 0 co }. C U) > O ►C O O >U U O U,� �- . O 00 O p co �Ua_ O D'_' C O .� O E 0 ++ .0 C a) >, CD U o aD tM O "O > y-• c0 y .+_+ d 0 tLf E D- p O N 'O +, U +� ;� cn 'p 0 .0 N O S .a) 0 O U "w ;� 4" C D CO p 0 O E O O O O E 0 , C 0 •0 U = CO C J D O U N _ L E O N O C N cu +�+ U O (n U 06 .0 > U O E "O O 0 0 L > 0 > M .�' O O 4L O > O cB U 0� 0 . � 0 C > ` 0 �+ C U >, .� C C O` CO to CL U O C 0 � N O O O +0-+ L w >� � a p) 0 U C- >� 'p M Q m m` p Q 'O M tD Q C Q a) U O C a) 4- O N 0 ca a) - 0 U co U) •+� O> L m 0 0 N 0 O +, O O O O �O O _ a CL LO O +, 0 0 0 >. 0 C 0 0 'N 0 > N 'v 0 ?' O ` O +J a) r- C 0 w +� +, o= c L m �, N � o f L �O o_ a, Q +� c Q r- o a a) CD ' p 0� Op ca W 'X a) O -� N 0 Q 0` w Q .0 U U aa)) cr- M cC ED in � � 0 cc � cn c oc 4- U Q Q d cC rn �' a. � _ W J U a) > m o 0 Q O LO C O N c M Y U S cC U N ` 0 N 00 CD 0 n S CD 0 0 O C cc Li] Q ,� n U I F- aci cn w U cD M >C ca cD U (D I� Q C) o o CD CD � CD C„) r- It ,^ o U 0 E O O 0' ca J J O to O 'J O LO O O O O M N N O 1 ca N N CD N N tD +, O a. N C Q Q N 4. C_ N C_ 0 a a. 0 :3 Of— F— CJ tn f— to N 0 N S C7 I— cn cn tn H f�7 a a 0 LO r. 0 � co ca N r O r- ` U U-) LC) Lf J U U U U U Q a. n. U a. U o -C o m t CD = ,- C � N c0 0 C +� ° L w +- N O C)- rr ° 'O CO o) C ` co �U` aMNC c O Cc C N CO d � U 00 C co CD C N co N I' 0 C-+ cl)C C C J O � O •a L C � 0 0 C Cl)_ o O .0 c c0 CO O +r N N O O� +O C co U O O C °°` Len > O (n 0 Ucu CL O Q'� C ° o m n "- co .- a) V) -0 ,�- a) rn O O L N C > C C C7 o > a)C _0 .° °_4>� o �p .6 CO 0U > Nj OU)C U 'O co CL O a. m CL c O Q. co ... C >cc U) CD N co co N a) O L .0 cc O . U 4— ` ° N E ° �O O C 4- M >cc �Z m > �_ U) U) CO O o O O` C U O Co C CL +-' a) CL a o ._ a Q o co ° a> a ►- °° o Q D. (7 Q co Q U)= 4- C i— co N t 00 ° r U d" 0 O E NUJ 0 N 0 J E--:ttEn OQ co N ate+ o = C C7 N E ;Q� U a o a'o roc° o� o 0 O u) O 00+, O M ca cV a) p O D -o CL N O � p o Rypv� M0 O LI) pp a. cA Y U) N LL. f� I F- 0 CL LU ix D {j V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'a o 0 N C` O 0 y O 0 dU 3 V CD CD CD � O O t%� +o' N e= CD e= ' ems- co to �- d CV) to d W y a o \ o0o 0 oho o ° o 0 0 E O O Ln T- d O I� e- N e- N O 00 Ln m O 0 O U 0 o as E E o 0 0 ° ° O Ln o 0 Ln co Ln o 0 o U u co Ln 0 N O yo O O G O o '0C• O p O Cf O •`• C E O M tM O Ln C. W CD 'o O CL O 0 "a C. 00 d m a r 0) w m M O O M N 0 U Q N co a/r to yr .0 N � W y to V 0� � C O cc v' O 01 a1 ONl I" � C J Y V CL N A CL CD G1 = N CDO 10 Cc V cO 0L C r y. o m° aci c •• 'a Q c � a cn o ° ` W o co m � +; m c 7 = v 0 E �y +' o ai U o +• CL CL o c o c CL _ o d IL U CL cn N CW y0., yo.. 40.. C G7 al w0- ix = m d co ac cc oc n a'i (n aci W a o U U n o c Lol a +% ta Q CL O V C c aLOi H H Lt'YL� OC ! OM 3 O LL o cy m 0c CL M d �CL 2 CL 0 cccaE= 0 a I�