Loading...
2000 05 09 PCT4ht 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 May 9, 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 2000-025 Beginning Minute Motion 2000-010 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on April 25, 2000 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA LTA VI. LTJI PUBLIC HEARINGS: Item ................. SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT #2 ANC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-002, AMENDMENT #2 Applicant .......... Stamko Development Company, Dodge City, Torre Nissan and Mazda Superstore Location ........... The south side of Highway 1 1 1 between Adams Street anc Dune Palms Road. Request ............ Recommend approval of "The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Amendment modifying the sign regulations, allowinc car display racks, and other minor changes; anc recommendation for approval of the Developmern Agreement Amendment. Action ............... Resolution 2000- , Resolution 2000- Item.................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-391, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-066, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAF 29563 Applicant.......... Century -Crowell Communities Location........... North side of Westward Ho Drive, west of Dune Palm: Road. Request............ Recommend certification of a Mitigated NegativE Declaration of Environmental Impact, recommend approva of an amendment to reduce cul-de-sac bulb radio: dimensions for private streets from 45 feet to 38 feet anc a tract map allowing 30 single family and other commor lots on 7.65 acres. Action .............. Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- Resolutior 2000- BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item .................. MASTER DESIGN GUIDLINES 2000-010 Applicant.......... Sunrose Corporation Location........... Throughout the Cove area of the City. Request............ Approval of the Master Design Guidelines as submitted Action .............. Minute Motion 2000- CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Discussion regarding summer meeting schedule. A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of May 2, 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 25, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Robert Tyler, Steve Robbins, and Chairman Kirk. 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. Peter Rodholm, 56-640 Calle Paloma, applauded the Commission on the Washington Street Bridge widening project. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 11, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 1, under Public Comment, be amended to state ".....8 condos with CC&R's....." and "The developers are proposing.....". There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tract 25389. Amendment #2; a request of La Quinta Fairways Homeowners' Association for approval to modify Condition #9 of City Council Resolution 91-1 15 to expand an "Emergency Only" access to allow a resident exit access form La Quinta Fairways onto Calle Rondo, located on the east side of Calle Rondo, north of Avenida Tujunga. CAMv Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-25-20.wpd 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the 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. Staff clarified that consideration of a gate on Calle Tampico would require a new tract map application. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the location of the proposed emergency gate. Staff stated it would be opposite the intersection of Calle Rondo and Avenida Tujunga. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Saundra Hawk, 78-770 Spyglass Hill Drive, President of the Fairways Homeowners' Association (HOA), stated their reasons for the "exit only" gate. She clarified there would be two gates, the required emergency only and a "exit only" gate. The exit only gate would be a single sliding unit, operated by magnetically triggered embedded lopes located in the interior street. Spikes installed to prevent entry. The driveway will be designed so that upon exiting, drivers will have to stop and go left to Calle Tampico. As to the landscaping on Calle Rondo, it was conditioned by City Council Resolution 91-1 15, Condition #4, to be completed during Phase IV. RJT has just started Phase IV and the landscape architect is working on the design. Upon approval by CVWD and the City, the irrigation and landscape planting will begin. There concern is that with 99 homes one gate has been sufficient, but with the buildout of 254, it will not. Precedent was set by the City when permission was granted to Parc La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta allowing each development an additional entrance/exit onto Sagebrush, a public residential street with 17 homes. If they are to believe that City Council Resolution 91-1 15, which states the conditions of approval for La Quinta Fairways, then it would seem the residents of La Quinta and in particular the homeowners of Desert Club have long reaped the benefits from the presence of La Quinta Fairways. The original developer was responsible for an eight foot sidewalk and bikeway on the north side of Calle Tampico from Washington Street to Park Avenue and the west side of Park Avenue, plus the street improvements that were imposed. The General Plan has not been revised since 1982 and needs to be brought up to date with reality and meet the needs of all the citizens, not just a select few. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 4. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 56-640 Calle Paloma, stated he opposes the gate. Most of the residents from the La Quinta Fairways are affluent and would be traveling toward the Ralph's Shopping Center or Palm Desert area and with that in mind, he addressed some of the comments made in the traffic study. Assuming that the numbers generated were correct, the trip distribution depicts 35% exiting the second gate. Examining the site plan, this appears to be low and should be 45%. This would increase the volume an additional 10% or 240 trips per day. The trip distribution exhibit depicts 35% exiting the second gate to be further divided into 30% on Calle Rondo, 3% on Calle Quito, and 2% on Calle Paloma. These numbers should be modified to 20%, 10%, and 5% respectively. The existing volume on Calle Rondo is 201 vehicles per day. Assuming the traffic generation numbers are correct, the new gate will add 365 trips or a 180% increase over the existing volume. The City's criteria for a residential street is 300 vehicles per day, which equates to 313 per hour during peak hours, or an average of 5 cars per minute. This volume does appear to be excessive given the type of neighborhood that exists on Calle Rondo which is a low density area. La Quinta Fairways is a medium density area. Therefore, the numbers are esqued, based on the numbers in this report traffic coming out of the gate would be tremendous compared to what is currently coming out of this neighborhood. If it were reversed, La Quinta Fairways residents would not be happy either. A medium density residential neighborhood to a low density residential area is not appropriate. The staff report, in the Environmental Assessment states, "The proposed egress to Calle Rondo represents an over concentration of traffic at one point onto a local street that is in conflict with the intended designed and specified above. The intent of the General Plan 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. 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" It is his hope the Planning Commission will find to keep it as originally approved. (::\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 5. Chairman Kirk noted that two petitions had been received from each of the opposing sides. 6. Mr. John Dangleis, 78-775 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated he has been living in La Quinta for about 20 months. The existing gate is satisfactory at the moment, but as the City is growing, it will not be. The staff report states the current traffic volume on Calle Rondo are 201 trips per day. By staff's estimates these numbers would double. To double this number is nothing and the 566 exit trips added per day by the exit gate would still be within the local street capacity of 3,000 average daily trips. The only impact would be Calle Rondo and he would question the impact to any of the other streets. The problem is that La Quinta Fairways is an impacted area and the cars need to get out and the one access gate will never be adequate. The suggestion of constructing a gate on Calle Tampico is lost as there are homes there now. Also, the entry would be too close to where Calle Tampico joins Park Avenue that it would be dangerous. The logical gate is Calle Rondo with a left turn only, as it will be a minimal use. There is no reason to enter any of the other streets. The only issues not mitigated in the Environmental Assessment is the traffic and noise. 7. Ms. Carol Adam 78-740 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated her concern regarding the City's policy on the number of entrances and exits for a gated communities of 100 and less homes, of 101 to 200, and more than 200 homes, and is there a policy. In her opinion, there are no gated communities the size of La Quinta Fairways with only one gate. Some policy and/or standard for safety should be established is none exist. An exit is shown on the early plans for Calle Rondo and why now is that exit being debating it. Why has the Planning Commission staff report been published when only tonight is the issue being publically addressed. She is aware that the Desert Club neighborhood has spoken and they were unaware there would be a time at prior meetings when they could speak. This appears to be a preconceived and predetermined decision and does not consider the presentation of information of both neighborhood to the west of Calle Rondo and La Quinta Fairways. Lastly, La Quinta Fairways asks only for an exit gate only to be used by the homeowners and would alleviate the bottleneck of traffic that already exists on Park Avenue. It would not bring more traffic into the neighborhood west of Calle Rondo. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 8. Chairman Kirk informed those present that the previous application for the access gate was submitted by the developer and the Commission has heard a lot of testimony, mostly from the opposition, on this subject. Commissioner Tyler stated the comments that were received were held at a public hearing in which the entire public was invited. If people did not hear about it, the process was followed and the City cannot go door to door and invite people personally. 9. Mr. Roy Stevens, 78-550 Avenida Tujunga, stated he had submitted a letter to the Commission and will summarize what was stated in that letter. He moved here in 1995 and purchased a home on the Stadium Course in PGA West and decided they did not want to be within a gated community and bought here. They found their home on Tujunga, saw the wall at the end of the street with a hole in it. He checked and found out that it was to be an emergency only gate. Now, the HOA want an exit for their personal convenience and he does not want their high density traffic on his street and he will fight it anyway he can. The real problem which forces the HOA to file the request in the first place is the heavy traffic on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. This street was planned as a residential access for the La Quinta Fairways, Painted Cove, and Bajada developments to get to the Village area. It is not a short cut for the residents of La Quinta Cove to go to work or take their children to school. It is this traffic that instigated the HOA to want the back gate. The way to accomplish this is to put a stop sign at the Calle Tampico intersections. Also at Calle Paloma, Calle Quito, and Calle Rondo and a stop sign at the entrance to the La Quinta Fairway homes on Park Avenue This would discourage the use of Calle Tampico/Park Avenue as a shortcut to 501h Avenue. In addition, a double turn lane on Calle Tampico turning north onto Washington Street would also cause the traffic to use the new six lane bridge, which is where the traffic should go. With the traffic reduced on Calle Tampico the residents of the La Quinta Fairways would not have their entrance blocked in the morning and afternoons. 10. Mr. Earl Leslie, 50-440 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated the back of his gate sits on Grand Traverse, right across from the homes across the street. If any of those homes had an emergency, the emergency vehicles would block their entrance gate causing them to be a prisoner in their own subdivision. In his opinion, if the original developers didn't believe the second gate wasn't necessary, they would never have left the concrete gate on Calle CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 Rondo. There are two sides to every issue, but in this case the pros out weigh the cons. In conclusion, to put this in its proper context, their complex, without a second gate, is like having a home without a back door. 11. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Avenida Tujunga, expressed his appreciation to the Commission for their time. The RJT Homes was designed to be served by the one gate. The approval has been survived by three developers. There is no reason to believe that an added exit gate is required to adequately serve the residents. Many other gated communities in La Quinta and throughout the Valley are served by only one entry/exit gate. Their request is for convenience only. Desert Clubs Estates had six to seven streets that exited onto Washington Street and they petitioned the City Council to close most of those streets in the interest of providing a more controlled local traffic patter. Their request complied with the General Plan and those streets were closed and they the residents are paying an assessment for this closure. This was done to provide access to their community from Calle Tampico only through local streets. Their street and curb improvements were also installed at that time, but did not include sidewalks. They walk, bike, rollerblade and push baby strollers on the street. These are by definition "local" streets. They are planned to handle traffic generated by the low density housing associated with the immediate neighborhood only. The approval of this application would negate their investment in those improvements and be detrimental to their property values. The proposed access gate would be detrimental to the safety, health, and general welfare of the residents of Desert Club Estates. The approval of this application would severely degrade the quality of the environment and create long term problems due to the over concentration of traffic on their streets. A negative declaration is inappropriate in this issue. A full EIR must be submitted if this case is to be pursued. On Calle Paloma which would carry most of this traffic, there is a school and Church. The school has no security fencing, or school signs, and would not want to see those children unprotected from the added traffic that would result from the approval of this application. 12. Mr. Robert Knies, 50-445 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated his house is exactly in the middle of the La Quinta Fairways, and the only time he ever turns right on Park Avenue is to go to the Post Office, Ralph's Market or events in the Village. Otherwise he goes left to 50th Avenue. Living in the middle of the La Quinta Fairways, with CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 a speed limit of 20 mph, takes a long time to get out. Therefore, he does not intent to use gate due to the time getting out, but if an emergency happens, he will. The La Quinta Fairways residents could say Park Avenue is their street and they do not want anyone else using it to drop off their kids off at school, etc. 13. Mr. Gary Flanders, 51-345 Calle Paloma, stated he was a painting contractor for HOAs in the Valley and he cannot think of one HOA he has worked for where an exit dumps into a residential neighborhood. PGA West on the Palmer Gate serves 800 homes and the Stadium Gate serves almost 1,000 homes and both have one gate. La Quinta Palms, on Fred Waring Drive, consists of 242 homes and has only one gate. If there was an emergency, the fire or police could open the emergency gate for the time being. 14. Mr. Ralph Squillace, 50-465 Grand Traverse, stated his concern was that if there was an emergency at their gate access to their development would be blocked. They have accidents and Park Avenue is a very busy street. They will only be using Calle Rondo to get to Calle Tampico. Stop signs will become a nuisance as cars screech to a stop and usually cause more problems than they solve. 15. Mr. Doug Gilland, 78-710 Avenida Naranja, stated this was his fourth time to address the Commission regarding this issue. Before coming to the meeting he and his daughter were rollerblading in the street as they do not have sidewalks, and would not be interested in more traffic. He understands the need for an exit gate, but when there is a solution such as Calle Tampico, they should use it. They should do the same thing the homeowners in Desert Club Estates did to follow the City's procedures and closed off their blocks to have the cul-de-sacs. When they purchased their homes they bought them knowing the requirements and accepted them. We want La Quinta Fairways to do the same. 16. Ms. Marion Walker, 50-075 Doral Street, stated her points had been addressed and did not chose to speak. 17. Ms. Noreen Selberg, 50-925 Calle Quito, stated she was opposing the Environment Checklist Form #6.e., where it states that the hazards to pedestrian or bicyclists have no impact. She would like to see this changed to potentially significant impact because there C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 quite a few bicyclists and pedestrians. If a member of La Quinta Fairways were to exit the gate and drive fast, it could potentially cause an accident. 18. Mr. Dick Welsh, 50-505 Grand Traverse, stated the staff report concentrates on what is a local street and what is allowed on a local street. It does not state you cannot have movement of traffic other than abutting property owners and this is what they are asking for. This will only be a minor traffic increase. They paid for their private streets when they purchased their homes and they maintain them so they are not a burden on the taxpayers of La Quinta. Whereas, Calle Rondo and the other streets, are public streets maintained by everyone's taxes and they should have the right to use them the best they can as long as it fits within safety realms. 19. Mr. Jeff Withers, 50-790 Calle Guayamas stated everything has already been stated and declined to speak. 20. Mr. Jim Kuh, 50-405 Grand Traverse, also stated his comments had already been stated and declined to speak. 21. Mr. Bobbie Melkesiam, 50-795 Calle Guayamas, thanked the Commission for their time at the prior hearings. In regard to an exit only gate which the La Quinta Fairways residents state will not be that much of an impact, to him that means it will be only half as bad as they already know the additional traffic will be bad for their neighborhood. He thanked staff for their sensible recommendation. They chose their neighborhood because it is a low density and non gated community. Those who live in the La Quinta Fairways chose their neighborhood for their kind of lifestyle with only one gate in and he hopes it remains this way. 22. Mr. Philip Shamis, 78-955 Del Monte Court, stated an issue that has not been discussed is the existing gate for which only an emergency gate has been approved. The original builder, Brock Homes put up the wall, he installed a fence between 48 and 50 feet wide. If it was intended for an emergency gate only, why did the City commit that fence to remain in place for over ten years. He assumes the original intent of Brock was to have an entrance and exit gate at this locate because of the size of the fence. Unfortunately, at the time, Brock only owned 99 lots out of the 254 lot complex. When his partner, a bank, went bankrupt in 1992, Brock left the development. At that point 36 homes were C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 completed. The bank who was holding the mortgage brought in a contractor in to develop 13 homes bringing the total to 49 homes. Another developer built 50 homes and the remaining homes were owned by Landmark, then KSL, and now RJT Homes. Since the gate in question seems to have been provided for something which was entrance and exit, all La Quinta Fairways is requesting at this point is an exit gate coming out on Calle Rondo, and making a left turn. This would only affect four homes and he has not heard from any of these four people objecting to this gate. No one in the La Quinta Fairways dreamed the amount of traffic that would be generated on Park Avenue. 23. Mr. Gillen Steiner 78-725 Avenida La Jarita, stated there are over 100 children in this neighborhood, and no one supports any gate on Calle Rondo. The location of the proposed gate encourages cars to go down Calle Tujunga which is the center of their neighborhood. If they install a left turn at Calle Rondo taking people down to Calle Tampico, anyone knows this is a dangerous corner due to the traffic traveling down Calle Tampico. If there is a gate at this location, no matter which way the cars turn it creates a dangerous situation. He would support either a gate on Calle Tampico or Park Avenue. 24. Mr. Jeff Jackson, 54-560 Avenida Vallejo, stated he owns the property at southeast corner of Calle Tujunga and Calle Guyamas, which is 60 yards from proposed gate. He has written two letters and attended two of the public hearings to express that he is vehemently opposed to this gate. He has a five year old son and the only reason he bought this property was to ensure he would not have any traffic problems. He researched the issue before even purchasing the lot. This will impact him and his property values. 25. Mr. Richard Moreno, 50-825 Calle Rondo, bought this property because of the solitude. He does understand the nature of development, but he does not expect adjacent development to impede on their solitude. He does not understand who they believe they can do this and If it is all right for them to come through their neighborhood they it must be all right for them to drive through their neighborhood. 26. Mr. T.C. Morris, 50-785 Calle Rondo, stated he had sold his house in Indian Wells because he wanted to be in a quiet neighborhood. He is in the process of building a house on Calle Rondo and three CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 houses in Indian Wells. The houses in Indian Wells have an emergency only exit. At the Reserve, where he is also building, you can hardly get in or out and they are having to live with it because the City will not drop them out into a quiet neighborhood. He went into the Fairways and exited their construction gate and turned right onto Park Avenue and went to Washington Street on the clock. At the same time he had a worker stop at the proposed gate and simulated a stop with another driver on Calle Rondo who drove down to Calle Tampico to Washington and he arrived at Washington Street first. In his opinion the quickest way out is through the current construction gate and he does not understand why this gate cannot be approved. 27. Mr. Dick Ellingwood 78-745 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated that if he owned property in La Quinta the size of the property that La Quinta Fairways is, and if he asked the City to plot the ground, he knows the City would not allow them to have just one gate. He knows he bought into the development knowing their was only one gate, but thought there would be two. He was notified about the school and the lights, but things change, and with the advent of 254 homes, to have one exit is not practical. If those who are opposing this emergency gate, would turn west on Calle Tampico and go out Washington Street to take their children to school this would alleviate the traffic they have on Park Avenue. 28. Ms. Saundra Hawks, applicant, stated they could not use Calle Tampico because the builder would not sell them the lot. When their development was initially approved in 1990, the Desert Club neighborhood had an unfair advantage. The La Quinta Fairways homeowners' pay taxes as well and they would like to demand equal consideration. The General Plan is a living document that must reflect current times. Implementation of the General Plan appears to be arbitrary and selective. When Rancho La Quinta and Parc La Quinta have several gates that dumps onto Sagebrush, it sounds like those people are not important. Ms. Hawks continued on and stated staff informed them when they submitted their application, they were pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. It is not them, it is the City. Park Avenue cannot accommodate all the traffic. The City approved the gates for Rancho La Quinta and Parc La Quinta and if the plans to make Bottlebrush and Saguaro cul-de-sacs even more traffic will be using Sagebrush. They are puzzled by the inordinate support of City staff and homeowners who will never be affected by this gate. PGA West may have one exit, but they have a boulevard with no impact from schools, CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 sports complex, Boys and Girls Club, etc. The streets in question are public and paid for and maintained by La Quinta taxpayers. If these people are so hung up on privacy, then maybe they should pay for the maintaining of the streets instead of picking their pockets to maintain their streets. Their request is not a convenience but a traffic safety issue. To knowingly refuse to, or fail to correct a recognized problem creates liability. Should their request be denied, it appears the City owes RJT a refund of $6O,0OO for half street right -away on Calle Rondo and yet their homeowners are denied access. She would like to know the rationale for allowing Parc La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta additional entrances/exits onto a residential street, Sagebrush. 29. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 30. Commissioner Abels asked staff about the existing construction gate. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is for construction purposes only and when they reach buildout it will become a buildable lot. It is not a good location for access for the general public because it is too close to the 90 degree turn on Park Avenue to Calle Tampico. Commissioner Abels asked it could be done as suggested. Staff stated it is a buildable lot and would have to be purchased from the developer. 31. Commissioner Robbins stated there was an opportunity on Park Avenue, about six lots up from Calle Tampico that appears to be able to accommodate an access gate. Staff stated that opportunity does not exist any longer as it is a golf cart gate. Commissioner Robbins asked if it could be altered to accommodate both uses. 32. Commissioner Butler stated he too was looking for an alternative exit location. It appears that the gate on Calle Rondo would require the residents of the La Quinta Fairways to go to the furthest point to get out. 33. Commissioner Tyler asked if the way the tract is currently approved, the break in the wall is designated as an emergency exit only. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated yes. Commissioner Tyler stated that when RJT brought this request C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 before the Commission, were they not the owner of the lot and could sell the lot. Staff stated that was correct; it was up to them. 34. Commissioner Butler asked when would the exit gate be completed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated at was conditioned to be installed upon completion of Phase IV. For the Commission's information, another community in the City that has one gate is Tradition and the rest are emergency only exits. 35. Commissioner Tyler asked if a left turn sign were installed on Calle Rondo, what authority does the City have to enforce it. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if it is on private property, the Sheriff's Department cannot enforce it. 36. Chairman Kirk stated they would like to see a perfect solution, but it cannot be done in this setting. 37. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butter/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-018 recommending to the City Council denial of Tract 25389, Amendment #2. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:31 p.m. B. Tentative Tract Map 29702 Parcel Map 29724 and Site Development Permit 29724; a request of KSL Casitas Corporation for approval to resubdivide 3.17 acres into 30 resort residential and miscellaneous lots, subdivide one parcel and development of a 21 space parking lot plus eight additional spaces on Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds. 1. Chairman Kirk 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. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify how many units were approved for each side of the street as there appeared to be a C:AMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-25-20.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 shortfall of 21 that will not be built. In addition, he asked where the handicapped parking would be. Staff stated they will have to comply with state requirements in regard to any handicapped parking. In regard to the unit count, there will be 68 on the west side and 30 on the east side for a total of 98 units. A total of 114 were approved, but the applicant has reduced the number of units to be constructed. Commissioner Tyler asked where the requirement for one parking space for each bedroom came from. Staff stated it was a requirement of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Tyler asked if any of the tennis courts would be removed. Staff stated no recreational amenities would be removed. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked if units were being taken out and how many. Staff stated approximately 17 Casitas units were proposed for removal. Commissioner Robbins stated it appeared they would be creating only 13 more units than what is there today. Staff stated that was correct; however, the difference is in the number of bedrooms being created. It is a difficult proposal because the uses are different. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if some of the Casitas units would be removed and if any of them were historic. Staff stated the units being removed were built in the mid 60's and are not historic. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL stated that in regard to some of the letters received in opposition, he wanted the Commission to know they were previously approved for 119 units and have reduced that number to 109. They have been acclaimed as one of the most notable resorts in the USA. Of the 68 homes built all have been sold and they have now opened sales in Phase IV and they are currently selling for over $400 a square foot. Out of the 68 units 60-65 of the units are participating in the rental program creating $300,000 to 400,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax for the City. The tract is before the Commission due to some minor changes in the unit design to enlarge the patios and other amenities requested by some of the homebuyers. In regard to the traffic, specifically construction traffic, they plan to do some of the work off -site as well as before the season begins to diminish the impact. In consideration of the traffic, when the resort is full, C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 they are busing construction traffic to and from site from the off - site employee parking lot. In regard to the citrus trees, it is their intent to relocate the citrus trees behind the wall. 6. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Steve Davis 77-500 Avenida Fernando, stated he had delivered a letter to the City for the Commission's consideration and asked that it be part of the record. His issues are that KSL does not own the bulk of Avenida Fernando. When he purchased his property his deed included 15 feet of the street from the curb. The only rights KSL has on this street are through an easement granted by the previous property owner, Mr. Loeb. The easement is very specific in what it allows; ingress and egress for the homeowners only. It does allow construction for the purpose of building or repairing the road, but not for construction of KSL's units. Currently the easement is being overburdened and overused. All construction traffic is diverted down Avenida Fernando. Construction vehicles cannot get down Calle Mazatlan or Avenida Obregon. It is not his intent to get aggressive regarding this, but the City may be granting permission to construct this project which is in violation of this easement. The traffic analysis and EIR are predicated on an assumption. In addition, the diesel fuel used in their shuttle vehicles is not even considered in the EIR. It would be his recommendation that a full EIR be required. The traffic analysis also does not include the carts that travel down the street or the huge delivery trucks which cannot get into the delivery bays. These trucks close the entire street in order to turn around. He also suggested KSL wall off their delivery areas to alleviate this congestion. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked the City Attorney as to whether Mr. Davis' letter had any bearing on their decision. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in regard to a private easement for Avenida Fernando which is a private street, the City does not get involved with matters that are to be resolved by the private parties. As to environmental concerns, these are appropriate to be addressed and if the Commission determines the need to address them, then mitigation measures should be imposed. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 9. Chairman Kirk asked why a complete EIR was not done. Staff stated because this is a revised project and did not create any additional concerns. There was an original EIR and then a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required with focused studies. Therefore, no additional environmental studies were needed. 10. Commissioner Tyler noted that as there are less units being built, therefore, the impact had already been lessened. In regard to the staff report, Condition #17, should be changed to "relocate". 11. Commissioner Robbins stated that as they are putting in less units, it is a compensation to be considered. He would hope KSL would move forward to resolve some of the issues raised by the residents regarding the loading and unloading. 12. Commissioner Abels stated he had no issues with the project. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-019 recommending approval of Tract 29702, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-020 recommending approval of Parcel Map 29724, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-021 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-607, Amendment #1, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #17: Wording changed to "replace or relocate" ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. "A. 4.. T1--...Y_....d4 nc-1/1..._11 1 S Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 C. Environmental Assessment 2000-395 Specific Plan 2000-043. Conditional Use Permit 2000-049; a request of Madison/P.T.M. La Quinta, L.L.C., for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of design guidelines and development standards for a 72,950 square foot commercial center, and approval for a service station on the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission was also approving the sign program. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Tyler stated the Specific Plan on page 36 states it is conceptual and yet on page 39 it proposes a very detailed sign program. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it is staff's intent to approve the program and each tenant would submit an application for its own specific sign. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Peroni, Dudek and Associates, representing the applicant made a presentation of the project. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked about the huge rock that would be excavated. Mr. Peroni stated the applicant has tried every way to negotiate with Caltrans to resolve the intersection and this is the solution. Commissioner Tyler asked if the rock painting technique was successful. Mr. Peroni stated that in other cities in the Valley it has been successful. 5. Commissioner Butler stated his concerns were the shopping center itself and its tenants and would bring them up later. 6. Commissioner Abels asked about the entrance on Highway 1 1 1 into the center; why can't the center be near the signal on Washington Street. Mr. Peroni stated it is due to the type of businesses going into the center. It tends to assist in distributing the traffic through out the center. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the road bed could be raised any more. Mr. Peroni stated the elevation was raised four feet and swales down to grade and goes back up two feet. If it is made much higher it will be a hazard in its own right. They are still refining the grading plan to reduce the amount of cut. Chairman Kirk stated there appears to be two apexes of cut. Mr. Peroni explained the cuts. Chairman Kirk stated it appears the road could be brought in further rather than into the toe of the slope. Mr. Peroni stated that in the back there is a rubble condition where there is a lot of rubble and rock. The thought was to clean this area up and create more buildable space. 8. Commissioner Abels asked if this project was within the Hillside Ordinance requirements. Staff stated the property is not subject to the Hillside Ordinance. 9. Mr. John Vuksic, architect for the project, stated the style of the project is Spanish colonial and features many elements of that vernacular such as multi pane windows, exposed timbers, stone details and columns, cornice details, smooth plaster and clay tile roofing, etc. The basic colors are off white and adobe with accents of coral, and chocolate and various brownish hues, as shown on the color board. Landscaping will be incorporated into the architecture in the form of pots which provide opportunities for vining over trellis works and covered walkways. There are also opportunities for set in details which provide opportunities for uniqueness for the individual tenants and opportunities for artwork as well 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he likes what is presented but asked about the use of canvas awnings. They are a nice touch, but not conducive to the desert weather. Mr. Vuksic stated the canvas awnings provide a friendly dynamic to the buildings and softens the architecture. Some weathering when looking at Spanish architecture, adds to the look. 11. Mr. Rick Wilkerson, representing the owners Madison TPM LLC stated the owners comprises three people, Pete Thomas Mann, Michael Shovlin and himself. They are all full time residents of the Valley but this is their combined first development in the desert, but several around the Unites States. He is providing this information because they are serious developers who try to bring quality to their developments and hope this project will be a cornerstone of development in La Quinta. In regard to the architecture, these are options offered to the tenants. 11.1%4.. ne 9n.... A 17 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 12. Commissioner Tyler stated the Specific Plan talks about carports; are they intended to be used by the tenants or users. Mr. Wilkerson stated there is one parcel where there will be an office building and carports will be offered for those tenants. 13. Mr. Richard Tate, Tate and Associates, representing Tosco Corporation, a prospective tenant, the service station, stated they had a question regarding the process to make a determination on a public convenience or necessity for the sale of beer and/or wine. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the City has no specific requirements, and it is processed through the Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC) agency. Mr. Tate states ABC requires that if it is an "over concentrated census district", they will require a finding of convenience or necessity for a Class 20 license. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City Council has authorized the City Manager to make such a determination. 14. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 15. Commissioner Robbins stated there is a discrepancies in the Specific Plan and the conditions. The staff report on Figure #5 states the total parking required 388 and Table II of Specific Plan states 379. Staff clarified the total parking is 379. A condition has been placed on the Specific Plan to clean up these errors. Commissioner Robbins stated that overall it is a good plan. In regard to the area near the mountain there is a sidewalk and it does not lead to the Cliffhouse restaurant and it can be a dangerous situation. Staff stated this area is not a part of their property. Commissioner Robbins stated off -site improvements are required at all times and someone is going to walk from this shopping center to the restaurant and it is going to be a very dangerous situation. He would like to see a condition added requiring the sidewalk. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it will require more of the rock to be removed because of the distance of the slope of the rock and potential rock falling on the pedestrians. Caltrans does not allow you to build in a parking shoulder and contains the sewer line. Commissioner Robbins stated he was also concerned about the landscaping. The front has been given careful consideration, but no consideration has been given to what it looks like on the rear side and should be addressed. Figure 10 shows the entrances with a lot of green; is C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 18 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 this turf or what? Staff stated that along Highway 111 it will follow the Design Guidelines for Highway 111 which includes shrubbery, Palm Springs gold and turf. Commissioner Robbins asked if the carports would be constructed of steel. If so, he would like a condition that they will not be allowed. Another concern is with the proposed monument signs. They do not match the rest of the center. Also on page 43 of the Specific Plan it states a walkway will be provided from the bus shelter to the medical facilities and it is not mentioned anywhere else. Staff stated the medical office is a typo and not in reference to this project. It would be clarified. Mr. Peroni stated the reference to the medical offices should have been removed and the phrase should be Highway 111. They would have walkways from the bus shelter into the project site. It is on the southeast portion of the project site where the existing bus shelter is being proposed. 16. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees the project is going to be an asset, but he is not happy with fast food operations or the service station aspect. As an example, on the fast food restaurant located at the northeast corner of the project, the drive through wraps around the outdoor dining. He understands there needs to be restaurants, but the Highway 111 Corridor appears to have its fair share of fast food restaurants. Concern that it will become a sign problem and not the image he would like to have for the people coming into La Quinta. He supports restaurants in this location, but not fast food. 17. Chairman Kirk asked if all the applications were being addressed at one time. Staff stated yes. 18. Commissioner Butler stated the service station with a car wash is not needed when there are two within a block. It is an over -kill for a revenue generation and more congestion in the parking lot. 19. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with what has been stated including the additional fast food drive -through. Also, there are discrepancies between the Specific Plan and staff report. The lighting heights are different; 24 or 21.5 feet. Mr. Peroni stated the maximum height in the Specific Plan is 24 feet. The lighting study was worked with standards that were 21.5 feet on two foot bases. Staff stated the poles are 21.5 on a 2 foot base for a total of 23.5 feet. Commissioner Tyler asked about if this development was a part of the Lake La Quinta master drainage plan as stated C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 19 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 on page 21 of the staff report. Staff noted it should state La Quinta Master drainage plan. Commissioner Tyler asked about page 28 staff is recommending only a 20 foot setback on Washington Street; is that what we allowed on the other side of the street? Community Development Jerry Herman stated yes, it is the standard. Commissioner Tyler asked if Condition #23 could be expanded to require the application of turf be required for pads that are not developed. Mr. Peroni stated they would like to use a soil binders, but would work with staff to resolve the issue. Commissioner Tyler asked about the lack of a bus facility on Washington Street adjacent to this project. He asked if there could be a bus turnout near Channel Drive on Washington Street. They have a huge expanse of shared parking, could there be a variation in the surface treatment to break it up. Finally, he too wonders what the intent of the monument sign proposed. Mr. Wilkerson stated they would be willing to revisit the monument sign. 20. Commissioner Abels asked about the sidewalk plan. Mr. Peroni stated it is on the site and circulation plan. Commissioner Abels stated he is impressed with the architecture and agrees there should be some control over the number of fast food restaurants. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern over street names. There is a curved street that has a potential of two different names at each end. One is Channel Drive off Washington Street and the other is Plaza Drive off Highway 1 1 1. There needs to be some consistency for emergency vehicles and recommends it be Channel Drive. Mr. Wilkerin stated they have not contemplated naming any streets at this time and agrees with having consistency. 22. Chairman Kirk stated he concurs with most of what has been stated. He concurs with the statements regarding the monument signs. Overall it has outstanding articulation and complements the development across the street. However, he is concerned about the uses, fast food restaurants and the Point Happy Rock demolition. If he reduced the buildable area of the lot they could probably reduced the cut and daylighting necessary on that piece of the rock. 23. Commissioner Butler stated he is concerned that all of his issues cannot be resolved. The sidewalk around to the Cliffhouse is an issue that possible cannot be resolved nor the redesigning of the site to take less of Point Happy. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 20 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 24. Commissioner Abels stated he did not think the Commission could dictate what uses are allowed if they meet the City's requirements. He believes the Commission should approve the project as submitted. 25. Chairman Kirk asked if the Commission had discretion over uses. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell the City's zoning for Commercial has lists of accepted uses and some require Conditional Use Permits, but fast foods are not one of them. So typically once you have an allowed use, the City does not look any further at the use in regard to zoning. Having said that, there is the argument that when you create a Specific Plan you are allowed to have some flexibility on your usual zoning requirements. However, we have not previously used a Specific Plan in a commercial context to limit the type of uses. 26. Commissioner Abels asked if the sign uses could be controlled. Staff stated yes. 27. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would address some of the issues raised such as: a. The monument sign, and b. The access to the Cliffhouse 28. Mr. Michael Shovlin, one of the owners, stated there is a recorded easement with Caltrans and they will have the final say. Commissioner Robbins stated if it can't be addressed, it can't be, but he believes it is going to create a safety hazard and if in fact we cannot put a sidewalk in, then maybe staff should look at something to make it more difficult for people to walk between the two. Staff stated that whatever is done is subject to Caltrans approval. Chairman Kirk stated the consensus is not to condition the project, but if staff could explore some options. 29. Chairman Kirk continued on with the issues raised: C. The carwash issue is no longer a problem as it appears it will not be built; d. Clarification on the amount of turf to be use; e. Soil binders on the undeveloped properties; f. Break up of the design elements on the hardscape throughout the project. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 21 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 30. Commissioner Robbins stated there seems to be a problem keeping the parking lot trees in the planters alive. Therefore we never see mature trees in parking lots and there ought to be a way to get mature trees. g. Landscaping; h. The proposed uses. 31. Commissioners discussed the issue of uses. Commissioner Robbins stated he believes it is a developer decision. Chairman Kirk asked if the drive-thru could be eliminated. Commissioner Robbins stated that would require more parking. Staff stated that if the use required more seating, then more parking would be required. 32. Chairman Kirk stated that if they did not have the drive through, then they would not need as much developable area and could take a look at their circulation pattern and try to move the entry street from Highway 1 1 1 further east and reduce the cut on Point Happy. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this is not a standard 90 degree cross intersection. They have pinched the angle 15 degrees to reduced the amount of cut. They have a 250 foot radius curve now and this is as tight as they can make the intersection. He has met with Caltrans once and the applicant has met with them twice. Chairman Kirk stated he was not concerned with the access, but with the area where the road meanders back to the north in the center. i. Articulation and landscaping included along the buildings elevations facing the Channel; j. The use of wood or steel for the carports; k. Bus shelters (TDM); I. Street names to be consistent with those existing; M. The monument sign design; n. Detailed signs plan specific to each tenant or building owner submitted and approved before issuance of sign permit; o. Bike path 33. Mr. Wilkinson, stated that in regard to the monument sign, they will revisit it. The landscaping around pads not used is fine. There are two serious issues. Community Commercial Zoning, which is the zoning on this site, allows for fast foods with drive through and there are deals already made that make this property viable. You can make fast food restaurants more attractive. The architecture styling of this project requires them to conform to CW), Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 22 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 their architecture style. Once they found out they would be cutting the rock back to the extent Caltrans was requiring them to, they then decided to clean up the back of the rock as it relates to the curved portion. In this area there is a lot of scrub material and small outcroppings and rise up of sand. Once they got the computer graphics, then they felt a more attractive look would be to create the cliff look with the retaining wall and the slight elevations in the road and would be better looking than it is now. The second consideration, and no less important, is when you lay out this type of property, you have to start with one end or the other. They started with the service station user and progressed on to the corner and a fast food user is one of the highest paying users. They are only asking to develop their property economically. As to the sidewalk to the Cliffhouse, in their opinion, it would be better to fence the area off and not allow anyone to walk around this area. In regard to the other issues they can resolve them. 34. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the proposed buildings will come back as site development permits for review and approval by the Commission. 35. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-022 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-043. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 36. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-023 recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-043, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted/amended: a. Condition #23: "...The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion wind control measures including a soil stabilizer/binder approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. b. Condition #31.A.3.: Bike Path shall be consistent with other approvals in the recent past. The developer shall pay the prorata share of the Bike Path adjacent to the project site. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 23 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 The prorata share shall not exceed $30 per lineal feet of eight feet wide PCC Bike Path. C. Condition #53: The Specific Plan text shall be modified as follows: "The detailed sign plans specific to each tenant and/or building owner must be submitted and approved before issuance of a sign permit" d. Condition #54: A redesign of the Monument Sign to be compatible with Mediterranean architectural style shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. e. Condition #55: Specific Plan text shall be amended to add a statement that articulation and landscaping shall be included along the building elevations facing the Whitewater Storm Channel. f. Condition #56: All carport structures shall be made of wood. g. Condition #57: Street names at existing entrances shall be consistent with existing street names. h. Condition #58: Staff shall work with the applicant to reduce the cut starting from 40 feet back. i. Condition #59: Revise the second bullet point on Page 43 of the Specific Plan under "VI. Operational Guidelines to read, 'The project shall provide a walkway from the bus shelter located on Highway 1 1 1 at the southeast corner of the project site to facilitate pedestrian access to the commercial uses within the project."' ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 37. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-024 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2000-049, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #4: Deleted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-25-20.Wpd 24 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding the Planning Commission summer meeting schedule. 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission to consider what meetings they would want to go dark during the summer. Following discussion, the Commission asked staff to bring the question back at the next meeting. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of April 18, 2000. C. Chairman Kirk asked why centers could not be called by their proper name instead of the common name. Why have a monument sign? IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held May 9, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. on April 25, 2000. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 25 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 9, 2000 CASE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029 AMENDMENT #2, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-002 AMENDMENT #2 LOCATION: THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN ADAMS STREET AND DUNE PALMS ROAD APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUEST: 1. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF "THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA" SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE SIGN REGULATIONS, ALLOWING CAR DISPLAY RACKS, AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES; AND 2. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR), MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC) SURROUNDING ZONING/ LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT WITH A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION ACROSS HIGHWAY 111 SOUTH: CONSTRUCTION OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND VACANT WITH A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION EAST: SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH SMALL DATE GROVE WITH A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION WEST: VACANT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 WITH A ZONING DESIGNATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE REMAINDER IS LAKE LA QUINTA RESIDENCES WITH A ZONING DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCStfRpt Auto Amd #2.wpd 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A PREVIOUS EIR AND SUPPLEMENTAL EIR WERE PREPARED AND CERTIFIED IN 1997 AND 1998 RESPECTIVELY (CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER 97011055). NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.. BACKGROUND On July 15, 1997, the City Council adopted a Specific Plan setting forth the detailed development principles, guidelines, and programs to facilitate the development of this 87 acre site. The first Amendment to the Specific Plan was processed in 1998 which modified the internal layout of the project and refined the development concepts and land uses. Specifically, three Planning Areas were created over the entire site and the property could be developed under any of four scenarios. Each scenario involved a different mix of the allowed auto sales/service and retail/commercial uses. Proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan The applicant proposes the following amendments: 1. Section 2.80.1.1 - Signaae - Auto Mall (pg 62): Add this sentence to the first paragraph after the last sentence. "The entry monument signs can either identify 'The Auto Centre at La Quinta'; 'The Auto Centre at La Quinta & The Auto Service Center', if applicable; or list each of the dealer's franchises and 'The Auto Service Centre', if applicable." 2. Section 2.80.1.1.2 - Signaae - Auto Mall (p. 62): revise the first sentence, "One wall mounted 'Dealership Identification' sign..." to "Four wall mounted 'Dealership Identification' signs...." 3. Section 2.80.1.1.3 - Signaae - Auto Mall (p.62): Add this sentence after the first sentence "One ground mounted interior sign per franchise not to exceed 40 square feet per face for each department (used cars, service, parts, body sop, etc.)." 4. Section 2.80.1.1 - Signage - Auto Mall (p. 63): Add this paragraph after the last paragraph, "Balloons, pennants (including pennants mounted on lighting fixtures), antenna pennants, banners and event tents, shall be allowed." 5. Item #9 - Conditions of Approval - Final dated November 17, 1998: Delete, "the special and regular display areas shall not use car jacks." C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCStfRpt Auto Amd #2.wpd 2 6. Item #13 - Conditions of Approval - Final dated November 17, 1998: Delete, "No pruning of trees within the Highway 111 setback area shall be allowed within four feet of the grade." 7. Item #15 - Conditions of Approval - Final dated November 17. 1998: Delete, "Specify that wall signs shall not be allowed on the north building elevations in Planning Area #1 for Development Scenarios #1, #2, #3." 8. Item #15B - Conditions of Approval - Final dated November 17, 1998: Delete, "Delete 'Highway 1 1 1' in that secondary signs do not need to be seen from this highway." Proposed second Amendment to the Deve%pment Agreement The original Development Agreement and First Amendment were approved previously and are binding agreements between both parties for the purpose of establishing certainty that the development will progress in a timely manner. The Second Amendment request modifies the Development Agreement as follows: 1. Definitions: In this Second Amended Agreement, the defined terms will have the same meaning as in the Original Agreement except as may be otherwise noted in this Second Amended Agreement: 1.1. Authorizing Ordinance: "'Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3-29-8 approving this Second Amended Agreement. 1.4 Specific Plan: The Specific Plan approved by the City Council on July 15, 1997 as amended by Amendment No. 1 approved by the City Council on November 17, 1998, and Amendment No 2 approved by the City Council on 2000. A reference to "Amendment to Specific Plan" refers ofliy to Amendment #1 or #2 to the Specific Plan and/or any future amendments not affecting the implementation of the Development Agreement. 2. No Other Change: All sections of the original Agreement, or the First Amendment which have not been specifically amended by this Second Amended Agreement shall remain intact and enforceable in their entirety, or as may be amended in the future. Exhibit "C"- Restated and Amended Developer Lease Agreement, shall be amended as follows: Section 1. Definitions. (r) "Specific Plan" shall mean the Specific Plan approved by the City Council on December 1, 1998, or as may be amended in the future. C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCStfRnt Auto Amd #2.Wnd 3 ISSUES. Sign Amendments The addition of 40 square feet of ground -mounted interior signs for each department generates four or more ground signs for each dealer. This would be in addition to the existing wall signs advertising the same departments. In addition, each dealer gets a product ground -mounted sign per franchise and ground -mounted directional signs. Rather than permitting so many additional ground -mounted signs, staff would recommend one additional 40 square foot ground -mounted sign that can be used to advertise the various departments of the dealers. The location of the sign should be at the entrance where the service is provided. Balloons, pennants (including pennants mounted on lighting fixtures), antenna pennants, banners and event tents are not currently permitted. Other retail establishments, including a car dealership, have requested permission to utilize these signs on a permanent basis; however, under current regulations they have been denied. Some of the these advertising devices are permitted under a Temporary Outdoor Event permit. In order to allow the permanent balloons, pennants, etc., as permanent signage, the sign regulations would have to be amended. The other requested changes including shade structures can be supported. For clarification, staff has prepared the recommended amendments in legislative format: as follows: A. Section 2.50.4.1.1 Site Plan - Auto Mall (pg. 52): Pads 1, 2, and 3 along Highway 1 1 1 are behind a 62 foot landscape setback from the curb and will have vehicular displays. In addition, Pads 1, 5, 6 and 7 along Adams Street are behind a 32 foot landscape setback from the curb and will have vehicular displays. The special display pads along Highway 1 1 1 and Adams Street will not have stripping and will allow at least one car per every 10 linear feet. Exhibits 13-1, 13-2, 13-3, 13-4, 13-5, and 13-5 show Highway 1 1 1 parkway concepts and cross sections of three vehicular displays and three special display pads at specific locations in Pads 1, 2, and 3 along Highway 1 1 1. Each special display pad will not have stripping and will not be elevated more than one foot above the average finish grade of that display area due to safety concerns. Only new cars will be allowed within the special and regular display areas along Highway 1 1 1. No employee or visitor parking shall be allowed in the special and regular display areas. The special ffind regular U-11splay areas shall not use ear jaek�. Permanent or temporary shade structures that match the dealers building colors and does not exceed 20 feet in height are permitted for each dealer. The shade structures are not permitted to be located in the special or vehicular display areas adjacent to the landscape setback along Highway 1 1 1. B. Section 2 70 1 Landscape Concept (pa 591: The landscape concept follows a C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCStfRot Auto Amd #2.WDd 4 "desert Oasis" theme emphasizing water efficient materials exhibiting color and form. Parking areas in the mixed regional commercial center will feature the concept of a high canopy tree form to reduce the conflict between landscape elements and project graphic. The auto mall will use tree forms sparingly and concentrate form and color along the street frontage of each dealership and/or auto related commercial pad. Most landscape areas throughout the project will be used for stormwater retention with the exception of Adams Street and only 40% of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 in Planning Areas #1 will be allowed on Highway 111. The size of the trees within the Highway 111 setback shall be a minimum of four inches in diameter eight foot tall with a six foot spread at the time of installation. If any tree dies within the Highway 111 setback area shall be replaced within 14 days. No pruning of the trees within the 1 lighway 111 setback area shall be allowed within four feet of the g . One gallon plants shall be planted three feet on center and five gallon shrubs shall be spaced appropriately within the Highway 111 setback area. C. Section 2,80.1.1 Sianage - Auto Mall (pg. 62): Only three of the dealerships have technical "frontage" on Highway 1 1 1. This Specific Plan will be consistent with the City's Highway 111 Design Theme except that one area, the signage, will have to deviate by allowing nine dealers identification monument signs in the 50 foot landscape setback area along Highway 111 under Development Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 as shown in Exhibit 17. These nine dealer identification monument signs will be lighted and will be consistent with to City's lower lighting level requirements and will comply with the City's "Dark Sky" Ordinance. In addition, two entry monument signs will be utilized along Highway 1 1 1; one entry monument sign west of the main entry and one near the corner of Adams Street and Highway 111. At the entrance on Adams Street, an entry monument sign may be allowed providing identification to both the auto mall and the mixed regional commercial center under Development Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. Specify that wall signs shall not be allowed on the north bttilding elevations in Planning Area #1 for Development Seenaios #1, , Exhibit 18 shows the conceptual dealer identification monument sign and the conceptual entry monument signs proposed for Highway 111 and Adams Street. The entry monument signs can either identify "The Auto Centre at La Quinta"• "the Auto Centre at La Quinta & The Auto Service Center" if applicable: or list each of the dealers franchises and "The Auto Service Centre", if applicable. Each dealer or auto related pad will be allowed the following signage: 1. One ground mounted interior "Product Identification" sign per franchise not to exceed 40 square feet per face. This sign will be primarily for manufacturer's identification. 2. Four one wall mounted "Dealer Identification" signs with 24 inch C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCStfRnt Auto Amd #2.wnd 5 maximum height letters. Letters shall be channel can, plex-faced, internally illuminated. Exposed raceway for the signage will be permitted if designed to be integral with the background subject to Community Development Director approval. Architectural forms or designs may require signs to be split on more than one building face or element, subject to Community Development Director approval 3. One secondary wall or fascia mounted sign for each department (used cars, service, parts, body shop, etc.). One around mounted interior sign per franchise not to exceed 40 square feet per face for advertising various departments such as used cars service parts body shop, etc. Signs shall be of appropriate size to be seen from La Quinta Drive, Auto Centre Drive, Auto Centre Way (North and South) and shall be sized to fit the architectural element on which it is located. 4. Directional signs shall be individually considered by the Community Development Director. Exhibit 19 depicts the design concept for the "Dealership Identification" and the interior "Product Identification" signs. Public Noticing This application was advertised in the Desert Sun on April 18, 2000 and April 28, 2000. All property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notices. As of this writing no correspondence has been received regarding this project. All appropriate outside agencies have been notified and their responses are included in the Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION 1. By Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ move to recommend approval of Specific Plan 97-029 Amendment # 2, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval. 2. By Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ move to recommend approval of Development Agreement 97-002 Amendment # 2. Prepared and Subryritted by, Can C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCStfRnt Auto Amd #2.wnd 6 HVIVIAN nfty Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT #2 CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT #2 APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 9" day of May, 2000, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider amending Specific Plan 97-029 which created an 87 acre development consisting of three planning areas housing four development scenarios for automobile sales/services and a retail complex, located on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road; and more particularly described as: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST 1 /4 SECTION OF 29, T5S, R7E WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 151h day of July, 1997, approve the original Specific Plan 97-029 and on the 17th day of November, 1998, approved Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #1 for the development; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department completed an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 9701 1055, certified by the City Council in 1997, for this Specific Plan 97-029 and Development Agreement 97-002. A supplemental EIR has been prepared for the proposed Specific Plan 97-029 Amendment #1 and Development Agreement 97-001 Amendment #1 which was certified in 1998. N changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify recommending approval to the City Council of said amended Specific Plan: That the proposed amended Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Mixed/Regional Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property and is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC Reso Auto SP Amd #2.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000 Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #2 May 9, 2000 2. That the amended Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in that development, per the amended Specific Plan, will provide for extensive public improvements and conforms to good land use practice by encouraging a long-range, comprehensive approach to development of a major regional automobile sales/services and mixed commercial complex. 3. The amended Specific Plan is compatible with the zoning of adjacent properties in that the site is bounded by compatible Mixed/Regional (commercially zoned) designated properties with the exception of the area to the west, across Adams Street that is designated Low Density and. High Density Residential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above described amended 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 9" day of May, 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 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC Reso Auto SP Amd #2.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT #2 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - AUTO MALL MAY 9, 2000 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Section 2.50.4.1.1 Site Plan - Auto Mall Igg. 521: Pads 1, 2, and 3 along Highway 1 1 1 are behind a 62 foot landscape setback from the curb and will have vehicular displays. In addition, Pads 1, 5, 6 and 7 along Adams Street are behind a 32 foot landscape setback from the curb and will have vehicular displays. The special display pads along Highway 1 1 1 and Adams Street will not have stripping and will allow at least one car per every 10 linear feet. Exhibits 13-1, 13-2, 13-3, 13-4, 13-5, and 13-5 show Highway 1 1 1 parkway concepts and cross sections of three vehicular displays and three special display pads at specific locations in Pads 1, 2, and 3 along Highway 1 1 1. Each special display pad will not have stripping and will not be elevated more than one foot above the average finish grade of that display area due to safety concerns. Only new cars will be allowed within the special and regular display areas along Highway 1 1 1. No employee or visitor parking shall be allowed in the special and regular display areas. The special and regtilar display areas shall not use car jaeks. Permanent or temporary shade structures that match the dealers building colors and does not exceed 20 feet in height are permitted for each dealer. The shade structures are not permitted to be located in the special or vehicular display areas adjacent to the landscape setback along Highway 1 1 1. B. Section 2 70 1 Landscape Concept (pa. 591: The landscape concept follows a "desert Oasis" theme emphasizing water efficient materials exhibiting color and form. Parking areas in the mixed regional commercial center will feature the concept of a high canopy tree form to reduce the conflict between landscape elements and project graphic. The auto mall will use tree forms sparingly and concentrate form and color along the street frontage of each dealership and/or auto related commercial pad. Most landscape areas throughout the project will be used for stormwater retention with the exception of Adams Street and only 40% of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 in Planning Areas #1 will be allowed on Highway 111. The size of the trees within the Highway 1 1 1 setback shall be a minimum of four inches in diameter eight foot tall with a six foot spread at the time of installation. If any tree dies within the Highway 111 setback area shall be replaced within 14 days. No prtining of the trees within the I lighway 111 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ResoPC Auto Mall Amd #21.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 20000 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #2 Stamko Development Company setback area shall be allowed within four feet of the g . One gallon plants shall be planted three feet on center and five gallon shrubs shall be spaced appropriately within the Highway 1 1 1 setback area. C. Section 2 80 1 1 Sianage - Auto Mall (pa. 62): Only three of the dealerships have technical "frontage" on Highway 111. This Specific Plan will be consistent with the City's Highway 111 Design Theme except that one area, the signage, will have to deviate by allowing nine dealers identification monument signs in the 50 foot landscape setback area along Highway 111 under Development Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 as shown in Exhibit 17. These nine dealer identification monument signs will be lighted and will be consistent with to City's lower lighting level requirements and will comply with the City's "Dark Sky" Ordinance. In addition, two entry monument signs will be utilized along Highway 1 1 1; one entry monument sign west of the main entry and one near the corner of Adams Street and Highway 111. At the entrance on Adams Street, an entry monument sign may be allowed providing identification to both the auto mall and the mixed regional commercial center under Development --1 i the nofth Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. Speeify that wall signs -shall not be f1IIOVVVU Of I Exhibit 18 shows the conceptual dealer identification monument sign and the conceptual entry monument signs proposed for Highway 1 1 1 and Adams Street. The entry monument signs can either identify "The Auto Centre at La Quinta"• "the Auto Centre at La Quinta & The Auto Service Center" if applicable: or list each of the dealers franchises and "The Auto Service Centre", if applicable. Each dealer or auto related pad will be allowed the following signage: 1. One ground mounted interior "Product Identification" sign per franchise not to exceed 40 square feet per face. This sign will be primarily for manufacturer's identification. 2. Four one wall mounted "Dealer Identification" signs with 24 inch maximum height letters. Letters shall be channel can, plex-faced, internally illuminated. Exposed raceway for the signage will be permitted if designed to be integral with the background subiect to Community Development Director approval. Architectural forms or designs may require signs to be split on more than one building face or element, subject to Community Development Director approval C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ResoPC Auto Mall Amd #22wpd Planning Commission Resolution 20000 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #2 Stamko Development Company 3. One secondary wall or fascia mounted sign for each department (used cars, service, parts, body shop, etc.). One ground mounted interior sign per franchise not to exceed 40 square feet per face for advertising various departments such as used cars service parts, body shop. etc. Signs shall be of appropriate size to be seen from La Quinta Drive, Auto Centre Drive, Auto Centre Way (North and South) and shall be sized to fit the architectural element on which it is located. 4. Directional signs shall be individually considered by the Community Development Director. Exhibit 19 depicts the design concept for the "Dealership Identification" and the interior "Product Identification" signs. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ResoPC Auto Mall Amd #23wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AMENDMENT #2 BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CASE NO.: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-002, AMENDMENT #2 APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 9th of May, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings to consider an amendment to the Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 151h day of July, 1997, approve the original Development Agreement 97-002 and on the 171h day of November, 1998, approved Development Agreement 97-002, Amendment #1 for the development; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department completed an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 9701 1055, certified by the City Council in 1997, for this Specific Plan 97-029 and Development Agreement 97-002. A supplemental EIR has been prepared for the proposed Specific Plan 97-029 Amendment #1 and Development Agreement 97-001 Amendment #1 which was certified in 1998. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Development Agreement, Amendment #2: 1. The proposed amended Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of the City of La Quinta General Plan and Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #2. The property is within the Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) District per the provisions of the 1992 General Plan Update which permits the proposed use and is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC Reso Auto Dev Agmt Amd #2.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ Development Agreement 97-002, Amendment #2 2. The land uses authorized and regulations prescribed for the amended Development Agreement are compatible with the zoning and its related regulations now applicable to the property. The site is zoned Regional Commercial (CR) which permits the proposed uses provided conditions are met. 3. The proposed amended Development Agreement conforms with public convenience and the general welfare by providing for extensive public improvements and conforms to good land use practice by encouraging a long- range, comprehensive approach to the development of a major automobile sales/services and mixed commercial complex. 4. Approval of this amended Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare since adequate provision has been made in previous City approvals to provide for necessary and desirable improvements and since these approvals are incorporated herein. 5. Approval of this amended Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the subject or surrounding property nor the preservation of area -wide property values, but rather will enhance them by encouraging planned, phased growth. 6. Consideration of the amended Development Agreement has been accomplished pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. And the City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.250.030, which governs Development Agreements. 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 to the City Council of Development Agreement 97-002, Amendment #2 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Attachments #1 and #2. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 91h day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC Reso Auto Dev Agmt Amd #2.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ Development Agreement 97-002, Amendment #2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC Reso Auto Dev Agmt Amd #2.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to Development Agreement ("Amended Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2000, by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, a charter city ("City"), STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California limited partnership ("Developer") and THE TRUSTEE OF THE JUVONEN LIVING TRUST, a California Trust ("Partial Owner"). The City and Developer are hereinafter sometimes referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties". RECITALS This Amended Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. The City, Developer and Partial Owner originally entered into that certain Development Agreement dated July 15, 1997 ("Original Agreement") authorized by City Council Ordinance No. 306 dated July 21, 1997, and effective August 20, 1997, and recorded on September 3, 1997. B. The City, Developer and Partial Owner processed an Amendment to the Development Agreement which was approved on November 17, 1998, by Ordinance No. 328 dated December 1, 1998, and effective January 14, 1999, and recorded on March 11, 1999. C. Due to requested modifications to the Amended Specific Plan, the developer has requested certain modifications to the site planning conditions, the Development Agreement, and the Developer Lease to allow the Project to proceed. D. The City believes that all of the findings made in the Original Agreement and First Amendment remain true, that the requested modifications by the Developer as set out in this Second Amendment Agreement with attachments are consistent with the General Plan , and all other applicable plans, rules, regulations and official policies of the City of La Quinta and the approval of this Amended Agreement shall promote the health, safety and general welfare of the City. E. It is the intent of the Parties that on execution of this Second Amendment to the Agreement, the Developer shall be obligated to complete the Public Improvements in the manner set forth in the original Development Agreement, the First Amendment and the Amendment Specific Plan 97-027 and Conditional Use Permit 97- 034 as contained there in those documents, and with City's rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications in force on the date of this Amended Agreement. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\DA42RestAgmt.wpd F. On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta (the "Planning Commission"), after giving -notice pursuant to Government Code Sections 65854, 65854.5 and 65866, held a public hearing on Developer's application for this Second Amended Agreement. On , 2000, the City Council of the City of La Quinta ("City Council"), after providing public notice as required by law, similarly held a public hearing to consider Developer's application for this Agreement. G. The Planning Commission and the City Council have found that the Second Amended Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and all other applicable plans, rules, regulations and official policies of the City. H. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., ("CEQA"), the Community Development Department completed an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 9701 1055, certified by the City Council in 1997, for this Specific Plan 97-029 and Development Agreement 97-002. A supplemental EIR has been prepared for the proposed Specific Plan 97-029 Amendment #1 and Development Agreement 97-001 Amendment #1 which was certified in 1998. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; I. On December 1, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 328 approving this Amended Agreement with Developer. The Ordinance takes effect on January 14, 1999. The parties hereto agree to amend the Second Amended Agreement according to the following specified revisions: 1. Definitions: In this Second Amended Agreement, the defined terms will have the same meaning as in the Original Agreement except as may be otherwise noted in this Second Amended Agreement: 1.1. Authorizing Ordinance: "'Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Second Amended Agreement. 1.4 Specific Plan: The Specific Plan approved by the City Council on July 15, 1997 as amended by Amendment No. 1 approved by the City Council on November 17, 1998, and Amendment No. 2, approved by the City Council on , 2000. A reference to "Amendment to Specific Plan" refers to Amendment #1 or #2 to the Specific Plan and/or any future amendments not affecting the implementation of the Development Agreement. 2. No Other Change: All sections of the original Agreement, or the First Amendment which have not been specifically amended by this Second Amended Agreement shall remain intact and enforceable in their entirety, or as may be amended in the future. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\DA#2RestAgmt.wpd 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amended Agreement has been executed by the Parties and Partial Owner on the day and year first above written, as authorized by Ordinance No. 328 of the City Council of the City of La Quinta. CITY OF LA QUINTA, a Charter City STANLEY SNIFF, Mayor Pro Tern ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A California Limited Partnership By: Its: THE JUVONEN LIVING TRUST By: Its: By: Its: CAMV Documents\WPDOCS\DA#2RestAgmt.wpd 3 ATTACHMENT 2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-002, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 9, 2000 EXHIBIT "C" RESTATES AND AMENDED DEVELOPER LEASE AGREEMENT 1. Section 1.(r) shall be amended to read as follows: "Specific Plan" shall mean the Specific Plan approved by the City Council on December 1, 1998, or as may be amended in the future. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ResoDAAtt#2.wpd STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 9, 2000 CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-391, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-066, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29563 (ALISO DEL REY II) REQUEST: 1) RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2) RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REDUCING CUL-DE-SAC BULB RADIUS DIMENSION FOR PRIVATE STREETS FROM 45 FEET TO 38 FEET AS DEPICTED ON TABLE CIR-2 OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT; AND 3) RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29563 ALLOWING 30 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS ON 7.65 ACRES. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE, 150 FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES PROPERTY OWNER: GARY AND NANCY HOPKINS ENGINEER: DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-391 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED GPA 2000-066 AND TTM 29563 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SRPCTR29563 Hopkins - 41 1 DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) - TWO TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALISO DEL REY DEVELOPMENT (TRACT 27519) SOUTH: ACROSS WESTWARD HO DRIVE, MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC), LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), EXISTING LA QUINTA GOLF RANCH BUILDING AND PARKING LOT WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE The subject property is located on the north side of Westward Ho Drive, 150 feet west of Dune Palms Road and currently used as a golf driving range (Attachment 1). The La Quinta High School is located to the south of the site, across Westward Ho Drive which is designated as a Collector Street in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Pnoject-Be-quest The applicant has submitted a General Plan Amendment application to modify the General Plan Circulation Element design standards for cul-de-sacs on private streets from a 45 foot radius to 38 foot radius (i.e., 76 feet curb to curb). The Fire Department has submitted a letter supporting the radius reduction request (Attachment 2). This property is designated Low Density Residential allowing up to four dwelling units per acre. The proposal requests 30 dwelling units on 7.65 acres, resulting in an overall density of 3.9 units per acre. Lot sizes average 8,454 square feet and front onto two-way private streets. Typical lot frontage widths are 60 feet. One access entrance (Street Lot "B") for the Tract is proposed on Westward Ho Drive, a public SRPCTR29563 Hovkins - 41 2 street (Attachments 3 and 4). Lot "K", located at the southeast corner of the Tract, has been designed to hold and contain on -site stormwater runoff for the project. The prototype design of the houses for this project were approved by the Planning Commission under Site Development Permit 99-648 for the under construction Aliso Del Rey project to the north of this site (i.e., Tract 27519 consisting of 70 single family lots) in 1999. The single story houses range in size from 1,500 square feet to 2,008 square feet. Last month the applicant applied to amend the Site Development Permit to allow a two story house plan to be used for their Aliso Del Rey product line. The Commission will review the two story house plan in the near future. A conceptual common area landscape plan has been submitted showing trees and shrubs for parkway and retention basin areas (Attachment 5). Plant materials are to match those approved for use in Tract 27519. Palm trees will highlight the project entrance on Westward Ho Drive. Decorative stucco walls are proposed for the Tract perimeter, and the developer proposes pilasters and open fencing on Westward Ho Drive. However, open fencing (tubular steel pickets) is limited to the retention basin lot. Retaining walls will be constructed on the project's perimeter boundaries to account for changes in topography between this site and adjacent properties. Public Notice: This case was advertised in the Des-eTt_Sun newspaper on April 16, 2000, and all property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no comments have been received. PublicAgency Review: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. ST_AT1 11CIFNT_QE_-Tk1E ISSUES_ Findings necessary to approve this request pursuant to Section 9.230.020 (General Plan Amendments) of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 13.12.130 (Map Findings) of the Subdivision Ordinance can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RE -CO 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-391; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment to modify the cul-de-sac radius requirement for private streets from 45 feet to 38 feet, as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B"; and SRPCTR29563 Hopkins - 41 3 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29563, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Fire Department Letter with Exhibits 3. Tract Map Exhibit 4. House Plotting Layout 5. Concept Landscape Plan red by: dell, A�sociate Planner Submitted by: SRPCTIU9563 Hopkins - 41 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-066 TO REDUCE THE RADIUS FROM 45' TO 38' FOR PRIVATE CUL-DE-SAC STREETS PER TABLE 2-CIR OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29563 TO ALLOW A 30-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE, 150-FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-391 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 9tn day of May, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested by Century -Crowell Communities on the Environmental Analysis for General Plan Amendment 2000-066 and Tentative Tract Map 29563, generally located on the north side of Westward Ho Drive, approximately 150-feet west of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: Assessor's Parcel Number 604-061-019 (Portion); Portion of SE 1/4 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, County of Riverside, California WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study and has determined that although the proposed amendment and subdivision could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify a recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element and the Fire Marshal to provide adequately sized streets within the City; and the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance, and will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures, as the noise, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for Resolution 2000- Environmental Assessment 99-391- Recommended May 9, 2000 this project did not identify any significant impacts that could not be reasonably mitigated to levels of insignificance. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation, as the noise, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as the noise, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation, as the noise, geotechnical, and hydrological studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the public health, safety, or general welfare. 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 in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of the environmental determination and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 99-391 for proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-066 and Tentative Tract Map 29563. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9tn day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\pcearesEA99-391 A1iso115-9-00.wpd Resolution 2000- Environmental Assessment 99-391- Recommended May 9, 2000 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\pcearesEA99-391 Alisoll5-9-00.wpd EA 99-391 Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: TTMI 29563 and GPA 2000-066 - Aliso Del Rey H 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mlouriquand, (760) 777-7125 4. Project Location: North side of Westward Ho Drive, 140 feet west of Dune Palms Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Century Crowell 1535 South "D" Street, Suite 200 San Bernardino, CA 92408 6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential) 7. Zoning: RL (Low Density Residential) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Subdivide 7.65 acres into 30 single family residential lots, other common lots, and construct housing units ranging in size from 1,500 to 2,008 square feet. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North - single family residential South - public high school campus East - single family residential West - single family residential and vacant residential l o. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None identified. P:\CEQAchecklist7 M29563GPA2000-066CenWryEA99-391.wpd -1 >8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 11 I find that although.the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and Z) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 11 �! Prided Name Date ox For 11 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd -3 'ample question: Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: L AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-13) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-13) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to on -agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Site visit, aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact KI 91 I X I M X F4 X X ►m P:ICEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2o00-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-44) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application Materials) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; site visit) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; site visit) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; site visit) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-21; Archaeological Advisory Group, Dec. 1999) R. K4 X R. 1rA X X P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd i 49 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (Archaeological Advisory Group, Dec. 1999) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Paleontology Lakebed Map) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Advisory Group, Dec. 1999) VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; Sladden Engineering, March 8, 2000) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7) iv) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Application Materials) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sladden Engineering, March 8, 2000) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sladden Engineering, March 8, 2000) e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) ►s E:9 19 X X X X X X X X VEL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Emma, Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division, April 24, 2000) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VDI, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? ( ) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Dudek & Associates, Nov. 17, 1999) F4 X 91 M 199 R. ►-4 R. X P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd L4 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Dudek & Associates, Nov. 17, 1999) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ? (Dudek & Associates, Nov. 17, 1999) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) M R. 1.1 g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) X, MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) XL NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-17, 6-19; Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22, 2000) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22, 2000) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22, 2000) V0 KI R. 9 X X KI X d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (Application Materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials; site visit) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials; site visit) XHL PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (Fire Marshal letter, ) Police protection? (Sheriff letter, ) Schools? (DSUSD letter, ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: X R. K4 R. X X X X X X X P:\CEDAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Application Materials; Master Environmental Assessment 3-7) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Master Environmental Assessment 3- 7; General Plan 3-13) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm . equipment) ? (Application Materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials, Fire Marshal letter) fj Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials; Zoning Code -Parking) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (General Plan) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ( ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD letter, Dec. 16, 1999) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD letter, Dec. 16, 1999) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD letter, Dec. 16, 1999) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (CVWD letter, Dec. 16, 1999) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: 91 9 X X X X X X X X X X P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ( ) c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? ( ) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) XVIIL EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES Gordon Bricken & Associates Acoustical Analysis, Tract 29563, City of La Quinta, March 22, 2000. Dudek & Associates Aliso II - Tentative Tract 29563 Preliminary Drainage Study, La Quinta, CA., Nov. 17, 1999. Sladden Engineering 91 X X X P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd -j ieotechnical Investigation: Aliso II - Hopkins Property, Tract 29563, La Quinta, CA., March 8, 2000. Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. �CAQMD CEQA Handbook. sneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. 'aleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. lrchaeological Advisory Group :ultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 29563, LA Quinta, California (Aliso 2 Project), December 1999. ,mma, Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division, 4-24-2000, personal communication. ire Marshal letter, dated iheriff Department letter, dated )SUED letter, dated -'ity of La Quinta Municipal Code P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd -1 � iJ� ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EA 99-391 IV. f. The project site is within an area designated as potential habitat for the Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. The project site is a developed golf school that has been graded, turfed, and in use for several years. There is no undisturbed or undeveloped habitat within the project site. The site is within the Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. While there is no natural habitat left within the project boundaries, the mandated $100 fee per acre of disturbed land will be required as mitigation. This mitigation reduces impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance (Source: Master Environmental Assessment, 5-5). VI. a.ii. The project is located in a seismically active area. The proposed subdivision is located within a Zone IV groundshaking zone, within 3/4-mile of an inferred and inactive fault. The potential for seismic activity should be considered in structure design. As a minimum, the Uniform Building Code requirements for Seismic Zone 4 will be considered in design. The geotechnical report for the project provides seismic design criteria. This mitigation measure will ensure that impacts from seismic activity will be reduced to a less than significant level. IX. b. The applicant proposes a 38-foot radius for a private street cul de sac. The General Plan Circulation Element requires that cul de sac radii are at least 45-feet, resulting in the proposed project conflicting with the City General Plan. The applicant proposes General Plan Amendment 2000-066 to modify Table 2 of the Circulation Element to reduce the size of cul de sac bulbs for private streets from a radii of 45 feet to 38 feet. A letter from the Riverside County Fire Department, dated April 10, 2000, indicates that a 38' radius to face of curb is acceptable and is the standard used in the unincorporated areas of the County. The 38' radius prohibits any curb side parking as the entire cu0 de sac is required to properly turn fire department vehicles. Mitigation for the proposed cul de sac reduction from 45' to 38' shall be the adoption of GPA 2000-066, otherwise a 45' radius shall be required. IX. a. Single family residential communities are considered noise sensitive land uses along with schools, hospitals, and churches. A noise study was prepared for the proposed project by Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22, 2000, wherein it was determined that noise mitigation is required. The primary noise source in the project area is traffic noise from Westward Ho Drive. Exterior backyard living areas adjacent to Westward Ho Drive will be exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of over 60 CNEL at Lots 1 to 6, 29 and 30. The grading plan shows that the pads will be below the grade of the street, providing some shielding by the grade slope. To mitigate projected noise impacts, a barrier should be wrapped around the sides of Lots 8, 1, 30 P: AddendumEA99-391TTM29563.wpd and 29 for a distance equal to the setback of the house from the rear property line. The barrier should be constructed of solid materials without any openings. Concrete block, slumpstone, earthen berm or steel are acceptable materials. The City's interior noise standard for single family residential units is 45 CNEL. All homes throughout the project will meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades, with closed windows and mechanical ventilation. The noise study showed that there is a potential for temporary construction noise impacts. To mitigate short-term construction noise impacts, construction shall comply with the City's Municipal Code regarding construction activities near existing residential development which are limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction will not be permitted on Sunday or Federal holidays. These mitigation measures will ensure that identified impacts will be reduced to a level less than significant. P AAddendumEA99-391 TrM29563.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO REDUCE THE RADIUS FROM 45' TO 38' FOR PRIVATE CUL-DE-SAC STREETS PER TABLE 2-CIR OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT CASE NO: GPA-2000-066 APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 91h day of May, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Century -Crowell Communities for a General Plan Amendment (Circulation Element, Table 2) to reduce the size of cul-de-sac bulbs for private streets in the City of La Quinta from a radii of 45 feet to 38 feet. WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 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 (Environmental Assessment 99-391) and determined that the General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: This Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element to provide adequately sized streets within the City for vehicular travel. Streets affected by this action are local streets which are designed to provide private access to abutting residential properties. 2. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the City Fire Marshal states their emergency vehicles can maneuver within the 38 foot radius proposed under this Amendment and use a 38' radius within Riverside County areas. 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; 5 Reso PC GPA 066Cent. - 40 -' "- 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for EA 99-391; and 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-066, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in Exhibits "A" and "B", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 9th day of May, 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:resopcgpa97-054 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-066 CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES MAY 9, 2000 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3 (TABLE 2) OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS FOLLOWS: Amend Cul-de-sac Street Standards from a radius of 45' to 38' for private streets. Vehicle parking along the curb shall be prohibited. Cond GPA 066 -40 1 `� Exhibit "B" vv v CD CD c E _ to F' WW N O ca s CD a) C) W n` a :3 N 00 to N C O w �"0'OMc) d Ci i M M � U M c N N U 7 C �0 Wii a Utcax O g O a� N M O N Z U C)y � � v M N N 0 U E O CD to 2 E y c O uj cl �- C N U_ N O a w W W r 00 0 co Q2 LO ~ 0 M w J� M O Q L1 M O C O — m y c woi >. c6 c d d N = Q. y y cu '0 `" m m �' U_ N O Z W N O 0 .o � fO CL rn o O F- O o It > cu Q o F 0C) d Z 1L1 d N O O _ y y (n r co T f0 T L O �, a:.. 7 3 m n C l0 U 07 ca 0` c w ..� O L = T O '� N y T t ... 'o a) rn Zo � n Y N V pp p V.. v m d N d a�'im0•r>, o N W �• O V N — cC U O C v t c r 0 O f6 O O LO O c U L > C ' o w d 0. d O N 7 m 0 0)•C N E y � N r LL (n 0 'L � N N ��• 0 C N _ C a m E O O >, N N n ++ t c CL y O �Q ui = y •- 3 o m y � �y o � a o cr �� U N 0 M= N io o °�°=ow co � D F- C) c>'d .m s-- N w r2 O O cc 0-0 N y rn � d• O Co —_ C 5 of Qi O Qi L O y=LO 7 01 V N N LL M N c9 'C Ti D. a v 0 E I r 0 nm . E no tm 0+ - E •= E .E C C:'c (6 -0 Z m o 0 0 y U. O cn 2 U �, 1 E Z W a� O) c O wty ;°'" j O O � F co) R OUE co 0>, C O O N NN L c nC:wa) C CLCD fnLU (n E 3 omE00 CN vi C N U U 7 I- dd3dQ� v •� n .a 0 o L�>� .c m 'OT>+ WN0 ~ ~ Q Q 0 �Cl) �t Lo U C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO ALLOW A 30-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS COMMON LOTS FOR STREETS, DRAINAGE, AND LANDSCAPING ON 7.65 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE, 150-FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29563 APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 91h day of May, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review the request of Century -Crowell Communities for a 30-lot private single family subdivision and additional common lots on 7.65 acres generally located on the north side of Westward Ho Drive, and approximately 150-feet west of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: Assessor's Parcel Number 604-061-019 (Portion); Portion of SE 1 /4 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, County of Riverside, California WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 99-391) and determined that although the proposed project will impact on the environment, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed. 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 29563: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter Policy permitting single p posedprojects density is less two than units per acre pursuant Y four dwelling units per acre, an allowable density for LDR areas. The RL District (Low Density Residential) permits single family housing, provided lots are 7,200 square feet or larger unless a specific plan is prepared. Proposed lots are greater than 7,200 square feet as required by Section 9.30.030 of the AAResopcTr29563CenGo1f.wpd (40) '1r C. ❑9 Zoning Ordinance. Conditions are recommended to insure compliance with City Code requirements. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. All streets and improvements in the project, as conditioned, will conform to City standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -site streets are private and designed in accordance with Chapter 3.0 of the General Plan Circulation Element. Decorative perimeter fencing shall be constructed for the development consistent with Policy 3.4.1.14 aied community adjaclent to theng open retention'ew b sfnncing to lessen effect of the 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. The proposed project is suitable for Low Density Residential development based on the recommendations of Environmental Assessment 99-391. Development will not cause substantial environmental damage, or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat provided mitigation measures are met. Urban improvements are adjoining the property making it conducive for residential development. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. A retention basin is proposed to contain on -site water flows created by seasonal rains. The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. Infrastructure improvements will be extended to serve the project if not readily adjacent to the site. New �e Prone uired for sproject and south.ill be compatible with the develop improvements to the north E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each residential lot. The project will be instrumental in causing new area -wide public infrastructure improvements to be constructed, which will benefit both existing development and other future development, including, but not limited to street improvements and public utility improvements. A:\ResopcTr29563CenGolf.wpd (40) a The design of Tentative Tract Map 29563 will not conflict with existing public easements, as the project has been designed around, and with consideration for, these easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 99-391 for reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Mitigation Measures; and 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29563 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 91h day of May, 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 AAResopcTr29563CenGo1f.wpd (40) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29563 CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES MAY 9, 2000 GENERAL 1. Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting that the City's Conditions of Approval for this development application exist and are available for review at City Hall shall be recorded against the property with Riverside County. 2. 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. 3. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements and standards of § §66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 4. This approval shall expire and become null and void within two years, unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 k 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. PRO-BLGET-S 6. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 8. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. Westward Ho Drive: 36-foot half of a 72-foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential: 37-foot width. Width may be reduced to 33 feet with parking restricted to one side and 29 feet if on -street parking is prohibited provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant makes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. 2) Entry Drive: Divided with 20-foot travel lanes and a five-foot median. C. CULLS DE SAC 1) Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset); 45.5-foot radius, unless modified by General Plan Amendment 2000-066. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 , (nl 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 10. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 11. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 12. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 13. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Westward Ho Drive: Ten Feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 14. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 15. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map. 16. 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. 17. 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, Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 1 ;.1 the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 18. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. 19. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. I MPRO EMFE T-T-LANS 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 22. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. I MPROMEMENTAGBEElyJ EIT 23. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of the a map, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 24. 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. 25. 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. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 1 26. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 27. 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. GRADIN 28. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 29. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 30. 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. 31. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 3 4 J or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition are not an entitlement and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 35. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 36. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 } . t 37. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 38. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 39. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 40. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leechfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 42. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 43. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater to the Whitewater Drainage Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's runoff 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. 44. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 U_T_l LMES 45. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 46. 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. 47. 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_- NDSRAFF1-CJNWB--VEMENTS- 48. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Westward Ho Drive (Collector) - Complete north half of a 48-foot travel way (between curb faces) plus six-foot sidewalk. The applicant's cost responsibility shall be for the north 20 feet of street improvements, including curb and gutter, plus sidewalk and landscaping. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association. C. CULS DE SAC 1) Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with a 45- foot curb radius unless modified by General Plan Amendment 2000-066. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 <" Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 49. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 50. 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). 51. 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. 52. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 53. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical 0 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 54. 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 Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5"/6.00" 5.5"/6.50" 55. 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 Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 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. 56. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Main Entry Drive centered approximately 322 feet from easterly tract boundary. LANDSCAPING 58. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 59. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 60. 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. PUBUC_SB3V CES 61. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 J 4 QUA_L1TY_4SS—UA C­E 62. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor. certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. • ►Lg 66. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks and common lots. 67. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect and comply with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 68. 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. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 { i 69. Perimeter tract walls and required landscaping shall be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract unless a phasing plan, or construction schedule, is approved by the City Engineer. 70. Front yard landscaping for future houses shall consist of a minimum of two shade trees (1.0-inch and larger caliper size) and 10 five gallon shrubs. Three additional shade trees (0.75-inch caliper) shall be required for corner lots houses. All trees shall be double staked to prevent wind damage. MAINT_ENN 71. 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- ND -DER 1T� 72. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of final map approval. 73. 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. 74. Plan check fees required by the Riverside Country Fire Department shall be paid when plans are submitted for review and approval. 75. Prior to final map approval, parkland mitigation fees shall be paid as required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 76. Prior to issuance of a site disturbance permit, Fringe -toed lizard mitigation fees shall be paid (i.e., $100/acre). FIRE DEPARTMENT 77. Fire hydrants in accordance with Coachella Valley Water District Standard W-33 shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 � -f J 78. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline 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 will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: / certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 79. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. 80. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. 81. If provided, gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key operated switches, series KS-2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval prior to installation. Gate entrance openings shall be not less than 16 feet in width. All gates shall be located at least 40 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Gates shall have either a secondary power supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate in the event of loss of primary power. 82. Applicant/developer will provide written certification for the appropriate water company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. MISCELLANEOUS 83. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking purposes. 84. The layout and design of the permanent tract access gates shall be approved by the Community Development Department after review and approval by the Fire Department. Cond PC Tr. 29563 Century -38 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 SITE LOCATION MAP ' #11 ' 1-ja --I; 9 Ei Av I J:: y Va n MILES al ? e 4aa a c0 19 OR -� C�- I it I . M tt RANI!�tl i • � A510. n s SI ' D I 0 ,• N1�•E'n � I w RAW oft 0 N rlsrA sl sR .'ram LA � cc W\ ` � U OUINTA R PLAZA j CENTER EL EN ST. INTA LA vAVAVA SIIGIMG S(.y LX Na I $ I SNo TIo4K S NIA GWRN 1 G In SIIR u CKEo(0 G .ts [oRge� ' coNnE ' T'er 47TN At, OR : nsJO g �7 . ist 29 4 I 30 al,V. VIA AF.VRE inn a �irL_ pILCE_ OIL IE I$ 1 Y WE�I� lk`YLA 'r iPEFN-NCF-`.< ti`w's As Iri TI176ti { VISTA AVENUE —�M p11ltlTA',�_ viST. r\STA J!flKi 414W, /tl7u,10€SGM_50 'wr--r�-.. ; •W,,._.'- a, ^< UL^s�' 6 tie t-A ,PI'PAtiID OR FARP l�4. �N• \r°. (��� �� t. Ems- '< I M p \ __4_���✓STI•�rt ar �-04IfMrr -Y-I NT4W 4R T � 5,. .•l'� OWN" CALUB ' WENU 31 .... tmn o-----K ��, 32 I' Cl coEwRue ; ---t- ; 4-W-I ; 1 4' SAN TIMOTEU _ I 4R ii`r c ;!i"ESI rrG fillf o r Co�A vQ IEiaul�+_i_ ;7• � Ave. ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT In cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection West210 tan.aclnto Avenue • ems, a I amta FaX 0 April 10, 2000 Attachment 2 y Benson ire Chief To: Dudek & Associates 75-150 Sheryl Avenue, Suite C fly serving the Palm Desert, CA 92211 '°'p°rated Attn: Joe Soneji, P.E. of Riverside sty and the s of: Re: Tentative Tract Map 29563 ung This letter is a follow-up to your request for clarification and explanation of the specific requirements for TTM 29563. The following answers to your specific questions: Mont 1) Cul-de-sac radius: A 38-foot radius to face of curb is acceptable. This standard radius is currently new utilized in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County for residential areas. It should be noted Iron Lake that the entire radius of 38 feet is required to properly turn fire department vehicles. Vehicle parking along the curb should be prohibited when the minimum radius is used. ,hcUa 2) Single access: A single access shown from Westward Ho street is acceptable as shown. at Hot Springs 3) Maximum dead-end street length: La Quinta City and Riverside County standards limit the length to wells of roads ending in cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,320 feet for areas not located in a ' designated high fire hazard zone. A secondary access roadway is typically provided when such a condition exists. This map does not have such a condition present. Elsinore All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department t Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. eSincerely, no valley FRANK KAWASAKI aDesert Chief Fire Department Planner 10 is c rho Mirage IP By Jacinto Walter Brandes 14 Fire Safety Specialist iecula rd of Supervisors Buster, cc: Christine Dilorio, City of La Quinta District I t Tavaglione, District 2 Venable, District 3 HiPEzWPDATAXAQUINTAIPROJECTMTM_PWTTM29M - Roads.doc Wilson, District 4 1 Mullen, District 5 EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION • PLANNING SECTION • INDIO OFFICE 82_573 gghway III, Zed FI I%&o, CA 92201 • (760) 863-8886 • Fax (760) 863-7072 PROPERrr L /NE --loY CUR jVE / 1 Exhibit "A" CUR VE / PROPERTY L/NE CURVE I CURVE 2 CURB PROPERTY CURB PROPERTY RIWI A 9 1 C j D R L I R I L R L R L 50' 25 16 9 1 92.11 17636'02". 109 33.48 100 30.72 215012'02" 38 142.73 4T 176.53 56' 28 18 101 89.55 16018'41" 110 31.31 100 2847 212°37'22" 38 141.02 48 I78.13 60 30 18 12 90.00 16015'37" 112 31.79 100 28.38 2120 31'13" 38 140.95 50 185.45 60 30 20 10 86.63 15000'3d 110 288 100 2620 210°01 17 ' 38 139.29 48 66 33 22 11 83.74 13°38'40' III 26.4 100 23.82 207�'17'21" 38 137.48 48 H.95 .2$ ICountyot Riverside n-ts-ss i 11-s1 it -so —1 STANDARD NO.800 PROPERTY LINE G E 2 CURB o FACE = , 3 'off CURv E 3 11. II�N IIBII. • II B11'_ I/AII of As$ NOTE: OFFSET MAY BE LOCATED EITHER LEFT OR RIGHT. Exhibit "B" County of Riverside _ OFFSET CUL-DE-SAC ' REVISIONS l 1 A -IR-77 1 2-92 STANDARD Nn Ann(Al I Attachment 3 H .1I &few 45 k% =A'" Yap ' W tt n.L n d C3 5 6 a cf a & ci I K- v.. �.�.[Jill�� 8 � !E Rsrar F- `n s � N 1 C.0 >1 b o z e1 L� op I- L 0 - JhL I Attachment 4 010 NI .10 A 110 araa air lr.r a&Aa (101 iNV7VA) 3 t f 9 x Id Y d l J f O 3 ki R t R d Cr a 9 0 d 0 !i Id a U r e , I 9 i! (Sa ° i Ad! N idt A d !l � 'ttp( lh. o la ' I1:li3ikt�i4i--V M ( e 6 Attachment 5 9' it BI #A T-Vf °l 4 Q" MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, PLANNING MANAGER DATE: MAY 9, 2000 RE: MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SUNROSE CORPORATION (MDG 2000-010) The Zoning Code requires additional development standards for the Cove Residential area called Master Design Guidelines. Design Guidelines are required for any developer/applicant constructing five or more houses in the RC District. Therefore when a developer wants to pull a permit for the fifth house, the guidelines must have been reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission. Mark Tuvell, Sunrose Corporation seeks building permit approval for his fifth plus house. He is submitting Master Design Guidelines for Planning Commission review. The attached Guidelines contain information as to how the developer/applicant intends to vary the exterior of the unit which includes, but is not limited to, roof types, window and entry treatment, stucco and paint colors, and roof tile colors. Applicant is proposing design package which includes one floor plan with two separate design elevation options. Staff determined the guidelines provide adequate deviations to the elevations such as varied roof lines and architectural details. In addition, upon Planning Commission approval, staff will use the guidelines to evaluate each building permit application from this developer for compliance with the approved guidelines. WGIORTAI I h 19 011 0z e Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the Master Design Guidelines (MDG 2000-010) as presented. C:\WPDdocs\MDG 2000-010.wpd