Loading...
2000 09 26 PCPlanning 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 September 26, 2000 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Peginning Resolution 2000-066 Beginning Minute Motion 2000-014 1. 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. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on September 12, 2000, B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ........... Request ............ Action ............... B. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ........... Request ............ Action ............... C. Item ................. Applicant .......... Location ........... Request ............ Action ............... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-067, ZONE CHANGE 2000-093, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677 Evergreen - La Quinta Limited Partnership Southeast corner of 501h Avenue and Washington Street Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, amend the General Plan Land Use Element from Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial, change the Zoning Designation from Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial, design guidelines and development standards for a 7.63 acre commercial/office complex, and development plans for a one story 14,490 square foot drug store. Request to continue to October 10, 2000 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-684 R. C. Hobbs, Inc. On portions of Via del Sol, Via Sevilla and Via Coronado Streets in La Quinta Del Oro. Compatibility review to allow new prototype single family houses in Tract 23971-1 . Resolution 2000- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-401, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-068, ZONE CHANGE 2000-094, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 RJT Homes, LLC Southwestern corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, amend the General Plan Land Use Element from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential change the Zoning Designation from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential, development standards and design guidelines for 178 single family detached and attached dwellings on 73 acres; and subdivision of 73 acres into 172 residential lots and other miscellaneous lots. Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- , Resolution 2000- , Resolution 2000- PC/AGENDA VI VII BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2000-515 Applicant .......... 1" Choice Signs for Verizon Wireless Location ........... North sign of Highway 1 1 1 within the One Eleven Shopping Center, west of Simon Drive. Request ............ Review of a deviation to an approved sign program to permit a corporate sign. Action ............... Minute Motion 2000- CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of September 19, 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 September 12, 2000 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of joint meeting of August 22, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item 3 be amended to read, "or across the street?"; Page 6, Item 14 to read, "north one-half of the alley only along his frontage."; Page 9, Item 9 change the word "He" to "His"; and Item 8 remove the word "how". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to approve the minutes as amended. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-68; a request of Tomra Pacific Inc./Recycling Centers for approval of architectural, landscaping, sign and site plans for a 496.5 square foot prefabricated recycling collection facility to be located at 78-630 Highway 1 1 1 in front of Stater Brothers Supermarket within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00-Wpd Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 1. Chairman Robbins 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 the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to identify the location of the State mandated signs. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked what would happen if a customer came after hours; do they go to the store to redeem their receipt the next day. Staff stated the applicant would answer that question. 4. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification as to whether or not money would be dispensed at the site. Staff stated the patrons would receive a receipt that would be taken into Stater Bros. for redemption. 5. Commissioner Abels asked about Attachment #4, a letter from Washington Plaza Associates stating that all parties in the Center are agreeable with the project; are all parties to the Center agreeable to the proposal? Staff stated that all tenants were notified and the only ones who responded were AAA Auto Club who wanted to have it moved further east, and Carl's Jr. had questions in regard to the application. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked why the Center's sign program would not apply in this instance. Staff noted because they were murals and educational tools for recycling centers in accordance with the State mandate. Also the trailers were temporary in nature. Commissioner Kirk asked if it was a photo kiosk, would it be considered differently? Staff stated murals had not been addressed previously. 7. Commissioner Butler asked why it could not remain in its original location at the rear of the Stater Bros. building. Staff noted the new location was a request of the applicant. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked what the State mandated requirements were. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated there were numerous State mandated requirements and went on to state some of them. Commissioner Tyler asked if the City had to abdicate to those requirements. City Attorney Jenson stated that not if the City had CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC9-12-00-Wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 adopted its own standards applicable to recycling facilities. Section 9.100.190 of the City's Zoning Code was adopted for this purpose and staff reviewed them as to how this project applies to the City standards. Commissioner Tyler stated there were a number of areas where the proposal did not apply with the City's Zoning Code and asked why we were allowing it on an Image Corridor. City Attorney Jenson stated the City's Zoning Code sets a maximum of 16 square feet of sign and cannot be illuminated. 9. Chairman Robbins stated that the photographs show overhead power lines. Staff stated they do not expect any and would not approve any. Chairman Robbins asked about Condition #33 as it states the building would be open 24 hours and one of the signs in the pictures state 7-1 1; what are the hours of operation? Staff stated it would need to be clarified by the applicant and could be corrected. Chairman Robbins stated his concern as to why we require all the landscaping to hide the building which will hide the signs. It should be one or the other. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify the maximum sign requirements; what is the total allowable amount of signage on all four sides. Staff stated the small signs such as hours of operation, are not counted. The signs giving the name of the business are allowed. Commissioner Kirk asked if all the signs exceeded the allowable 16 square feet. 11. Chairman Robbins also questioned signage on three sides of the building which has been consistently denied to applicants. 12. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Griffin, representing Tomra Pacific Rancho Cucamonga, stated that in regard to the hours of operation for the vending machine, they are generally the same as the grocery store or 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; the required signage is to have the days and hours, a price sign, an open sign, and signs in the grocery store windows explaining where to recycle and the days and hours of operation. Therefore, all the signs are on the front of the facility. As to the landscaping requirements, they are willing to revise the landscaping to staff's recommendations. One of the conditions they have a problem with is the color of the recycling Center. All of their bins for roll -off containers are a warm grey to be compatible with the Centers. In looking at the shopping center, Stater Bros. uses these colors in part of their signage. The roof C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00-Wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 trim and material will be an exact match to the Center to blend in. Another issue raised by the Commission was moving the recycling fac0ity from the back of the building to the front. The grocery store was concerned about the safety of their patrons using the faci9ity where it is currently located. There is some high speed traffic traveling through there and it is not very well lighted. Part of the push for the Replanet Center's is to create a clean and well lit, convenient and safe area to recycle. Under SB332 all ready to drink beverage containers were added to the Act. Prior to this being adopted, the only containers that were acceptable were beer, malt liquor and carbonated beverages. Since then they have added all ready to drink beverages which include water, juice, and even children's beverages creating up to three billion more beverage containers in the State that are recyclable under the Beverage Container Act. What they are finding with their grocery store partners is that they want to make recycling much more convenient because virtually every customer has some type of beverage container and they are being charged California redemption value and they believe that the Tomra Recycling Center is very well timed in that it does meet their customers needs. 13. Commissioner Tyler questioned the need for all night lighting. Mr. Griffin stated the lighting is incorporated in the construction of the building and they are down shining lights. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern is that the proposed location is on the One Eleven Corridor and to have it there with lighting is not attractive. 14. Chairman Robbins asked if the signs on the sides could be illuminated. Staff stated the illuminated sign would be where the pop-up roof element is on the front and the sides will light up the murals. The overhang at the front would make it an externally illuminated sign that is not allowed by the Code. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked how the roll -up dumpsters would be replaced. Mr. Griffin stated they will set the new one down out of the way of traffic and pick up the full container and put it down and place the empty container in the Center. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not think the parking lot was constructed to handle this load over time and he does not believe there is a problem with traffic at the rear. Mr. Griffin stated install plates where the four wheels of the roll -off will be stationed and they have not had any damage with this procedure since July of 1999 and they have 115 in place. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 16. Commissioner Butler stated he has not been convinced of the need to move the Center to the front of the store. He too does not believe there is any speeding traffic and in the rear of the building it is out of the way and provides the customers adequate access. With the number of business existing and coming in the need for parking will be needed, he is not convinced this facility cannot go in the back where it is now. Mr. Griffin stated that what they have found out is that with the facility in the rear of the grocery stores, the volume is low because people do not feel safe and others do not even know the facility is there. They have done a lot of studies and with their presentation to the grocery stores, they understand that consumers want easy, convenient, safe, well lit, and clean recycling centers. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with these comments and believe they exist with the current facility at the rear of the store and he does not feel unsafe with its present location. 17. Commissioner Abels asked what prevents someone from using the Center after it is closed. Mr. Griffin stated a video comes on and states the machine is closed and will not work. 18. Chairman Robbins asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission. Ms. Susan Moors, representing Stater Bros. Corporate management, stated the reason they asked Tomra to relocate was at the request of the property owners, Desert Cities Development, who asked that the facility be moved to the front as it is in direct line of their trucks. Parking is impacted due to double parking and there have been several very serious near misses. They have had numerous complaints from citizens of the City complaining about being in the back of the building and with the new Replanet system they have eliminated many of these problems and increased the amount of recycling. Stater Bros is working with Tomra to maintain a clean and safe environment. Stater Bros. and the owners of the Center have made it clear that the rear is not an option. They will do whatever it will take to have an attractive site. They too are concerned about the condition of the asphalt and working on a system of signage to make it safe and accessible to the public. 19. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing is closed and open for Commission discussion. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC9-12-00-Wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 20. Commissioner Kirk stated he believes the owner and Stater Bros have made a compelling reason for moving the facility to the front of the building. As this is a recycling center he thinks the City should be more willing to work with the applicant, but it should comply with the Center's Specific Plan and City Zoning. 21. Commissioner Abels stated he concurs with Commissioner Kirk and thinks this design is too gaudy as presented. He also agrees with the argument to move the facility to the front, but the signs are too much. They are trying to stop sign pollution and this adds to the problem. 22. Commissioner Butler stated he still believes it can be behind the building and work. The idea is fine, but the location is wrong. 23. Commissioner Tyler asked if the State mandated facility does anything for meeting AB939 requirements. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated it does. The City is required to meet certain mandates, but the Commission is still authorized by the City's Zoning Ordinance and by State law to regulate the design of the structures. Commissioner Tyler stated he has gone through this area early in the morning and there has been some competition for space with the truck drivers for parking, but he does not believe it creates the necessity to move the facility. He went on to cite what he believed were violations of the Zoning Code and asked why this was being allowed to be built in violation of each of the City's requirements. Staff stated the sections quoted referred to individual machines and as this is a building/facility, modifications were made to allow it to be considered. In addition, the loss of parking spaces was analyzed and the Center was still over parked. Commissioner Tyler stated that if it is approved it should comply with ADA requirements. 24. Chairman Robbins stated he has no concern about moving it to the front as he agrees it is a safety concern. He does agree with Commissioner Kirk in that this does look like an old photo kiosk that was dropped off in the middle of the parking lot. Staff rightfully did not tie this to the City's Zoning requirements but classified this as a building and should therefore meet those standards for the shopping center. The architecture does not meet the architectural design of rest of the Center and does not meet the image the City wants on Highway 1 1 1. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00-Wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 25. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant work with staff on the location and architectural design issue. Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m. to allow the applicant time to meet with staff regarding the issues raised. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m. 26. Mr. Griffin asked the Commission to continue his application to October 10, 2000. 27. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue this item to the meeting of October 10, 2000, as requested by the applicant. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 83-009 Addendum General Plan Amendment 2000 070 Zone Change 2000-095 Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #4 and Tentative Tract Map 29878; a request of KSL Land Holdings, Inc. for certification of an Addendum to the PGA West Environmental Impact Report, a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential, Zone Change from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential, Specific Plan Amendment to modify development standards, design guidelines and land use alternatives for PGA West, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 22.21 acres into 60 residential lots, and other miscellaneous lots, for the area located at the southeast corner of Avenue 54 and PGA Boulevard. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report and noted additional changes to the Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about the widths of the streets. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that in one instance it refers to the right of way width and the other is the street width. Street width is typically measured between the curb face, but when you go to a wedge curve we call it a flow line as there is no curb face. He went on to explain why the conditions were written as they are. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC9-12-OO.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 3. Chairman Robbins asked why a 31 foot right of way width and 28 foot gutter to gutter width. Staff stated there is a foot and half between the flow line and back of the wedge on each side which equals out to one and a half feet. 4. Commissioner Tyler questioned why the staff report refers to different minimum lot sizes and yet they are asked to approve a tract map which has the smallest lot size is 6250 square feet. Why not make all the lots 6,250 and stop the double bookkeeping as to what is allowed and what is there. Also the staff reports should reference the change from GTE to Verizon. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked what function, other than aesthetics, is the lake serving. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it was for the stormwater drainage. 6. Chairman Robbins stated that historically rolled curbs have not been allowed in the City. Staff stated that for the last four years, KSL and Rancho La Quinta have been using this wedge curbs and the City does give discretion as they are private streets. 7. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing KSL, stated they are presenting a reduced intensity project. They have reduced the Specific Plan by 1,000 units and reduced the commercial uses by 100,000 square feet. It is their belief that this is a more appropriate land use for what PGA West has come to be over the last 15 years. The Environmental Addendum states how the environmental impacts have been reduced by this application. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked how much of the lake is needed for drainage. Mr. Haag stated the tentative tract is required to deal with the stormwater runoff. The lake serves two functions. From a planning, landscape, architectural standpoint it provides a green space, water space a softening element into the site plan as well as provide storm water retention. As depicted on the exhibit, less than 16% is in water surface area and that is only in the event of a 100 year storm flood. Commissioner Kirk raised some issues that had been indicated in letters received from the residents of PGA West and asked if some of the commercial uses would some day be addressed. Mr. Haag stated that originally a 1,000 room hotel would have the commercial uses to accommodate that type C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC9-12-OO.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 of use. As it turns out PGA West has been developed considerably less dense than the first applications and over the years it continues to be reduced. Commissioner Kirk asked what the Tourist Commercial uses will be. Mr. Haag stated that currently they do not have a defined plan for that area. Residents have raised concerns regarding the 1,000 room hotel. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL, stated that they do intend to develop the Tourist Commercial site as residential. They do think it is good to have a mixture of Residential with the Tourist Commercial. Unfortunately, the market has not developed to accommodate the Tourist Commercial use. Once homeowners are existing, there are opposed and they now intend to develop it as residential. They would like to have some commercial, but most of the Neighborhood Commercial sites have been reduced in size and most of the commercial uses have moved further north making this not a good site in terms of the market to generate the traffic count to produce the commercial uses. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any opportunity on the site for a six acre commercial use that could be marketed in 10-15 years. Mr. Hosea stated they are out of property with the exception of a couple of two or three acre sites once this site and the hotel site are developed. They, as a club, do intend to have some commercial uses within the club area. Commissioner Kirk asked about the architectural changes being suggested in this application. 10. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs that the demand creates the problem and the solution. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked if the minimum lot size could be more standard. Mr. Hosea stated that as the parcels are engineered the lot sizes and plot the homes, it will be more defined. Commissioner Tyler asked about Section 3.2 of the Specific Plan as to whether there had been any changes. Mr. Hosea stated none. 12. Chairman Robbins asked about the lake and it conformance with the City's Landscape Ordinance. How can a project that is half water including the landscape areas, meet the maximum water use which is 80% of ET when half of the lot is water which runs about 110 of ET which means the other half would have to be about 50% ET which is not a typical KSL landscaping scene. It would C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC9-12-OO.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 have to be very heavily zeriscape in order to meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Haag stated that the existing perimeter of the project from curbline back even into the landscape setback is already existing and incorporated into the setback on two of the three sides. The other side is an existing wall. If you take out the house pads from the equations, you would see how they met the Code. The intent is to develop a neighborhood that is consistent with the thematic of the landscape, architecture of other residential tracts in PGA West. It is not intended to be a desert landscape project. Chairman Robbins stated the intent of the Landscape Ordinance is to conserve or minimize the use of water. He doubts if the landscaping approved over the last ten years agrees with the City's Ordinance. To have this much water you have to have a lot of sand everywhere else to meet the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. He would suggest adding a condition to require this project to meet the maximum water allowance in the Landscape Ordinance if they want this much water. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked what type of garage doors would be used. Mr. Haag stated they would be refined during the architectural review of the units. Commissioner Tyler asked about some of the uses listed in Planning Area IV, what type of uses are proposed. Mr. Haag stated it would only be allowed by a Temporary Use Permit. 14. Commissioner Kirk asked what the major changes are proposed for the architectural changes. Mr. Haag stated they did not make any specific changes from the previous approval. It is their intent to integrate the graphics of the previous approval into this document. Fundamentally, they are the same standards and guidelines. Commissioner Kirk stated the staff report references the La Quinta Hotel Specific Plan and the Greg Norman Golf Course, so they have incorporated graphics from there as well? Mr. Haag stated there is a reference to the Greg Norman Golf Course in regard to a sign issue on this Specific Plan because of the tunnel connecting the two and giving people an indication of how to get from one project to the other. 15. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Michael Walker, General Manager of PGA West Residential Association, Inc., representing the Board of Directors of the 1300 homeowners or two-thirds of the Masters Association CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00-Wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 membership. They are conceptionally in favor of the Zone Change. Originally, the Board of Directors was told this proposed development would be annexed into the Residential Association 1 and accessed from inside the gated complex off Oak Tree. Later they were told this would not occur and access would be from PGA Boulevard by a card gate. Their concern is safety as the only means of ingress/egress is off PGA Boulevard and the amount of traffic generated. Although PGA Boulevard is designated as a 35 mph zone, many drivers excelled that limit. Add to that a consistent flow of resident and guest automobiles, golf carts and service vehicles and the risk for liability becomes a real concern for the Master Association. Although they unanimously approve of the rezoning of the 22 acres, they believe the access should be off Oak Tree or 54" Avenue. If neither option is utilized, a fair and impartial and unbiased traffic study should be required prior to approval of this request. 16. Mr. Robert Foulk, 57-540 Interlachen, President of the Masters Association, stated they have had a lot of discussions with the applicant and do support the residential use for this property. Their problem is that their CC&R's do not function well with this project as it relates to security gates, etc. They have reached an agreement to propose an amendment to the CC&R's to overcome that problem. On that basis and requesting that the Commission condition the project to that extent, they have no objections. 17. Commissioner Kirk asked if they are concerned about not having a commercial use in the development. Mr. Foulk stated they do not and their responsibilities do not address those type of questions in regard to land uses. 18. Commissioner Butler asked if the Commission could make any conditions regarding HOA concerns. Staff noted no. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked if the access would be by card gate. Mr. Haag stated the Tentative Tract envisions some type of a gated access, but does not mandate a human guard. The cost may be prohibitive for a 22 acre site with such low intensity development to make it viable. The other sites that have manned gates have a larger number of homes to serve. Mr. Foulk stated they do request that the gatehouse be compatible with the other gatehouses at PGA West. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00-wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 20. Chairman Robbins asked if they would be building houses or selling lots. Mr. Haag stated the site would be sold to a developer to build out the houses. 21. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 22. Commissioners Abels and Butler stated they has no concerns. 23. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees with the change in land use and as the residents are not wanting the commercial uses, then he has no objection. In regard to the Tentative Tract, his concern is regarding the lake. There needs to be more sensitivity to the environment and the lake does not meet the Landscaping Ordinance, nor the intent of the zeriscape and would be in support of denial of the Tentative Tract for that reason. 24. Commissioner Tyler stated his only issues was the lot sizes in the Specific Plan. 25. Chairman Robbins stated there is an existing median and asked if this will be a full turn access. Staff stated it would be a full turn. Chairman Robbins stated he does not see any emergency access. Staff stated it is next to the well site at Avenue 54. Chairman Robbins asked if access will be from the interior or exterior of the well site. Staff noted there is an easement and it will be wherever the Water District prefers. Chairman Robbins stated he is not sure he would deny the Tentative Tract because of the lake, but does have some concerns that it meet the Landscape Ordinance. 26. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-061 recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report Addendum 83-009. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-062 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-070, subject to the Findings as submitted. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00.Wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 ROLL CALL.: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-063 recommending approval of Zone Change 2000-095, subject to the Findings as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-064 recommending approval of Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #4, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #8: Delete any reference in the Specific Plan to allowing time shares, interval and fractional ownership, in the Tourist Commercial zone. b. Condition #9: Delete Section 3.2.29 on page 3.24. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-065 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29878, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #25: Delete b. Add Condition #79: Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide calculations consistent with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code -Water Efficient Landscaping. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked if this would preclude the development of the lake. Staff stated they would have to review it. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2000 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins reminded the Commission of the joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Architecture and Landscape Review Committee on September 26, 2000, tentatively at 6:00 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held September 26, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. on September 12, 2000. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-12-00.wpd 14 Tdy/ 4 4 QUM& PH #A MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM "A" - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-067, ZONE CHANGE 2000-093, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000- 677. APPLICANT: EVERGREEN - LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Staff is requesting a continuance of this project to October 10, 2000, to allow the applicant additional time to meet with the neighboring communities. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-684 APPLICANT: R. C. HOBBS COMPANY, INCORPORATED REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN LA QUINTA DEL ORO ON VIA DEL SOL, VIA SEVILLA AND VIA CORONADO PROPERTY OWNER: UNIWEST SERVICE CORPORATION ARCHITECT: PEKAREK-CRANDELL, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: FRANK RADMACHER ASSOC., INC. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATIONS: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR/RM) CONSIDERATION: UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303, CLASS 3(A). SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: PALM ROYALE COUNTRY CLUB SOUTH: VACANT LAND ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (PHASES 2-5 OF LA QUINTA DEL ORO) EAST: EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN ACACIA (TRACT 23268) AND LA QUINTA VISTAS (TRACT 23269) DEVELOPMENTS WEST: ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET, VACANT AND INDIAN WELLS TENNIS GARDEN SDP 684 HobbsPC - 43, greg Page 1 BACKGROUND: La Quinta Del Oro Tract History The property is within La Quinta Del Oro, a partially developed subdivision of 80 single family lots on portions of a 29.65 acres located on the east side of Washington Street approximately 1,663 feet to the south of Fred Waring Drive. This project was approved by the City Council in 1989 (Resolution 89-30). Via Sevilla, a public street, provides access to Del Oro from Washington Street. There are 33 existing houses in the development ranging in size from 2,100 square feet to 3,400 square feet based on the City's Metroscan data base (Attachment 1). Tract 23971 (Phase 1) was recorded in 1990; lot sizes are typically 65 feet to 80 feet in width by 125' to 130' in length. The existing public street improvements and development of most of the Del Oro houses occurred in 1990. Twenty-four of the existing 33 California Mediterranean style houses are multilevel ranging in height from 23 feet to 25 feet. One story houses are approximately 16 feet high. House widths are 50 feet for Plan 1 (One story), 54 feet for Plan 2 (Split-level) and 65 feet for Plan 3 (2 Story). Exterior materials consist of plaster walls and concrete roof tiles (Mission S-tile) in light desert color tones of white and brown. The facades typically have one foot recesses with primarily rectangular windows and no extended roof eaves. Arches for window and door openings are also used on some houses. Pop -out (5-inch thickness) and cutout stucco features highlight windows, entries and garages. Stucco corbels and rosettes are a distinctive facade detail while wood shutters appear on a few of the existing split-level houses. These prototype units were approved by the Planning Commission on November 28, 1989. The existing houses have front loaded three car garages with prominent balconies over the garage areas for a few split-level (Plan 2 @ 2,700 sq. ft.) houses. Many of the sectional, metal garage doors have decorative glass inserts. To break up the three car garage elevation, the developer provided two -foot offsets for the single car garages on two of the house plans (Plan 1 @ 2,100 square feet and Plan 3 @ 3,400 square feet). Decorative concrete driveway surfaces were not used for these existing houses. Landscaping for existing houses consists of large lawn areas with trees and shrubs. Trees that are used in the development are Jacaranda, Indian Laurel, Shoestring Acacia, California Pepper, and African Sumac. Many houses are accented with Queen Palms and an occasional California Fan Palm. Based on a visual observation of the existing development, Queen Palms may have been allowed substitution for shade trees. SDP 684 HobbsPC - 43, greg Page 2 Project Request The applicant has plans to construct 47 single family houses on the vacant lots (Lots 3-5 and 21-64) on Via Sevilla, Via Coronado, and Via Del Oro. Three prototype house plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,400 square feet to 3,200 square feet with Plan 3 being two story. Plan types are as follows: cam.,+in..., Ilni+a Plan 1 One Story Plan 2* One Story Plan 3 Two Story Sq. Footage 2,400 2,759 3,200 Bedrooms 4 4 5 Garage Parking Spaces 3 Front Loaded 3 Front Loaded 1 Front & 2 Side Loaded Note: House widths vary from bO teet to 6b teet Irian z►. - i nis rian proviaes opuonai iayuuL5 under Plans 2a and 2b. Lot widths are typically 65' and 80', unless located on a cul-de-sac. Proposed architectural design themes are California Mediterranean. Each plan type has three facade design treatments that include variation in window sizes and shapes (rectangular), changes in roof designs, and design features such as wood shutters, stucco eaves, wood lintels and multiple lite windows. Entrances to each house have prominent -covered roof elements. Roof heights vary from 18 feet to 27 feet, excluding chimney projections. The garages for Plans 1 and 2 are front loading with roll -up, sectional metal doors. Plan 3 proposes an auto court with a two car garage being inset into the center of the house and a single garage space that is facing the street. Eight different material and color schemes are proposed for these new prototype units. Exterior walls are to be plastered in varying shades of earth tones with darker trim colors. Eagle concrete roofing (S-tile) is proposed in varying shades of brown and red. Covered patios are offered as options for buyers. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting for review. A conceptual front yard landscaping plan has been submitted for the model homes on Via Sevilla (Lots 51-53). Landscaping consists of numerous shade trees per lot accented by sod, shrubs, palm trees and groundcover. Plant sizing is not specified at this time. A large variety of plant materials is offered. Hardscape areas utilize scored/colored concrete for driveways and pavers for entrances. Six foot high privacy walls are also proposed for each house, and courtyard fencing is also provided on some plan types. A temporary office and parking lot is proposed on Lot 34 across the street from the three model homes. SDP 684 HobbsPC - 43, greg Page 3 Public Notice: The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 15, 2000 and mailed to all property owners in Del Oro and 500 feet of the site. No comments have been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRQ Action On September 13, 2000, the ALRC considered this request. By Minute Motion 2000- 017, the ALRC determined that the proposed architectural design and landscaping to be compatible with the existing tract houses, subject to recommended conditions which have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval. A draft copy of the Minutes from the meeting is attached (Attachment 2). STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is required to review and comment on the findings: A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. Response: The final plotting schedule showing the location of the houses will be submitted separately to staff in the future. The applicant is aware that Plan 3 units require special plotting needs based on the City's Compatibility Review requirements. Views to the surrounding mountains will not be impacted by approval of this project because two story houses will be located within the development as required by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. See Condition 313. 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same or better type of fencing for the new dwellings, as determined by the Planning Commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. Response: La Quinta Del Oro houses have six foot high privacy walls around their residences constructed of tan precision block without decorative top cap. Side yard pedestrian access gates are constructed using tubular metal backed with metal and painted to match the house, or wood. Condition 3D requires the developer to provide masonry privacy walls compatible with existing houses ensuring they will be architecturally compatible. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, with respect to architectural materials, colors, roof lines, lot area, and building mass. SDP 684 HobbsPC - 43, greg Page 4 Response: The applicant's California Mediterranean style prototype house plans range in size from 2,400 square feet to 3,200 square feet on existing lots averaging 9,300 square feet. To ensure architectural consistency with Del Oro houses regarding facade treatments, ALRC recommends that: 1) front bedroom windows for Plans 1 and 2 shall be inset a minimum distance of 5.5" into the building, 2) awnings and wood lintels are removed, 3) building colors, roof tile/pitches complement existing houses, 4) architectural projections comply with the Zoning Code provisions, 5) glass inserts are offered for garages, and 6) notched corners are added to the Plan 1 B garage and entry (Condition 3F). Based on the recommended conditions, the development of the new prototype units in this partially developed subdivision will include similar architectural improvements and building massing ensuring harmonious development in Del Oro. 4. At least one specimen tree (minimum 24" box) shall be provided in the front yard and street side yard with a total number of trees on each lot to be the same as that provided for on the original units. Response: The plans provide conceptual design and planting information for the front yards. The applicant's plant pallette includes those plants used in the City and in Del Oro. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to complement single family buildings and complement surrounding houses. Condition 3C requires specimen trees to be planted with the development of the new houses to give a mature appearance when the house is sold. A lush landscape design is required, unless a xeriscape plan is proposed and allowed by City staff. 5. The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision shall not deviate by more than 10 percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. Response: Existong La Quinta Del Oro houses range in size from 2,100 square feet to approximately 3,400 square feet; therefore, the developer's request to have houses that are 2,400 square feet to 3,200 square feet is within the ten percent allotment. 6. Residential units with identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another. Response: The prototype houses provide contrasting elevations that complement an expansion of the Del Oro development. Offering a two story plan will create visual diversity in keeping with the Phase 1 houses. To expand the upstairs living areas, the developer shows an optional open railing balcony. SDP 684 HobbsPC - 43, greg Page 5 7. Each house shall offer a minimum of two different front elevations pursuant to Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code. Response: The proposed units comply with this requirement in that three facades per plan are proposed with variations in roof heights and window and door fenestrations. Overall, architectural details are attractive and compatible with surrounding Del Oro units provided changes are made as proposed under the provisions of Condition 3. 8. Parking standards comply with City's design standards for single family residential units. Response: Under Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the Zoning Code, three garage parking spaces are required when a house has four or more bedrooms. Each house plan offers a three car garage in compliance with this requirement. To ensure proper maneuverability into the two car garage of the Plan 3 unit from the 20 foot wide auto court, staff recommends the single car garage be setback two feet from its present location (Condition 3A). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ approving Site Development Permit 2000-684, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1 . Tract 23791-1 Map 2. ALRC Minutes 3. RC Hobbs Exhibits and Plans (Commission Members only) 4. 1989 Deane Homes Exhibits (Commission Members only) Preo"d �by: Grey- r usde�l, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager SDP 684 HobbsPC - 43, greg Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-684, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, GRANTING COMPATIBILITY APPROVAL OF THREE NEW PROTOTYPE UNIT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE LA QUINTA DEL ORO DEVELOPMENT (TRACT 23971, PHASE NO. 1) CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-684 APPLICANT: R. C. HOBBS, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26" day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of R. C. Hobbs, Inc. for approval of three new prototype units (Plans 1-3) ranging in size from 2,400 square feet (one story) to 3,200 square feet (two story) in the La Quinta Del Oro development, located on Via Del Sol, Via Sevilla, and Via Coronado, more particularly described as: Tract 23971-1 (Lots 3-5 and 21-64); 47 lots WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements under Section 15303, Class 3 (A) of the Guidelines for Implementation; and WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, at its meeting of September 13, 2000, did review the architecture and landscaping for the proposed prototype units and recommended approval, subject to conditions. 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 find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.60.300 (Item H) of the Zoning Ordinance: 1 . The proposed units utilize similar architectural features such as varying roof heights, front loaded garages, window sizes, roof tile, stucco exteriors, etc. A minimum of three facades per housing type are offered to ensure architectural diversify. The proposed California Mediterranean style units are compatible with existing houses, provided exterior architectural design changes are made such as removal of awnings and wood lintels, adding notched corner elements for some garages, insetting facade windows, limiting roof pitches, and blending res sdp684 Hobbs PC - 43 greg; Page 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 2000-684 R.C. Hobbs, Inc. September 26, 2000 building color schemes. Masonry walls are proposed between units consistent with existing houses (i.e., tan precision blocks). Improvements to sectional, metal garage doors may include window inserts as an option for home buyers. Facades shall be varied to create an attractive streetscape appearance. The plans, as conditioned, meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. One and two story house plans proposed by the applicant are consistent with existing houses to provide varying building heights to diversify the visual characteristics of the development. Plan 3, a two-story house, shall not be plotted within 150 feet of Washington Street, or adjacent to existing one story units pursuant to the requirements of the Tract Conditions and Zoning Ordinance, respectively. Prior to building permit issuance, a plotting schedule shall be approved by the Community Development Director under a Precise Plot Plan application. 3. The proposed house size range of 2,400 square feet to 3,200 square feet is between the 2,100 square feet to 3,400 square feet approved, or constructed in the project. To maintain property building massing for Del Oro, small width houses measuring 50 feet wide shall not be plotted on lots greater in width than 66 feet. Facades shall be varied to create an attractive streetscape appearance. 4. A lush, front yard landscaping plan is proposed for the prototype houses consistent with existing La Quinta Del Oro houses. Specimen trees will be required for front yard landscaping to give the new houses a "lived in" look from the street at time of final occupancy. Trees used within the project shall be appropriate for the desert environment, including gusting winds. Queen palms shall be used to accentuate the lawn and shrub planting program. Xeriscape landscaping may be permitted for the project, provided the plan is approved by the Community Development Department. 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; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2000-684 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto. res sdp684 Hobbs PC - 43 greg; Page 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 2000-684 R.C. Hobbs, Inc. September 26, 2000 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 26' day of September 26, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE B. ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California res sdp684 Hobbs PC - 43 greg; Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-684 R. C. HOBBS, INC. SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Detailed front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal to the final plans to the Community Development Department. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department, including the following: A. Enclosed parking spaces shall measure a minimum dimension of 10-feet wide by 20-feet long and be free of any obstructions such as mechanical equipment, etc. The Plan 3 single car garage shall be shifted two feet back from its present location to allow easier access to the two car garage from the driveway. B. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. C. Front yard landscaping shall consist of turf, two trees, ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. A minimum of one tree per interior lot shall be 24" box in size having a 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting. Corner lots require two specimen trees and three 15-gallon trees (i.e., 0.75 inch caliper or larger). Trees deemed not Cond SDP 684 Hobbs - 42; Page 1 - gt appropriate for this project are: Bottle, Brazilian and California Peppers, Eldarica Pine and Bradford Pear. Lodge poles (2" diameter) shall be used to stake trees. Queen palms (6 foot brown trunk) shall be used on 50 percent of the houses, substituting as one required shade tree per lot. Xeriscape landscaping is allowed, provided the planting list and design elements are approved by the City. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. D. Privacy fencing for each new house shall be constructed using masonry blocks matching existing houses. E. One story houses (Plans 1 and 2) shall be built within 150 feet of Washington Street as required by Condition #30 of Tract 23971. F. Architectural modifications required are: 1) Facade windows for Plans 1 and 2 bedrooms/offices shall be inset into the building a minimum distance of 5.5 inches to 6.0 inches; 2) Window awnings and wood lintels shall be removed; 3) Roof pitches shall not exceed 4-in-1 2; 4) Architectural projections (bay windows, chimneys, etc.) shall comply with Section 9.50.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; 5) The Plan 1 facade (Elevation B) shall be modified to include notched corners at the top of the single car garage and entry to match existing Del Oro houses; 6) Decorative glass inserts for garage doors shall be offered as an option by the developer; and 7) The exterior building and roof colors shall be limited to light color tones in white, red and brown for houses to be built on Via Del Sol. A blended color scheme shall be used for Lots 21-25 and 60- 64, meaning the developer's color palette can be used for a few lots provided the other lots use the same colors required for Via Del Sol houses. Remaining lots in Phase 1 (Lots 25-59) can utilize the varied color and material samples submitted to the Community Development Department with the application (Color Schemes 1-8 dated 8-22-2000). Prior to a plaster inspection by the Building and Safety Department for Lots 3-5, 21-25 and 60-64, the developer shall meet with Department staff to finalize the exterior building and roof colors for each under construction house. G. Houses plotting shall consist of Plans 1-3 ranging in size from 2,400 square feet to 3,200 square feet. Facades shall be varied to create architectural diversity within the development. 4. A Minor Use Permit application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval to establish a temporary model home sales complex on Via Sevilla. 5. Prior to a final inspection, unused driveway approaches shall be replaced with raised concrete curbing. Cond SDP 684 Hobbs - 42; Page 2 - gt 6. Original model home improvements on Lots 3 and 4 shall be removed before on - site construction of houses begins, provided perimeter landscaping is retained unless otherwise determined by a certified arborist. All findings and recommendations of the arborist shall be in written and submitted to the Community Development Department for consideration prior to any work being completed. 7. Mailboxes shall be provided within the project in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Postal Service. Cond SDP 684 Hobbs - 42; Page 3 - gt ATTACHMENTS Attachment sasnoq 6ULqSLX3 L , LO I 4-3 A L) V) (D 4-3 0 4-3 0 V) Attachment 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 13, 2000 CALL TO ORDER :00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and LandscapinVne mmittee was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Planning Manager Chr' di lorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members pres/,istinedi Dennis Cunningham, and Frank Reynolds. C. Staff present: Planning Malorio, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executive Sawyer. Id. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE A,FNDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Ma er Christine di lorio asked if there were any changes to the Minute f August 2, 2000. Committee Member Reynolds asked that Pag Item 4 be amended to state the Arts Association was reques ' to upgrade the building. There being no further changes, it was ved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to a rove the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. V. B1ISINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-684; a request of R.C. Hobbs Company, Inc. for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC9-13-OO.wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 13, 2000 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant had any comments. Mr. Roger Hobbs, developer, stated he was acquiring 47 recorded lots and went on to explain how he attempted to solve the problem that 23 of the lots are 65 feet wide. They developed two plans to make the numbers work on the smallest and largest house on a 65 foot wide lot. They tried to be innovative and create a project that is of the same footage or larger and of same value or larger than the existing neighborhood. Therefore, they agree with staff's recommendation as it would cost them less. With the exception of the garage door glass, those homes have been retrofitted to the new doors with glass. The majority of the existing homes have replaced wood doors and replaced with sectional roll up with and without glass. If the City wants the glass, it is acceptable to them. They tried to move away from more of the same and yet have a high end product. These colors are more fitting for today's styles and believe will provide a successful project. He agrees with the use of multi -pane windows and glass on the garage doors. The existing houses probably have leaks at the windows as they are tight a fascia with no protection for the windows from water damage. They could tone down the colors used on the awnings. Willing to look at the modifications requested by staff especially in regard to the colors. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated this may be the last project to go through a compatibility review as most are completed. He asked how the homeowners' association felt about this project. Mr. Hobbs stated they have had conversations in regard to price range and square footage. They will be taking the elevations back to the HOA before going to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the remaining property was part of this tract. Staff stated it will not be required to go through a compatibility review as it is not part of this tract. Committee Member Cunningham stated that in regard to the colors, he has no objection to the colors proposed, but they need to be blended with the adjoining homes. 4. Committee Member Cunningham suggested that where Via del Sol adjoins them, they should use the same colors as what is there. Then over the next four lots start blending in the new colors. Then on the other end blend it in the same way. As far as the architectural details he has no objections either way. The roof plan works. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\AI.RC9-13-OO.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 13, 2000 5. Planning Manager Christine di lorio went over the changes recommended by staff: a. Condition 2.13.1): Facade windows for Plans 1 and 2 bedroom/offices shall be inset into the building a minimum of 5.5 inches to 6.0 inches. b. Condition 2.13.2): Wood lintels shall be replaced with stucco for the front building facades C. Condition 2.13.3): Plan 1 B single car garages and entries shall include notched corner elements. d. Condition 2.13.4): Delete e. Condition 2.13.5): All awnings shall be deleted. f. Condition 2.13.6): Delete. g. Condition 2.13.7): Delete h. Condition 2.B.8): Vista del Sol houses shall have the same color palette. That color palette shall be integrated into the first five houses on either side of the street on both the north and south ends of the tract to blend the colors and roof tiles with existing homes with the remainder color as proposed. i. Condition 2.B.9): Provide an option for decorative windows insets at the top of the garage door. j. Condition 2.B.1O►: Delete. k. Condition 2.13.1 1): Roof pitches shall be 4-in-12. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what type of materials will be used for the perimeter walls. Mr. Hobbs stated they would be block to match the existing walls. Staff recommended a different cap be used. Mr. Hobbs stated they will revise their plans to match staff's recommendation. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt reviewed the tree list and made a recommendation as to which ones should be removed. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-017 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-684 as modified above. Vl. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\AI,RC9-13-OO.wpd 3 PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-401, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-068, CHANGE OF ZONE 2000-094, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWING UP TO 178 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND ATTACHED DWELLINGS ON 73 ACRES; AND APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBDIVIDING 73 ACRES INTO 172 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND LETTERED LOTS FOR STREETS, ACCESS, LANDSCAPING, LAKES AND A WELL. LOCATION: THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND 50TH AVENUE. APPLICANT: RJT HOMES, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-401 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING/ DESIGNATIONS: CURRENT: TOURIST COMMERCIAL/TOURIST COMMERCIAL PROPOSED: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\StfRptRJTSP00-048.wpd BACKGROUND: Site Background The project site is currently generally vacant, although citrus trees, evidence of the previous agricultural activity on the site, still occur on the eastern portion. The site is surrounded by single family residential development on the south and west, and Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue on the east and north, respectively. Lands beyond the streets are generally vacant, and designated for neighborhood commercial and single family residential land uses. Project Request In addition to the Environmental Assessment, the following applications have been filed: 1. A General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to change the land use designation from the current Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. 2. A Specific Plan to establish design guidelines and standards for up to 178 residential units, both attached and detached, a central open space area, and a master circulation plan. 3. A tentative tract map which divides the proposed project site into 162 residential lots, and lettered lots for streets, landscaping and access lots. The Specific Plan provides the design guidelines and standards which will guide the future development of the site. The Specific Plan requires that Site Development Permits (SDP) be secured in certain instances. Conditions of approval have been added which clarify the need for SDPs. The Specific Plan further details the potential architectural styles of the homes within the project area, and the types of materials which will be utilized. The tract map proposes 72 single family detached lots and 90 single family attached lots. The attached lots are proposed for zero lot line construction. Models for both types of housing will also be reviewed by the Planning Commission during the Site Development Permit process. The variations to the City's zoning standards are discussed individually below, under Design Issues. The proposed project represents a mix of 90 single family attached residences and 72 detached single family homes on lots ranging from 8,208 s.f. to 21,136 s.f. The average lot size for the attached product is 10,446 s.f., and is 15,534 s.f. for the detached product. The attached product is located on the eastern half of the property, closest to Jefferson Street. Many of the residential units are located on common area lakes, which total 1 1.1 acres of the project site (lots U through Z on the tract map). The project is proposed to be developed in one phase. Interior streets are proposed at 29 feet paved width, with no on -street parking. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\StfRptRJTSP00-048.wpd The project proposes two access points: a primary access on 50th Avenue, approximately at the mid -point of the northern property line; and a second access point approximately at the mid -point of the eastern property line. In addition, emergency access is proposed at the northwestern corner of the property, and a golf cart easement, allowing for access to the Citrus golf club, is proposed at the mid -point of the southern property line. Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 4, 2000. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map can be made, as noted in the attached resolutions with the exception of the properties suitability finding under the Specific Plan as follows: Finding #4 - Property Suitability: Issues associated with the design of the project are discussed below. Site -specific design issues can be further reviewed and refined through the Site Development Permit process for individual land uses on the site, which will be required. Perimeter Wall The Specific Plan proposes a perimeter wall treatment and project entries at 50th and Jefferson. The wall is shown on the Map as a staggered treatment. The entries are not sufficiently detailed in the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map to provide a definitive view of the final product. A condition of approval has been added which requires that the perimeter wall and project entries be reviewed through the Site Development Permit process (Condition #51.A). Finally, the noise analysis performed for the proposed project requires 8 and 10 foot wall in order to attenuate sound at the site, particularly on lots adjacent to both 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street. The mitigation measures for the project require that CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\StfRptRJTSP00-048.wpd U �� these be a combination of berming and walls, with the walls not to exceed 6 feet in height, as limited by the Ordinance. This mitigation measure has been repeated as Condition #55. Open Space and Setbacks The project is designed around a series of water features, which will provide open space views to adjacent homes. For many of the homes, this will provide the perception of a larger rear yard. In this instance, the standard in the Specific Plan (pages 3.4 and 3.5) for a 10 foot rear yard setback is acceptable. For homes, whether detached or attached, which do not back onto open space, however, the Specific Plan also calls for a 10 foot rear yard setback. This standard is too small to allow a pool or other rear yard amenities, when one considers patios in the range of 6 or eight feet in depth. A condition of approval has been added therefore (Condition #58), which requires an amendment to the standard to 20 feet for lots which do not back onto open space areas. Signage The signage proposed in the Specific Plan does not provide sufficient detail, including size and location, to make a determination as to its adequacy. A condition of approval has been added (Condition #59) which requires that signage for the project be processed through a Site Development Permit, and that all signage shall conform to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Potential for 2 Story Homes The standards provided for in the Specific Plan allow for 2 story homes within the project site. No specific locations or architectural detail is provided, however. The conditions include a provision that all locations for two story homes shall conform to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance., Section 9.60.310, which prohibits two story homes under certain circumstances (Condition #60). Landscaping The Specific Plan does not include sufficient detail to determine the ultimate layout and distribution of landscaping in and around the proposed project. Since surrounding streets are primary and secondary image corridors in the General Plan, landscape treatments are critical. The Specific Plan includes a very broad and all-inclusive landscape palette. The biological resource analysis prepared for the proposed project indicates that the project should include native plant species to the greatest extent possible, and has been conditioned to do so. Conditions of approval have been added to address both these issues. Condition #51.A and #51.13 requires that the perimeter and common area landscaping plans be subject to Site Development Permits. Condition #2 requires that the landscaping palette be edited to focus on native and non-invasive plants. 00 � CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\StfRptRJTSP00-048.wpd Parking The proposed Specific Plan does not set standards for parking, although it does state that no on -street parking will be permitted within the project. The requirement for parking for single family homes where no on -street parking is allowed is 0.5 spaces per unit, in addition to 2 garage spaces. In the case of the proposed project, this requires a total of 81 guest parking spaces. The tentative tract map depicts a total of 25 guest parking spaces (10 on lot AA, 3 on lot II, and 3 each at the end of cul-de- sacs L, M, N & P). There appear, however, to be landscape islands in each of the cul- de-sacs which could be converted to guest parking spaces. If all cul-de-sacs had three spaces where the landscape islands currently occur, they would provide a total of 36 parking spaces. In addition, a number of undefined landscaping areas occur throughout the project, which could accommodate parking spaces. A condition of approval has been added (Condition #54) which requires that the final map include 81 guest parking spaces. CONCLUSION: The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map represent an appropriate use of the parcel on which they are proposed. The Specific Plan, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can be made. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-401. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-068. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 2000-094. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2000-048, subject to the findings and conditions. 5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29858, subject to the findings and conditions. 00 ) C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\StfRptRJTSP00-048.wpd Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan 2000-048 Document 3. Tentative Tract Map 29858 Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Submitted by: f U G Christine di lorio, Planning Manager U0+ CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\StfRptRJTSP00-048.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 co LO 00 0) C\1 0 0 z F- cr F- F- z uj F- HUM i 01 �ji ON a Sri,, SA ul Ill ;g - 193HIS NOS83-4A3r E � I FU�—Itl �,,l L !A- lea, 9 KIM, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-401 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-068, CHANGE OF ZONE 2000-094, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-401 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of September, 2000 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2000-401 for General Plan Amendment 2000- 068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858, generally located on the southwest corner of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs 772-050-007 and 772-050-008 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-401) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval for Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2000-401. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTEA-401.wpd 0 0 C Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ Environmental Assessment 2000-401 RJT Homes 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 7. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2000- 401 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2000-401 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTEA-401.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ Environmental Assessment 2000-401 RJT Homes PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTEA-401.wpd 01 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 Tentative Tract Map 29858 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Southwestern corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: RJT Homes 50842 Grand Traverse P.O. Box 810 La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Tourist Commercial Proposed: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current: Tourist Commercial Proposed: 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.) 1) Change of land use and zoning designation from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. 2) Design Guidelines and development standards for 178 single family attached and detached homes on 73 acres. 3) Subdivision map creating 162 residential lots, street, access and open space lots. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Commercial and single family residential designations, currently vacant. South: Existing single family residential East: Jefferson Street, neighborhood commercial and single family residential designations. West: Single family residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EAChecklistPaimiila.wpd 011. 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 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. 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 2) 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 req*ed. ignature 9 r o� Date ON I ill X CHRISTINE DI IORIO CITY OF LA QUINTA Printed Name For 0 1 ti 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 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) 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) 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? (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) 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) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X f-9 M X X f� X X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Specific Plan Project Descr.) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Specific Plan Project Descr.) X IV. 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? (Biological Assessment, Ogden Environmental, June 2000) 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? (Biological Assessment, Ogden Environmental, June 2000) 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? (Biological Assessment, Ogden Environmental, June 2000) 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? (Biological Assessment, Ogden Environmental, June 2000) 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? (Archaeological Testing & Evaluation, CRM Tech, Sepember, 2000) 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 Testing & Evaluation, CRM Tech, Sepember, 2000) X X X X X X f3 9 015 c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Paleontological Resource Assessment, LSA, July 2000) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Testing & Evaluation, CRM Tech, Sepember, 2000) VI. 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? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan, page 8-7) 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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) 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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) 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) VII. 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) 91 X X X X X X X X X X K4 X 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? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) 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) Vill. 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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) 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? (Hydrology Study, MDS Consulting, June 2000) 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? (Hydrology Study, MDS Consulting, June 2000) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Hydrology Study, MDS Consulting, June 2000) 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) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) X X X X X X X U t 1 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) 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) XI. 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? (Noise Impact Analysis, LSA, August, 2000) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Noise Impact Analysis, LSA, August, 2000) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Noise Impact Analysis, LSA, August, 2000) 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) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials; site visit) X X 9 9 X X 19 ►Ll X X X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials; site visit) X XIII. 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? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) 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: 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 substantW increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) 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 EIR, page 4-126 ff.) 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) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) i X 9 X X X X X X g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (General X Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) 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? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) 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? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 20) 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? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare 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 lorg-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? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. X X X X X X X X X X 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. 4-0 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: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992 Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code 021 Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-401 I. a) & c) Jefferson Street is a Primary Image Corridor in the City General Plan. 50th Avenue is a secondary image corridor. The Specific Plan has delineated sufficient setbacks to accommodate the required landscaping parkway. Subsequent site development permits for the project perimeter landscaping plans and entryway treatments will assure that the project meets the City's standards for these corridors. This will ensure that the impacts to visual resources are reduced to a less than significant level. I. d) The project site is currently vacant desert land. The proposed lighting on the project site will be typical of that for residential development, and will primarily occur on the interior of the site. The site's lighting impacts are not expected to be significant. III. c) & d) The proposed project is less intense than the original Tourist Commercial designation assigned for the site. Therefore, the potential impacts assigned to the site associated with residential development are expected to be less than those analysed in the General Plan EIR. Based on the residential land uses proposed, the project can be expected to generate approximately 1,900 trips per day'. Based on this, as shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 46.7 2.1 8.39 0.0 0.21 0.21 7 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 1900 trips/day and average trip length of 5.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trips Generation Handbook, 6th Edition, for single family residential. 022' C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). Recent analysis by SQAQMD has determoned that the Valley has reached attainment, and a redesignation is pending. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures: 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM 10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the sate. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 023 r-\Mv nnrijmant5\WPDOCS\EA401RJTAddendum.wod 13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation measures. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project site are not included in the analysis. IV. a), b), d), & f) A biological resource analysis was performed for the proposed project2. The findings of the biological resource analysis are summarized below. The site has previously been in agriculture, and as such has been substantially disturbed. Wildlife species were found to inhabit the site, however. The Black -tailed Gnatcatcher was observed on the site. Once he project is built, the species is likely to relocate to surrounding habitat. As a result of the biological resource analysis, the project shall be subject to the following two mitigation measures: 1. Native landscaping shall be used throughout the common areas of the site to the maximum extent possible. 2. No clearing activity shall be conducted on the site during the spring and early summer (March through June). The project occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The project proponent will be required to pay the mandated $600 fee per acre prior to development at the site. This mitigation measure will reduce impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance. V. a), b), & d) Two archaeological resource analyses were conducted for the proposed project'. Seven prehistoric sites were identified on the project site. These sites were tested and evaluated, utilizing professional protocol. The analysis determined that the recorded sites, once testing was completed and artifacts were collected and catalogued, do not meet the criteria for significance as defined in CEOA. The following mitigation measure will ensure that potentially buried deposits are identified and protected during construction activities. 1. An archaeological monitor shall be present during all grading and trenching activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to 2 "RJT Home Site, Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street Biological Assessment," prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, June 20, 2000. 3 "Cultural Resource Research Design..." prepared by LSA, July 6, 2000; and "Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Sites CA-RIV-6352 to-6357," prepared by J 9 0 CRM Tech, September 11, 2000. G\Mv nnrnmpnts\WPDOCS\EA401 RJTAddendum.wnd temporarily halt or redirect earthmoving activities should any cultural resources be encountered. Upon discovery of a cultural resource, work should stop in the vicinity of the find, and a plan for its evaluation and treatment should be developed in consultation with the Community Development Department. V. c) A paleontological assessment was completed for the proposed project4. The study determined hat the subject property is located within the high shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Fossil mollusks were located on the project site. The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the potential impacts of the project on paleontological resources: 1. A paleontological monitor shall be present during all grading and trenching activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect earthmoving activities should any cultural resources be encountered. Upon discovery of a paleontologic resource, work should stop in the vicinity of the find, and a plan for its evaluation and treatment shall be developed in consultation with the Community Development Department. VI. a) i) The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. No known earthquake fault occurs within several miles of the proposed project. The potential impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant. VI. a) ii) The proposed project occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City has adopted the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard. Construction of any structure on the project site will conform to these standards, and will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significant level. VI. a) iii) The proposed project does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The soils on the site are loose silty sand, which has the potential to shift in a seismic event. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific soils analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) & c) The site is located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils on the proposed site are loose silty sand. As such, unstable soil conditions can occur from improper grading or excavation. The City's standards for site 4 "Paleontological Resource Assessment," prepared by LSA, July 6, 2000. 095 C:\My Documents\WPDOMEA401RJTAddendum.wpd '� preparation shall be adhered to in all site preparation activities. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the specific structures being constructed. VIII. a) The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on - site. The water will be retained in a system of lakes and water features which shall be designed to meet the standards established by the City Engineer. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning" devices when necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water quality standard to a less than significant level. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The District will require the installation of water conserving landscaping, as well as the adherence to building code requirements for water conserving fixtures within the homes. This will reduce the potential impacts associated with the proposed project to a less than significant level. VIII. c), d) & e) Any development proposal reduces the amount of natural terrain available for percolation, and changes drainage patterns. Construction of structures and roadways will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The proposed project will direct surface runoff to lakes and water features located within the project. The City Engineer will impose conditions of approval to ensure,that any drainage is properly treated, if needed. No significant impact is expected. IX. b) & c) The project site is currently designated for Tourist Commercial in the General Plan. The proposal would change this designation to Low Density Residential. This represents a considerable reduction in the potential impacts of the project site on the area surrounding it. The proposed project will be impacted by its location (see item XI, below) more than the project will impact surrounding properties. The development of the project site will still provide a buffer to properties to the west and south, and will have lower impacts on traffic, noise and air quality than originally analysed in the General Plan. No significant impacts are expected. () 2 6 C:\My DocumentsMPDOMEA401 RJTAddendum.wpd XI. a), b) & c) A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The study identified two potentially impacted areas: existing development to the south and west, which will be impacted by construction of the project; and the project area itself, which will be impacted by the surrounding noise environment. Further, the study identified two types of noise impacts: short term impacts associated with the construction of the project; and long term impacts associated with the location of sensitive receptors on the project site. The noise analysis results in the following mitigation measures in order to mitigate the impacts of noise to a less than significant level: 1. All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that noise is directed away from the southern property line. 3. Construction staging areas shall be located along the northern property line. 4. All construction shall occur during the hours allowed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 5. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 4 foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 10 foot wall. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 2 foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 8 foot wall.. Design of the berm and wall shall be subject to Site Development Permit review. 6. Any house proposed to be two storeys in height along the eastern or northern boundary of the proposed project shall be required to be designed with sufficient building upgrades to ensure an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less. Such documentation shall be provided to the building department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits, should it be necessary. 7. A solid eight foot high gate shall be installed at the emergency access point at the northwest corner of the property. 5 "50th and Jeffersor Project Residential Development Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA, August 11, 2000. CAMy Documents\WPDOMEA401RJTAddendum.wpd XII. a) The proposed project may indirectly induce growth, insofar as added residents will generate a need for added businesses, and employees for these businesses will require housing. The potential impact is not expected to be significant. XIII. a) The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential impacts for all public services. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to public services. All development has an impact on governmental facilities and services. The project proponent will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvements. The proposed project will be required to pay school fees in effect at the time of development to mitigate for the impacts to schools. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on services or facilities. XIV. a) & b) The project will create up to 178 homes, which will generate an added need for parks. The project will contribute to the City's Impact Fee Program, which allocates funds for the provision of parks. This mitigation will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. XV. a) XVI. f) The proposed project was analysed as a Tourist Commercial development in the General Plan. Such development has a considerably higher trip generation than residential development. The impacts of the proposed project, therefore, are expected to be lower than those forecast in the General Plan EIR, and are not expected to be significant. All development impacts utilities and service systems. The proposed project, however, will be required to meet the standards of the City and service providers in constructing facilities which are energy efficient and water conserving. The construction of the proposed project will have a limited impact on solid waste disposal. However, the residents will be required to participate in the City's AB 939 programs, which are designed to reduce the impacts to landfills. The overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\EA401RJTAddendum.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION TO A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 73 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: GPA 2000-068 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for RJT Homes for review of a General Plan Amendment to assign a land use designation of Low Density Residential to 73 acres located at the southwest corner of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 772-050-007 and 772-050-008 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1 . Internal General Plan Consistency. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map would change the designation from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. The proposed amendment is an existing land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed amendment maintains consistency within the other General Plan elements, insofar as the Low Density Residential land use category is addressed throughout the General Plan. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed project requires the extension of all public services to the site as part of project development. In addition, conditions of approval and environmental mitigation measures have been included for this project which address safety and welfare issues, including noise, flooding and seismic safety. As the Specific Plan is built out, through the Site Development Permit process, site -specific issues which might affect the public health and safety will be further addressed. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the surrounding designations in the project area, insofar as the low density residentia0 land use designation is predominant in this part of the City. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTGPA00-068.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- General Plan Amendment 2000-068 RJT Homes 4. Property Suitability. The property is well suited to residential development, being primarily flat, and having adequate access to major roadways and commercial amenities in close proximity. 5. Change in Circumstances. The strong housing market in the City has caused a greater need for lands designated for residential development. Commercial designations, which occur to the north and east of the subject property, will serve the neighborhood in which the property will develop. 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 confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-401 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 2000-068 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of September, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTGPA00-068.wpd EXHIBIT "A" Existing Land Use Designations The exhibit below illustrates the current Land Use Designations for the subject property prior to the consideration of this application. T T T T •i T T •• T .T .� •.. Proposed Land Use Designations The exhibit below illustrates the proposed Land Use Designations for the subject property in consideration of this application. T T T •T T T T T T T T T 4,!—. n .L 1 The Palmilla Specific Plan •L .L ,L ,L i .L 1 .L .1 .L ,L W ,L 2.3 A t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO 73 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: CZ 2000-094 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for RJT Homes for review of a Change of Zone to change the zoning designation on 73 acres at the southwest corner of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 772-050-007 and 772-050-008 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Change of Zone: Consistency with General Plan. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map would change the designation from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. The proposed amendment is an existing land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed amendment maintains consistency within the other General Plan elements, insofar as the Low Density Residential land use category is addressed throughout the General Plan. The proposed change of zone will maintain the consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance required by law. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed project requires the extension of all public services to the site as part of project development. In addition, conditions of approval and environmental mitigation measures have been included for this project which address safety and welfare issues, including noise, flooding and seismic safety. As the Specific Plan is built out, through the Site Development Permit process, site -specific issues which might affect the public health and safety will be further addressed. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the surrounding designations in the project area, insofar as the low density residential Band use designation is predominant in this part of the City. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTZC.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Change of Zone 2000-094 RJT Homes 4. Property Suitability. The property is well suited to residential development, being primarily flat, and having adequate access to major roadways and commercial amenities in close proximity. 5. Change in Circumstances. The strong housing market in the City has caused a greater need for lands designated for residential development. Commercial designations, which occur to the north and east of the subject property, will serve the neighborhood in which the property will develop. 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 confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-401 assessed the environmental concerns of the Change of Zone; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of CZ 2000-094 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in the attached Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of September, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California) •� C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTZC.WPD EXHIBIT "A" 2�3 ZONING Existing Zoning Designations The exhibit below, illustrates the current Zoning Designations for the subject property prior to the consideration of this application, r T •r - - - __ Proposed Zoning Designations The exhibit below- illustrates the proposed Zoning Designations for the subject property in consideration of this application. 2.-1 The Palmilla Specific Plar. 031, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 2000- 048, TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 178 ATTACHED AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON 73 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for RJT Homes for review of a Specific Plan to allow up to 178 housing units on 73 acres at the southwest corner of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 772-050-007 and 772-050-008 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering Environmental Assessment 2000-401, and all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Specific Plan: 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and supports the development of the proposed project, as conditioned. 2. The proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it provides standards for the proposed land use, and implements requirements for Site Development Permits, as stipulated. 3. The proposed Specific Nan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 4. Development of the proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the parcels on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses. The project will be further reviewed through the Site Development Permit process, allowing for use - specific mitigation at that time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoSP00-048,wpd.wpd 0 35 Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_ Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with the conditions of approval for the proposed Specific Plan; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-401 assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2000-048 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 Plannong Commission held on this 26th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 03(") CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoSP00-048,wpd.wpd CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048 RJT HOMES SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RIGHTS 3. Prior to approval of any future final tract map(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of future tentative map(s) or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed 03 i CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 1 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 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. 4. 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. 5. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. 50" Avenue (Primary Arterial) - no additional dedication required 2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - no additional dedication required B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential: 31-foot width. On -street parking is prohibited and provisions shall be made for adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors. The CC&R's shall contain language requiring the Homeowner's Association to provide for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. C. CULS DE SAC 1. Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. u38 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 2 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. 50th Avenue - 20-feet B. Jefferson Street - 20-feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 10. 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. 11. 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 Specific Plan. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 13. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. GRADING 14. 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 CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 3 03 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 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. 15. Prior to issuance of any grading permit(s), 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. 16. 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. 17. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 4 0,10 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 24. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 5 o 4 1. Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 29. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 30. The project shall be designed to accommodate.purging and blowoff water from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 34. 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.) C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 6 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. 50t" Avenue (Primary Arterial) - Construct 38-foot half of 76-foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk. 2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - applicant shall pay cash fee to reimburse City for street improvements made to applicant's frontage through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Reimbursement amount shall cover all costs related to installing curb, gutter and outside 20 feet of roadway paving; the reimbursement amount shall be reduced by the percentage of non - City funds expended on the Jefferson Street Widening project. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. On -site streets: a. Two -Way Traffic: construct 28-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within the 31-foot right of way. All on -site streets shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. b. One -Way Traffic: the following streets shall be designated as one-way travel only: Lot D: construct minimum 20-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 23-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. ii. Lots C and G: construct minimum 16-foot wide full - width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 19-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. C. Cul-de-Sacs: All cul-de-sac bulbs which contain raised landscaped islands shall be designated as "One -Way" and applicant shall construct minimum 20-foot wide full -width C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 7 c9C Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 23-foot right of way. Construct a "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. d. Lot R: provide for two-way traffic by constructing 28-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a 31-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum 25-foot wide "hammerhead" turn around area shall be constructed adjacent to Lot 85. e. Lot U: provide for two-way traffic by constructing minimum 22-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 25-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum 25-foot wide "hammerhead" turn around area shall be constructed adjacent to Lot 134 and Lake Lot Z. 2. All onstreet parking is prohibited and the applicant shall be required to provide for the perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the Homeowners' Association. C. CULS DE SAC 1 . Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset), with 38-foot curb radius. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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). C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wod 8 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 37. 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. 38. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 39. Public 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. Onsite private streets shall have a wedge curb, the design of which shall be approved by the City Engineer. The lip of the wedge curb at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 40. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 41. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 42. 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 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 9 u 4.) Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 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 project or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 43. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. 50th Avenue - Main project entry, to be located approximately 1,250 feet west of the centerline of Jefferson Street. No restrictions applied to turning movements at this location. B. 50th Avenue - Emergency access entry (20-foot wide) from the end of the cul-de-sac in "B" Street, to be located approximately 2,400 feet west of the centerline of Jefferson Street. This point of entry will be restricted to right -turn movements only. C. Jefferson Street - Secondary project entry, to be located approximately 600 feet south of the centerline of 50th Avenue. This point of entry will be restricted to right -turn movements, and a left -turn into the project if the applicant desires to construct an appropriately designed opening in the median island. LANDSCAPING 44. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 45. 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. 46. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 10 u 4 6 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 47. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along 501h Avenue and also along Jefferson Street. The sidewalk shall meander within the 32-foot Right -of -Way and setback. PUBLIC SERVICES 48. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 49. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -sate improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 50. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51. The Specific Plan shall be amended throughout, wherever appropriate, to clearly state that the following shall require approval of Site Development Permits: A. Perimeter wall and landscaping B. Common area landscaping C. Model homes, both attached and detached. D. Monument signage 52. The Specific Plan Plant List on pages 2.35 through 2.38 shall be amended to focus on native and non-invasive plant types. 53. The Specific Plan shall be amended to require that 0.5 parking spaces shall be required per unit for guest parking. 54. The Final Tract Map shall include a total of 81 guest parking spaces, or 0.5 per unit, whichever is greater. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 11 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 55. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 4 foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 10 foot wall. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 2 foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 8 foot wall.. Design of the berm and wall shall be subject to Site Development Permit review. 56. The last paragraph in Section 2.6.3, Recreation, on page 2.11 shall be deleted. 57. The tables on pages 3.4 and 3.5, "Detached Single Family Units" and "Attached/Zero Lot Line Units," respectively, shall be amended to allow only a 6 foot wall height. 58. The tables on pages 3.4 and 3.5, "Detached Single Family Units" and "Attached/Zero Lot Line Units," respectively, shall be amended to allow 10 foot rear yard setback for lots backing onto open space, and a 20 foot rear yard setback for lots which do not back onto open space. 59. The Specific Plan shall be amended to state that all project signage shall conform to the standards for monument signage contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 60. The Specific Plan shall be amended to require the location of two story homes in conformance with the standards of Section 9.60.320 of the Zoning Ordinance. 61. On page 3.3 of the Specific Plan, under "B. Permitted Uses," and anywhere else it may occur, the word duplex shall be replaced by the word "attached." 62. Five copies of the Final Specific Plan, with all amendments required above integrated into the document, and with these conditions of approval appended to the document, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any permit. 63. The project proponent shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Assessment 2000-401. DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITARY SEWER 64. Pursuant to the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the project proponent shall annex to Improvement Districts No. 1 for irrigation service. C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wod 12 6148 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 65. Landscaping, irrigation and grading plans shall be submitted to CVWD for review and approval. 66. All plans for domestic water connections to existing CVWD lines shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. 67. The project proponent shall obtain all necessary approvals from the District for the well site located at the northeastern corner of the property. 68. The project proponent shall demonstrate, prior to recordation of the finai map, that Bureau of Reclamation facilities on the project site do not conflict with the proposed project, to the satisfaction of the District. FIRE DEPARTMENT 69. All water mains and fire hydrants required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Std. W-33, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. 70. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 25 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width of 36 feet. 71. All interior fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13'6". Any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of any building shall be located within 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 72. Gate entrance/exit openings shall be not less than 15 feet in width. All gates shall be located at least 40' 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. 73. The maximum dead-end street length is limited to 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. C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.wpd 13 049 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 2000-048 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 74. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum outside radius of 38 feet to face of curb with a minimum inside radius of 26 feet to islands or center landscape features. 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. SCHOOL FEES 75. The project proponent shall demonstrate their payment of school fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOARJTSP048.WDd 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 73 ACRES INTO 162 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NO.: TTM 29858 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for RJT Homes for review of a Tentative Tract Map to allow 162 residential lots on 73 acres located at the southwest corner of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APNs 772-050-007 and 772-050-008 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Tentative Tract Map: 1 . The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and supports the development of a range of housing opportunities, as conditioned. 2. The Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 3. The Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. Development of the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the parcels on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses as an extension of existing residential uses in the vicinity. The project will be further reviewed through the Site Development Permit process, allowing for use -specific mitigation at that time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTTTM29858.wpd 0 5 �• Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with the conditions of approval for the proposed project; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-401 assessed the environmental concerns of the Tentative Tract Map; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of TTM 29858 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quanta, California C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCResoRJTTTM29858.wpd u 5 `" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 RJT HOMES SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 GENERAL 1. Upon conditional approval by the City Council of this development application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 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. 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. 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. u53 CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 1 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to approval of any future final tract map(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of future tentative map(s) 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. 5. 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. 6. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1 . 50t" Avenue (Primary Arterial) - no additional dedication required 2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - no additional dedication required B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential: 31-foot width. On -street parking is prohibited and provisions shall be made for adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors. The CC&R's shall contain language requiring the Homeowner's Association to provide for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. C. CULS DE SAC 1. Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 7. 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. 8. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 2 V " Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 9. 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. 10. 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. 50th Avenue - 20-feet B. Jefferson Street - 20-feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 11. 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. 12. 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 Specific Plan. 13. 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. 14. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. GRADING 15. 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 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 3 l� Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 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 FEIVIA that the above conditions have been met. 16. Prior to issuance of any grading permit(s), 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. 17. 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. 18. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 4 o 5 G Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 25. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 5I tj Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 29. 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. 30. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 31. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 6 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 35. 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 . 50t" Avenue (Primary Arterial) - Construct 38-foot half of 76-foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk. 2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - applicant shall pay cash fee to reimburse City for street improvements made to applicant's frontage through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Reimbursement amount shall cover all costs related to installing curb, gutter and outside 20 feet of roadway paving; the reimbursement amount shall be reduced by the percentage of non - City funds expended on the Jefferson Street Widening project. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1 . On -site streets: a. Two -Way Traffic: construct 28-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within the 31-foot right of way. All on -site streets shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. b. One -Way Traffic: the following streets shall be designated as one-way travel only: i. Lot D: construct minimum 20-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 23-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. ii. Lots C and G: construct minimum 16-foot wide full - width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 19-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. u5 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 7 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 C. Cul-de-Sacs: All cul-de-sac bulbs which contain raised landscaped islands shall be designated as "One -Way" and applicant shall construct minimum 20-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 23-foot right of way. Construct a "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. d. Lot R: provide for two-way traffic by constructing 28-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a 31-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum 25-foot wide "hammerhead" turn around area shall be constructed adjacent to Lot 85. e. Lot U: provide for two-way traffic by constructing minimum 22-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 25-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum 25-foot wide "hammerhead" turn around area shall be constructed adjacent to Lot 134 and Lake Lot Z. 2. All onstreet parking is prohibited and the applicant shall be required to provide for the perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the Homeowners' Association. C. CULS DE SAC Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset), with 38-foot curb radius. 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. 36. 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 8 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 37. 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). 38. 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. 39. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 40. Public 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. Onsite private streets shall have a wedge curb, the design of which shall be approved by the City Engineer. The lip of the wedge curb at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1 ' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 41. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 42. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 06.1 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 9 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 43. 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 project or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 44. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. 50th Avenue - Main project entry, to be located approximately 1,250 feet west of the centerline of Jefferson Street. No restrictions applied to turning movements at this location. B. 50th Avenue - Emergency access entry (20-foot wide) from the end of the cul-de-sac in "B" Street, to be located approximately 2,400 feet west of the centerline of Jefferson Street. This point of entry will be restricted to right -turn movements only. C. Jefferson Street - Secondary project entry, to be located approximately 600 feet south of the centerline of 50th Avenue. This point of entry will be restricted to right -turn movements, and a left -turn into the project if the applicant desires to construct an appropriately designed opening in the median island. LANDSCAPING 45. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 46. 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. C:\My'Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 10 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 47. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 48. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along 501" Avenue and also along Jefferson Street. The sidewalk shall meander within the 32-foot Right -of -Way and setback. PUBLIC SERVICES 49. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 50. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -sate improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 51. 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. 52. The Final Tract Map shall include a total of 81 guest parking spaces, or 0.5 per unit, whichever is greater. 53. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 4 foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 10 foot wall. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 2 foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 8 foot wall.. Design of the berm and wall shall be subject to Site Development Permit review. 54. The project proponent shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Assessment 2000-401. ra 3 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 11 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 55. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide calculations consistent with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code -Water Efficient Landscaping. DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITARY SEWER 56. Pursuant to the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the project proponent shall annex to Improvement Districts No. 1 for irrigation service. 57. Landscaping, irrigation and grading plans shall be submitted to CVWD for review and approval. 58. All plans for domestic water connections to existing CVWD lines shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. 59. The project proponent shall obtain all necessary approvals from the District for the well site located at the northeastern corner of the property. 60. The project proponent shall demonstrate, prior to recordation of the final map, that Bureau of Reclamation facilities on the project site do not conflict with the proposed project, to the satisfaction of the District. FIRE DEPARTMENT 61. All water mains and fire hydrants required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Std. W-33, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. 62. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 25 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width of 36 feet. 63. All interior fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13'6". Any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of any building shall be located within 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 12 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 29858 RJT Homes September 26, 2000 64. Gate entrance/exit openings shall be not less than 15 feet in width. All gates shall be located at least 40' 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. 65. The maximum dead-end street length is limited to 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. 66. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum outside radius of 38 feet to face of curb with a minimum inside radius of 26 feet to islands or center landscape features. 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. SCHOOL FEES 67. The project proponent shall demonstrate their payment of school fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCCOATT29858.wpd 13 B I #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2000-515 APPLICANT: 1 ST CHOICE SIGNS FOR VERIZON WIRELESS REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A DEVIATION TO AN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM TO PERMIT CORPORATE SIGN FOR BUSINESS LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 IN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER, WEST OF SIMON DRIVE ENTRY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS SIGN APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) Verizon Wireless recently purchased Airtouch Cellular, including the store in the One - Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. The applicant has requested approval to change the two "Airtouch" signs to "Verizon Wireless". SIGN REQUEST: The shopping center has an approved sign program which requires 24" or 30" high internally illuminated helvetica style channel letters. Length is permitted to be 75% of the lease width, up to a maximum of 50 square feet. A provision in the sign program allows a regional or national tenant with 5 or more outlets to request approval to use their corporate sign. The applicant is requesting approval to use his standard corporate sign on the tower in front of his business. Verizon Wireless has stores throughout the country. The landlord has approved the requested sign as submitted. cApc rpt sa 2000-515,wpd The proposal is to replace the sign on the front of the building facing west and the rear on the building facing east and the Simon Drive entry to the shopping center. Each sign is proposed to be approximately 14'-7" long by heights which vary from 107/8" to 267/8" (for the "Z" in Verizon). The total square footage of the proposed sign is 17 square feet. Under the sign program, 17 square feet of sign is permitted. The proposed signs are individual internally illuminated letters five inches deep and flush mounted in the same location as the existing signs. The letter returns and caps are black, with the "Z" having a red face, and remaining letters having a black face during the day and white illuminated face at night. The existing signs for Airtouch were approved by the Planning Commission in July, 1999, and are approximately 12 square feet in size each. These signs will be removed. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - Consistency National or regional tenants are permitted to use corporate or their standard signs with approval of the Planning Commission. To date, a number of tenants have chosen to do this in the center. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000-_, approving the requested sign, subject to the following conditions: 1. Obtain a building permit prior to any work on the sign being started. 2. Final plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior to obtaining building permit. 3. The signs shall be spaced evenly between the existing signs on each side. Attachments: 1. Sign exhibits Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager cApc rpt sa 2000-515,wpd II II ,SIISI LtS. SA1M -_ -—I-I--- ------ -- -- -- ---1.61AQd/H LL® 'pSFf K f �{ it 13 � z � u !j < 1�1 to U 0.A of r7 F �l` 1] 10I ` A �i! T4'!t 4 4 Q" MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 SUBJECT: JOINT MEETING A joint meeting has been scheduled between the City Council, Planning Commission, and Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee on September 26th beginning at 5:00 p.m. No formal agenda of issues will be prepared, so bring your comments with you. There will be sandwiches available at the conclusion of the meeting and prior to the regularly scheduled 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting. Should you have any questions, please contact staff. 4 OF T1 9 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2000. Attached please find a copy of the Community Development Report which outlines the current cases processed by staff for the month of August. 'AMonthly Department Report.wpd 1 H Z W H a a� W Z W O LV C O N a WUJ to W � Q Q O H Q _O H ILLU _ N (D O +r m a 0 U U c a -a •a -a -a 'U -o -a -a O a -a -a "0 -a -n a) a) a) a) a) () () a) a) +' O a) a) a) O a) '�• +J +-+ ', ++ +j *j +-a U ++ ++ 4- +1 ++ +J E E E E E E E E E N E E E E E E m .O -0 .Q .Q .a .Q -0 .O C -0 .n -0 .Q .O .Q cn cn cn cn v) cn cn cn cn c„) cn cn cn cn v) cn N O O N N LO M O O ct M O �— a) L 0 cn cn C cn Q) O C a) a) U c E CD c co cn E N E co LU O C _0Q 'a O � a) 0 O O E C7 aa)) E Q a) Im Ucn E w c a Q c Q U a. rn (n cn c 4 c O N + C •«- O a _ a) _ �° 0 >° E U E ° Q a Q O +' a) c a) a O co U > to �. c (n cn a) U ca a O a)CD :r U n- U O C J n- cn> E C > t0 > co a : LL. U w a p -j 2 a-- O 2 U U- p cn 0 U) O N C W -C U a) 0 a) U c c` r +' .co C U U CL a O Q a ° > ° cx a N °' 00 M , aU m -a o> a s Q a , Q In LC) �N N O '7 >. a) Q ,cr QCLL) °> a s Q a Q O --O0 00 N 00 QCL a c c U O O NN -- M I� o -- V- U = U > O> a° a a aQ , - V - � 00 a_u (L) 6 a .0 c .� C° CD co +.:, c C.)O 0)0 cn O a) C)C 0 r O DD ItU N — c` O o o L N co U :. a)� U "O o �° o �- �t � a co U N +, c O E N co O+ O cn co a It 0- +J � v co E 0 N N� a)a C O C o s Ln a Co O c6�, F— C O C +L_+ p Cl) (D O N a) L co 0 N C U U +, •= N O .f N c 0 0 O 0 o D U .c O p 4 co ccoo O n E .N � O tm �= C M O *� co A N = O N O O _p vi rn +> 0 0 C O 0� N O- U C CM co O a O 0 Q co a Q C y y a O QN a)(D co N U ` >' O E U U `p C �► N= c0 Q O +, LO O 0 C L a N cC C L O O Z cM O N +j N cm Q O O c O U N .- O O M O O O O ++ °+ c+� o O O O >> Ncfl C CD -0° CD�.�cn ooQao >�-a a .y M �_ a E +' U O -° C C O co a CO N .� N > x F- L .►-- o) > 0 CA > 'Q co +>, 4- N° �O N C7 aci > a o a Q..c co °> Q a o Q co m e >• •c N CO c CD > o o U a� a > p co D cn o co ° o o y -22 c a o +,U- Cc U > '' o O a m c o a .O +w U U 0 E O O �. C O a 0 o 0 o 4- p +1 a., V)0 0 0 O 0 O L + , N N Q Q y C p O 0 a) 0 0 N° W O co O N co p E 0 -Ca ++• O co Ri O O +N, N O co N a> C O O o O' p cr O 0 0+ C co N O a O O CT p c o a O O O tT Q• O 0 N to O O L +. E C Lr U co a = � R; E cc (n a. cn w- co cn N cn M W X ++ co O a c LO M O eM r- � O C +j C M Q to O co E a '� O O a� E a. cn oo rn a. O o M*k.n 00 0 ° O o 00 co c)po O > n0 J OUV O ai ++ 00 CD O 04 ONN a crC 0aa CF) Q N 0 .Mzit _ �O W _o LU V.- O C) N ( �o— •0 CN M— y 00 ca C) a)F— cm .N o.m C)CN oOU� oU 0 ° o(0 ' i N ►- � a a v+'i O r' N p O O N �r Q~� E ��p �- a. O N 1 a,N a C7O a. v2 E E o o C7*I:NQQLLU QrnO > WNN > o >U Q CD u= F— fnF- U d N_ 00 0) C: �-D- _ U-0 L. 0 O > U O CL 0 Q >p O CL CLa) Q Q N LO � n 00 UU a. U N M O C0 r- UU a. U M V- a)N ' U M C-CU Q a. Fn C E E U O n O c' o cca o L�° Q 0 c c CL c6 +r ++ cu CL a 0 6' U aD a c co O U 0> 'fl Q co L co o U> E � w co 0 a) cn � o � cr 0 C >o p o- to a p 't o U CO ,� O >, a Lo O +, O U 'C a) c0 a) U w N nj 0 cn '- N c v� -p > -C U C O 0 0 0 L N c0 `~ O t O O N;-; O C N >, D �,, to C CO U '� _ o6 E j U a% a) r N Q .Q cu Q) i C p 0 O co O a) 75� 0 CU .0 O cu CO O 00 —Cu 0. C ++ a) 0 U c C CL �- Cl ti- 4' Co co a) O .— c O ±� C6 00 co cN L. 'v CO � U ?� 0)M v M ` O N E LLO cc0 cu O E C C7 C _C O O N O O a� c N O O LL. -C a O cca O O U p '* O N `►`- U O `f- '�' 0 O -0 cv tLd a L, cC C) O> "l7 v `- " 'D � ccu Q 0 C :0 or Q Q 0 'C a) ca t N C 'a �- 0� N U (1) d N co �- 0 O co ) coC (n M O ccd O O U +• '_ c`C p 0 -3 0 N O 0 +-j 'a O C EO % � 0 = 0 'C O a M m :3 +� ai co U 0�-o 4+ O 0 c� U + CD � E� Q aa)) N w O a) U) CO a) c 0 c O ao) O a�i � o CL E w 0 o 0 (D c`a M a) _ CD M CO L 00 O CA > a) c a) O N O O = cu C7 U rn a) ca Q N F- N~ U 0 J - N (n he U) O c ca cn d+ 00 U fA C E J CN CL.— � oc � C 00 5 O cfl r- a) O >• O C 00 rn 0 N= O a) >• CO > E 0 O N C= ON Q m N 2� 000E°C QUO a•E �5 CL 0- 0) O N a. c) c Q O a. cB F- -1 cn CC U O C7 00 -j in U F- a. Ri 0 6. a) 4+ _O Q. E .c c 0 m U a a Q Z O v Q LO .-N e— r- ' d U O OO r- e— a U cn E E U O 4� O .- N M MO , V— U ' = U U O to O M +' m + + +-+ () C a) -a 4- O a) U Cv N E Q cn co i ' co U f° CDa � O Q) O O Q ( a) U U a ` E aU) E CD cn cm cn -0 m 0 O+ cnL Ic +C+ O ° C > N O =p UC cco o°O 4 co O+ � N O Ui c V c O+1 >M J m > p U ++•,O + O O N ` O ° "a � N0` O c m m U mc° E c m c ca aO a)COca E E E-c a)Co °Z EQ o a) O E p c p cr CO ca �a° � �oo cn co °'Owc c co -a a) OC Ecmco�,�'E�a Q�a)� °�' m O (� Q a) — p to a) QNa (Y) c 0 a a V� LV cn c +' O a) r- � p s +, }' _ c +' p Z c r- p co a) a) co U O cn a) G co ami t3 a M� p C C p m a O .o +� m co .c m O a) � +1 U) � O C i— � D a e— ca y ` a) p _ O >� co C) ++ + N m 0 a) cn O .� O .E .� a) +0, r' a) Lr O N a) c C a) ca a) -p aa) ) a) cn co O+U °� �aC O ca m "> a) E -o O cC� O C)> w'_O- O OO+ n_ co O o O + U y +' OO O p +cn c v a "cn O ts mE x a co + a) (D "OU) O co Cc—' J *-Q+' p 0 E O Lo �o 0 i a+' +� a) L o c E m n Eao :0 °crc 07 O aO f]C. Coa) v Q=Q oF- Q 0r. X4`--tO p C=aU m cn cc °) OL N xQ Q 0 0 M CO 1� 00 M U O O a a Q O E O o c co U Cl)0 = ccc O o� a cu V O C a N m N"0 c -C r- 0) LO a N V N a U d " O a a co �m % a a Co a co QU ° n m r- ca co N CD O C O N OO O M B O00 > N t\ ' O OM ��.o ON� ONN� � 00 N Mof n- ` a aa N Na0 o) a- L Q aas U) F- CD 0: C7 N 0 F- M a U x mo z 0 H U z 0 H a a� U W A b U �' W � ti o 0 a a a Q _T C, O a r- 0 CL LLI 3 cc a J Q W O O O O O O d Lo p O r O O D O CEO torCV M 00 00 m C) �N„ � vctl m p p m W O CD O O O O N y N M ^ N i- e= 1� p n co M LO d _d d E two o 0, o o 'OR o 'OR o 00 O a+ to O 00 00 00 le O 0 LO n ol tj +r C0 Ln O O G= O N O_ O N O = Ln r� O O O 00 O O 0 O O O O N O tt O O O V Q N 00 '00 M to N th tR yr to tn +� t N 'N J W Y v d w y y O 4) L G, N Y O t" CD C N CL y N G1 C1 C W. C O °' d E c O t+ a c c v O_ y 0 O W ++ O cm U V a rA c Im c c CL c CL = Occ o +w = o° c L O m IL v t- m E 'a �- Q �a c .. c O O w w C G� �. > G1 C � N GD m cc D: = O U' Q W LLI V) c C9 a v v `0 a d H cco C) d a j O C J J d O GN1 pr O CM C O N co Ntm N CM N V O •O H •C m O N C C CCL c Fes- _0 E E aC) a V c7