Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997 03 25 PC
G • Z - a �OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California March 25, 1997 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 97-017 Beginning Minute Motion 97-002 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of January 28, 1997, February 11, 1997, and March 4, 1997 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Item ................. Applicant ............ Location ............. Request .............. Action ............... VI. BUSINESS ITEMS TENTATIVE TRACT 28409 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-335 Mr. Charles B. Murphy/Mr. Lynn R. Kunkle North side of Avneida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of the Yucatan Peninsula residential neighborhood Approval of a subdivision of 9.15 acres into 19 single family and other common or private street Resolution 97- , Resolution 97- A. Item .................. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 97-137 Applicant ............ Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby (Mrs. Lucia Moran, Race Director) Location ............. Avenida Bermudas between Calle Arroba and Calle Nogales Request .............. Approval of a one -day Soap Box Derby Race and sign program to be held on April 5, 1997 Action ............... Minute Motion 97- B. Item .................. SIGN APPLICATION 97-375 Applicant ........... Wells Fargo Bank Location ............ 78-630 Highway 111 within the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center Request ............. Approval of a new sign and deviation to the approved sign program for the bank mini -branch located in Albertson's Supermarket Action .............. Minute Motion 97- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Report of the City Council meeting of February 18, 1997. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California February 25, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Woodard to lead the flag salute B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to excuse Commissioner Seaton. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA - A. Staff requested that the approval of the Minutes of February 11, 1997, be deleted from the agenda. The agenda was confirmed as modified. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of January 28, 1997. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Minutes be amended on Page 5, Item # 16 to state "...24-inches..."; Page 6, Item #21 be reworded to state, "Commissioner Tyler explained that as an example..." and "This was a way to allow relief to future developers." There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None PC2-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SITE DEVELOPMENT 97-600; a request for approval of architectural plans for "The Palisades" a series of three floor plans from 1,800 to 2,591 sq. ft., and "South Shores" a series of two floor plans of 2,574 and 2,600 square feet for construction in Lake La Quinta. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff informed the Commission that five additional elevations had been received from the applicant and were available for Commission review. Commissioners asked to see the elevations. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to indicate the location of the eleven lots being discussed, which lots were vacant, and if the applicant had to come back to the Commission for the next phase. Staff showed the eleven lots on the site plan and stated the next phase would be reviewed by staff unless the Commission requires it to come back. 3. Mr. Chris Canaday, the applicant, stated they had worked very closely with the current owners to stay consistent with the design of the existing houses. All plans had been approved by the Lake La Quinta Architectural Control Committee. They are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of Condition #7, regarding the setbacks on the detached guest suite. He would request that this condition be eliminated or at least modified for the following reasons: a. Guest suits that are flush with the garage are consistent with the existing homes; b. If the goal is to vary the setbacks with the home and guest suite, they can do this by moving the house and guest suite forward or back from the neighboring house; C. Their goal is to maintain an eight foot private courtyard area between the guest suite and main house and keep the rear yard as large as possible; having the guest house off -set three to five feet requires them to move the house forward or back three feet which impacts the backyard. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the guest suite complies with the frontyard setback. Mr. Canaday stated they do not extent into the frontyard setbacks. PC2-25-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 5. Commissioner Woodard stated he appreciated their desire to maximize the rear yard, but the streetscape is then unattractive. Why is the eight feet important? Mr. Canaday stated the eight feet was needed to have a minimum amount of space to let light into the main house and to have a private area for sunning or whatever. Their plans are to stagger the setbacks on the houses from lot to lot so each house would not be exactly 20-feet. The difficulty is in the guest houses in that they cannot plan which setback to use. The Lake La Quinta community has a history of every unit being flush to the street. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the houses were moved to have less backyard, the guest house could be kept. Mr. Canaday stated this was true, but certain lots do not have the depth to allow this. Commissioner Woodard asked which lots would be affected. Mr. Canaday stated that as the guest houses are optional, it was not possible to determine which houses would be restricted due to the rear yard, until they are purchased. Commissioner Woodard stated that he would not object to one or two, but several would be objectional. Mr. Canaday stated the bigger concern was on the Plan 3 or the off -water plan. They would request that these plans for the units on the water have a variance to allow a 2-foot minimum. Plan 3 (Cambia), the off -water units, could be flush if the lot constraint did not allow them to offset. Commissioner Woodard asked if they were plotting the units before they were purchased. Mr. Canaday stated they preplotted the initial 11 lots, but the guest suites are an option. Commissioner Woodard clarified that the on - water lots are able to accommodate the guest suites without any changes. Discussion followed regarding the location of the proposed 11 lots. Mr. Canaday stated that only Lots 48 and 102 would have the Plan 3 which has the guest suite as an option. Commissioner Woodard asked if the remaining lots on Via Florence would have the guest house option in this phase. Mr. Canaday stated this was true. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about the elevations and the plotting, and he would like to know how many of the units would be flush. Following discussion, it was determined that 20% would be allowed the flush face. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked if the homeowners association (HOA) had addressed the issue of the guest house off -sets. Mr. Canaday stated they had not proposed the situation to the HOA. He then apologized for bringing the guest suites plans for the on -water units to the Commission so late, but it was their understanding that the guest suites could be approved by staff. All units that had been approved by the HOA in the past had been flush and if they were approved in the past, it was their understanding they would approve these plans. PC2-25-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 9. Commissioner Tyler asked if these units had been built anywhere else in the Lake La Quinta. Mr. Canaday stated no they were specifically designed to maximize the views toward the mountains. 10. Commissioner Woodard asked that the plans submitted at this meeting be clarified as to which ones have the flush condition and which ones have the setback problems. Mr. Canaday stated that Lot 112 has enough room in the backyard to meet the setback. There are only certain lots which have the setback problem. 11. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 12. Commissioner Woodard asked that the plans for Lot 112 be required to drop the setback from 13-feet to the 8-feet minimum to not have a flush situation between the face of the garage and the face of the guest suite along the street. The plan on Lot 72 is asking for a 10-foot rear yard setback which makes it a front -loaded house and the main room of the house, which is the master bedroom/garage faces the rear yard. 13. Mr. Canaday stated that the courtyard home is designed to accommodate the lot configurations. The creation of the Plan 1 (courtyard) is to eliminate the negative problem of the five foot berm in the rear and put the view and use to the front. The courtyard home was designed to accommodate certain lot configurations. In order to accommodate this, the house had been turned to have the master bedroom off the pool/spa area. This is also true of the homes off of Adams Street. The idea is to have the main rooms face onto the pool/spa area in the front. Commissioner Woodard explained that it would be better to have the family room/kitchen off the courtyard area to be more usable. 14. Commissioner Butler stated he did not totally concur with having the Commission dictate to the developer how he should lay out his interior design; it should be a market demand issue. Commissioner Newkirk agreed. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred with Mr. Butler. He asked staff if the size of the trees was to be predetermined as the conditions were again requiring 24-inch box trees, but the diameter size of the trees is not stated. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the condition would be changed to reflect the diameter size of the tree. PC2-25-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 16. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify whether or not the change to the Zoning Ordinance regarding ten foot setbacks, would affect this tract. Staff stated it would depend on when they pulled their building permit. After the recent Zoning Code Amendments become effective, this tract will be able to provide a ten foot rear setback. 17. Commissioner Tyler asked if the developer intended to use the existing curbs cuts. Mr. Canaday stated they intended to use them whenever they could. Commissioner Tyler suggested that the cuts that are not used be filled in. Mr. Canaday stated that until the future homes are plotted, it will not be known which cuts can be used. However, to replace the cuts with curbs is very expensive. Commissioner Tyler stated it is an awkward situation. Mr. Canaday stated that if there is a driveway cut they do not use, they will repair it. 18. Commissioner Woodard asked if the guest suite elevations for the Plan 4 and 5 had been submitted to the HOA. Mr. Canaday stated they had not, but Plan 3 had. As the guest suite is interchangeable on all the floor plans he did not see the need to submit all the plans. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission could approve something that the HOA had not seen. Staff stated the HOA approvals have no bearing on City approvals. 20. Commissioner Tyler asked that paragraph one of the Resolution be amended to refer to several lots. Condition 1 in the Conditions of Approval refer to the square footage of the basic house, but does not include the guest house. Staff stated it does on the Cambria Plan from the Palisades series, but not the La Jolla or Malibu from the South Shore series. Commissioner Tyler asked if the landscaping being required was for the frontyard only. Staff stated the frontyard is the only area required to be landscaped. 21. Commissioner Woodard asked if the guest suite elevation plans that had been received superceeded the plans received earlier. Mr. Canaday explained why the guest suite floor plan was laid out so the bathroom and closet would be on the street side of the house to buffer any noise. Commissioner Woodard stated that a blank wall facing the street is unacceptable for Plan 3. He would recommend that this elevation be revised. Mr. Canaday stated that the blank wall is to buffer the room from the street. After it is landscaped the plant materials will reduce the effect. Commissioner Woodard stated that the guest suite needs to be treated in such a way that it is an asset to the streetscape. PC2-25-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 22. There being no further comment it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-013 approving Site Development Permit 96-600 for new prototypes for Tract 26152, subject to findings and conditions, as attached and amended as follows: a. Condition #1 - amend to add the square footage of the guest house. b. Condition #3 - would be amended to include the diameter size of the trees and final landscaping. C. Condition #7 - add a sentence stating the applicant could have 20% of the units may have guest houses flush with house. d. Condition # 10 - existing driveway curb cuts that are not used are to be replaced. e. Commissioner Woodard asked that the distance between the guest house and residence for Lot 112 be reduced from 13 to 8 feet. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 96-601; a request for approval of architectural plans for a single family residential unit containing 3,200 square foot in Lake La Quinta. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Billy Watson explained his proposed house plans. 3. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he felt the design was an excellent plan for the site, but wanted the diameter of the tree size to be specified. 5. Commissioners Newkirk, Gardner, and Butler all agreed that the plan was compatible. PC2-25-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-014 approving Site Development Permit 97-601, with the addition of the diameter size of the trees. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels recessed for the meeting at 8:10 and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. C. Tentative Tract 28498 and Environmental Assessment 97-336; a request of TD Desert Development (Rancho La Quinta Country Club) for approval of a subdivision of 98 residential lots with public streets into 96 residential lots with private streets and access to Rancho La Quinta. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted that correspondence had been received from Coachella Valley Water District asking that the hearing be continued. Staff, along with the City Attorney, had determined that the Commission could take action on the conditions regarding drainage as Condition #26 does indicate that the applicant may drain to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel provided CVWD approves. Therefore the issue raised by CVWD has been addressed in the conditions. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked about the transition of a public to a private street on Sagebrush. Staff stated that from the inside of the gate to the east, it would be private streets. The gate was to be a card -gated entry with some landscaping. Staff clarified that the main entrance was off Washington Street. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked why the applicant was being required to submit AutoCAD plans. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that staff was trying to require all plans to be submitted on the AutoCAD system to keep the Department systematic and reduce their hard copy files. However, they will accept a scanned image. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked staff if the existing locked gate on Via Melodia going into Parc La Quinta, would remain. Staff stated it would remain and clarified that since the utilities were already in the road it would snake it difficult to remove the gate and road. PC2-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 5. Commissioner Woodard asked who was going to maintain the gate. Staff clarified it was an emergency gate. Commissioner Woodard asked if the road could be removed and the land given to the property owner. Staff clarified it was a private road and it was up to Rancho La Quinta. 6. Commissioner Gardner asked for clarification of where the emergency gate was located. Staff explained the history of the emergency gates and stated the issue was whether or not to eliminate the gate leading into Parc La Quinta. It would cost more money to remove the gate than to allow the adjoining propety owners to utilize the area for additional parking and have the homeowners' association maintain it. Discussion followed regarding the access. 7. Commissioner Gardner asked what provisions had been made to accommodate the potential increase in traffic. Staff stated that when the original tract was designed, Sagebrush Avenue was the only entrance. Now the tract is being combined with Rancho La Quinta and there would be a total of three accesses including the emergency access. Staff explained the location of the three accesses and discussion followed as to the circulation and traffic concerns. Commissioner Gardner stated that with the increase in traffic, he believed the developer should pay more than the 25% proportional share of the cost of installing the signal at Washington Street and Sagebrush Avenue. Staff explained the cost distribution of the signalization. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked if the house plans for this tract had already been approved and if so was there any restrictions on the house plotting. Staff stated the plans had been approved and the applicant is able to submit revisions to staff. Commissioner Woodard stated the elevations needed to be addressed and should be brought to the Commission. Staff clarified that they are not an issue of compatibility review. Commissioner Woodard stated that there ought to be some design control placed on the developers as to how the floor plans are approved. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that this had never been a prior requirement and would have to be required of all tracts. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that when the Commission originally reviewed and approved this tract there were no requirements placed on the tract regarding plotting. 9. Mr. Mark Belier - 78-685 Sagebrush, stated his concern about the possible traffic increase on Sagebrush. 10. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. PC2-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 11. Commissioner Tyler stated he questioned Mr. Lester's letter. Staff stated the issues raised in the letter were a matter between the developer and Mr. Lester, and did not involve the City. 12. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #32 as to why the applicant was being required to install improvements. Staff stated the conditions that were added bring the tract into compliance with current City standards. 13. Commissioner Gardner stated he was still concerned about the traffic on Sagebrush as he believed it should be handled in another way. 14. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that residential streets in the City are designed to handle up to 15,000 vehicles a day. It is not recommended, but is capable of doing this. The street speed limit is, and will remain 25 mph and will be enforced. Staff stated the percentage being required to be paid by the applicant for the signal is appropriate. Staff has mitigated the traffic impact as much as possible. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked when the signal would be warranted. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they do not have any idea at this time. There have been no traffic counts since the construction of the original project was proposed, five or six years ago. Warrants for a traffic signal are a function of the cross street traffic. 16. Commissioner Gardner asked if the distance between signals would be ample. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is 1/4 mile between Sagebrush and 50th Avenue and the signal is part of the Washington Street Specific Plan. 17. Commissioner Butler asked if the traffic did become unusually high, could speed bumps be installed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City Council has not even considered this. Some cities have extensive speed bumps and it has been found that the installation just proliferates the problem onto other streets. Commissioner Gardner concurred that this could only increase the problem. Discussion followed regarding the proposed traffic circulation of this area. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 015 recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 97-336, for Tentative Tract 28498. PC2-25-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-016 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 28498, subject to the findings and conditions as modified to changing Conditions #26 to refer to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and Condition #32 be amended as needed, to indicate that the existing improvements meet the City approvals as is. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, & Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. D. Tentative Tract 28470, Environmental Assessment 96-333, Change of Zone 96-081, Conditional Use Permit 96-031, Site Development Permit 96-599, and Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001; a request of Tradition Club Associates, LLC for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; approval of a change of zone to redesignate the zoning classification for the proposed golf course from RL (low density residential) to GC (golf course); approval of a conditional use permit to allow grading and construction of six residential lots and tee boxes within higher slopes; approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 746.6 acres into 241 single family homesites, 18-hole golf course, private street system and accessory lots; approval of a site development permit to allow the construction of a clubhouse cart barn, maintenance building, half -way house, main entry guard house, and parking lot; and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow modifications to the Hacienda del Gato and grounds as recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, for the property located at the south terminus of Washington Street, east of Avenida Bermudas. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff? 3. Commissioner Butler asked staff to define the boundary of the six hillside custom lots. Discussion followed regarding the location of the six lots. PC2-25-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 4. Staff then showed a video that was taken of the proposed site to show the location of the different areas in question. 5. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that the applicant had requested to add a residential lot (Lot 56), and he would explain his request. Staff has no objection to the request. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the history of the project and the grading that is currently taking place. Staff explained that the City Council had granted an "at risk" grading permit to allow them to start the project. The restriction allowed them to grade the golf course and residential areas that are not subject to the Conditional Use Permit. This is the fourth project proposed for this site. All the previous proposals have had higher residential densities. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked how the City would insure that the retention basin is repaired if it is washed out. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the damage that would occur would be to their project and would not hurt the flood control facilities. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to identify the emergency access at the fire station on Frances Hack Lane and verified that no development would be above the 20% grade. Staff clarified the emergency access points and stated that the six lots were located in the scarred area and were being processed as a conditional use permit. Commissioner Woodard stated that the rear yards of the six lots are on a slope of less than 20%. He would assume that some slope would be difficult to live on. Staff stated the grading of the lots will be level. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated a building pad will be created however within the lot there will also be an area that is not scared and in a natural state at the 20% level that will be under a conservation easement. The scarred area will be returned to a natural appearing state. 9. Commissioner Woodard questioned that a portion of the 15,000 square foot lot would have a slope less than 20% and may or not be in the scarred area, and does staff have an idea of where that pad will be. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the applicant will cut into the side of the mountain and create a 2:1 slope that goes up to meet the 20% slope and that it will be landscaped. 10. Commissioner Woodard asked why the restrooms are being required at the half -way house. Staff explained this was due to the distance to the nearest restroom and the gardeners for the residents and maintenance workers would need to have a restroom closer. PC2-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 11. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the turnaround at the entry guard gate. Staff clarified that there was a turn around between the guard gate and the entry gate. 12. Commissioner Tyler asked about the maximum dwelling density for the entire project. Staff explained that there had been a density transfer to preserve the entire area of the hillside area with conservation easements. One unit per ten acres could have been accommodated in the hillsides, so some of that is being clustered in the six lots, but the applicant has not used the entire allotment possible. 13. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was any concern that Lot 56 would be too close to the entrance and would take away from the effect. Staff stated they had just received the plans and had not had time to review it. 14. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the north property line. Staff stated that on 52nd Avenue, the wall would run along the south side of 52nd Avenue. 52nd Avenue will remain an open public road. It is true that their property does extend north of 52nd Avenue and there are conditions requiring them to continue on with the construction of the wall on the north side of 52nd Avenue to carry out the existing wall theme on Washington Street. Staff went on to explain where the wall would be constructed and discussion followed. Commissioner Gardner asked what provisions are being made for the 100-year flood that may flow to the wall and cross 52nd Avenue. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that if a storm exceeds the 100-year capacity, there is an emergency outlet between Lots 119-120 to allow water to pass into the existing channel along 52nd Avenue to handle the excess. 15. Commissioner Gardner asked if each of the custom homes would come before the Commission for review. Staff stated that the applicant is not conditioned to bring every home, but rather to create their own internal review with an architectural review component of a homeowners' association. They are custom lots and not a tract and they are exempt from Commission review. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the project has the general height and sideyard restrictions they are required to meet. 16. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission reviews production housing due to compatibility issues, now why are custom homes not reviewed by the Commission. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained that when the Commission reviewed the compatibility review PC2-25-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 process during the Zoning Code revisions, the Commission did not change the requirement that custom lots are exempt from the compatibility review process. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the compatibility review process is primarily for partially built out tracts and is not an issue on new tracts. 17. Commissioner Gardner asked if the archaeological monitor was on -site during the grading. Staff stated that they were required to have the monitoring and they have been there since the grading started. There were six sites found and three are remaining for which there is monitoring. One of the three has been capped for preservation. The other two prehistoric sites are located well into the hillside above the toe of the slope and are not in danger of any of the development. 18. Commissioner Gardner asked about the roads being provided for fire access and whether they were for egress or ingress. Staff explained that the three roads are internal. Due to street design and lengthy cul-de-sacs and the Fire Marshal's requirements for a secondary access when a cul-de-sac exceeds 660 feet, the applicant is proposing to construct three 16-foot wide, six inch concrete expanded cart paths to provide access for the cul-de-sacs to get the residents out onto a main thoroughfare. 19. Commissioner Gardner asked if there were any provisions for public access to the Hacienda del Gato. Staff stated they are not under the Mills Act which may require the site to be open one day a week for public review. However, this is a privately owned property and the City has no requirement. Commissioner Gardner stated that the Hacienda would then be closed to the public for any future viewing. Staff stated that unless the ownership makes provisions for the public to enter, that is correct. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that it is listed on the State Inventory of Historic Sites and is not required to have public access. 20. Mr. Mike Rowe, Winchester Development representing the Tradition Club Associates, explained how the development came to be. The entitlements they are asking for are similar as what has been approved for the prior projects, only less. The Sienna Corporation loved the site and the Hacienda and wanted to expand their corporation to the west coast. He went on to explain what the Sienna Corporation wanted to see in the development. 21. Mr. Rowe stated that in reviewing the Conditions of Approval regarding the Tentative Tract Map, he had questions regarding the following conditions: PC2-25-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 a. Condition O.A. regarding the dedication on Avenue 52. Requesting that it be changed to read, "from the west property boundary to Washington Street." b. Condition #34. Delete as it does not pertain to this project. C. Condition #42. Would like to have it modified to allow the project to continue. Strike the first line and start the condition with, "The applicant shall reimburse the successors of Landmark Land Company upon their written demand showing proof of their rights......." and add to the end of the condition, "If no notification is received within 90 days of the first recordation of the final map, this condition shall no longer apply." d. Condition #44.A. Delete Avenida Bermudas and add from the west property line to Washington Street. e Condition #44.C.1. Add, "Unless reduced widths are accepted by the Riverside County Fire Departments. f. Condition #44.C.2. Requested the same requirement that is found on 44.b. 1 and 2. g. Condition #53.B. Would like to phase the walls on the north side of 52nd Avenue from Washington Street in with their phasing plan. h. Condition #53.C. Clarification if this means the white wall with the green tile. i. Condition #54. Maintenance not to include the north side of 52nd Avenue. They are required to maintain only the landscape approvement of the adjacent setbacks along 52nd Avenue, Avenida Bermudas, and Frances Hack Lane. j. Condition #78. Modify to state that the maximum building pad would be measured at the center of the building pads. k. Condition #81. Change the single story height to 22-feet along Avenida Bermudas as they would like to have a variability to break up the look. 22. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval, Mr. Rowe questioned the following conditions: a. Condition #4. Delete as it is a fill road that they would like to leave where it is planned as they are required to maintain the channel and moving the road could breach that channel. b. Condition #6. They would like to request adding "....greater than five feet in vertical height...." 23. Mike Rowe requested that the condition regarding retaining all the eucalyptus trees under the Certificate of Appropriateness, be changed to some in all the conditions that apply and references all the Exhibits approved by the Historical Preservation Commission. PC2-25-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 24. Commissioner Butler asked about Condition #81, regarding the 17-foot height limitation, if he was requesting all the houses on Avenida Bermudas. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the houses on the west side of Bermudas are 17 feet and staff was trying to keep the continuity along Avenida Bermudas. Commissioner Butler asked if the west side of Avenida Bermudas were flat -roofed. Staff stated they were a mix. Commissioner Woodard stated that if you build to 17-feet and are trying to maximize the view, it is hard to accomplish with a sloping roof. Commissioner Butler stated that with the street is sloping downhill the houses are going to be staggered, with the 17-feet and the downward sloping, it accomplishes what staff is trying to do by not having a row of ridge line houses. Mr. Rowe stated that if they are allowed to have the 22-feet, you will have a variation. All the houses are to be on 20,000 square foot lots and the house will not take up the entire lot, the landscaping itself will eventually screen out the homes. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that the Viewshed Study as analyzed with the 17-foot height along Avenida Bermudas. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the environmental review assumed the 17-foot height. If the applicant wants to raise that limit, the study may need to be looked at to be sure they are still comfortable with the analysis that was done. Discussion followed regarding the roof line. 25. Chairman Abels suggested that due to the hour and the amount of material still remaining to be covered, he would like to make a recommendation to continue this hearing to a special meeting to be held on March 10, 1997. 26. Mr. Rowe stated that March 1 Oth would be too late for them to meet the City Council deadlines. He would request that the continuance be a date sooner than March loth. Discussion followed and it was determined to take the public comment and then continue the Commission discussion to March 4, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. 27. Mr. John Cook, 54-900 Avenida Rubio, stated his concern that the wall to be constructed on Avenida Bermudas would have more of an impact on La Quinta than any other project. It is to be about 2.5 miles long as its design will be a permanent monument. This wall is unattractive and inconsistent with the current developments in the Cove. He suggested that staff overhaul the wall design and give it close attention. As the wall is meandering, no details were given as to how much meandering. If there is going to be an emergency access onto Avenida Bermudas the Commission needs to see that the design is consistent with the rest of the project. The eight foot wall and PC2-25-97 15 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 berm is going to seriously degrade the vistas that are currently enjoyed. Need openings to see the vistas. Would like the landscaping to be more of a desert theme. Concern that the digging into the hillside will be hidden. Concern that the lighting of the hillside, perimeter lighting, security lighting and street light should all be low intensity. In addition the PM 10 requirements needs to be adequate. 28. Mr. Art Altenback, 52-985 Avenida Bermudas, stated his concern about a builder entering a conservation area that opens a "can of worms" that could set a precedent. The Commission needs to drive up Avenida Bermudas and see the building pads as they are higher than the street. The 15-foot setback is not enough. 29. Mr. Bruce Swan, 78-725 Avenida La Fonda, questioned the number of golf tees and lots encroaching the 20% slope; concern about the 22-foot height request; concern about flood drainage in his area as well as the lighting conforming to the City ordinances. Would like to see that they are kept out of the mountains. 30. Mr. Sandy Swan, 78-725 Avenida La Fonda, would like to see that the access to hikers at south end of project kept open; traffic signals at Washington and 52nd Avenue. What about the drainage channels, could there be backwash; is there to be a 33-ft high clubhouse; is the maintenance building to be two story; and what will the lighting of the tennis courts be. What is the distance from the parking lot to clubhouse. A combination of asking for 22 feet and asking for narrower streets, this pushes the perimeter houses too close to Avenida Bermudas; what does the restoring of the scarred areas consist of? What about the flood control for the six lots? 31. Mr. Robert Atkins, 52-470 Avenida Madero, stated that he believed the project adds class to the City of La Quinta. His only objection was to allowing the developer to utilize the hillside for any type of development as it sets a precedent. 32. Mr. Mack Carter, 53-495 Avenida Bermudas, stated he looked forward to the development of the project. As an immediate neighbor he has a view of the Coral Reef Mountains that will be impacted by this development. His concern is the height of the pads and the overall height of the buildings. What kind of separation will there be between this project community and the rest of the Cove as a result of the wall and berm to be constructed. Ten years down the road they will not be able to see the mountains due to the trees. He would suggest that whatever landscaping is approved that the view of the residents on the west side be considered. PC2-25-97 16 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 33. Mr. Fred Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated he agreed that this project would be an asset to the community, however he had two concerns. One is the intrusion into the hillside that the City zoned and designated as Hillside Conservation to keep development from occurring in the hillside. Second, was his concern that this is coming in on a conditional use permit. He believed that anyone else would have to go through a general plan amendment and zone change, but as this is a large developer, he is being given some favoritism. The hillside area is to be preserved. In addition, the request that was asked for at this meeting requesting the height limit be increased to 22-feet. The entire Cove, except earlier homes, have heights of a maximum of 17-feet building height, and he hoped the Commission would not approve the request for additional height. 34. Mr. John Guenther, 53-235 Avenida Bermudas, stated he was in support of the project with a minor exception. He would prefer the wall be a white stucco wall. This project can only increase property values and be an asset to the community. 35. Mrs. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated her concern where she disagreed with the Environmental Assessment regarding the Historical, Archaeological, Aesthetical, Cultural Resources -Historical, Archaeoiogical, and Sacred Uses. Most of the areas listed were less than significant or no impact". There are a lot of traditions within the City, and there are several citizens who are trying to keep them and one of them is the scenic vista. People who live further west than Avenida Bermudas would see the infringement into the alluvial fan or scarred area. She would rather see the scarring than homes built in this area. Capping of the historical sites is not the answer to archaeological sites. They need to have public access. There are areas that are considered sacred grounds by the Native Americans. Would like the Commission to consider the precedent that is being set. 36. Mr. David Salvatierra, 54-455 Avenida Madero, stated his concerned about the proposed trees and height of the houses as they would block his view. The Commission should consider those property owners that already have purchased their homes as they purchased their homes to have their views. The developer does not need to go into the hillside to have a golf course. 37. Mr. Greg Olson, 54-180 Avenida Cortez, stated this was a special, unique area of the desert. He is supportive of the golf course, but is concerned about the project be integrated into the atmosphere of the Cove. The lighting and view are a problem. The hillside community is a big problem as it is not PC2-25-97 17 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1997 integrated with the rest of the Cove and this is the most important aspect of the development that needs to be looked at. This golf course is coming into our community, the community is not being built around this golf course. Need to make the Cove a beautiful place for all to live in. Don't create an ugly stepsister. 38. Mr. Matt Mathews, 54-860 Avenida Obregon, stated he was in favor of the project. He is primarily concerned about the hillside conservation and he agrees with the prior comments that if this is allowed, it will only be opening the door for more development in the hillsides. 39. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 40. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant could place a 17-foot pole and 22-foot pole on a lot along Avenida Bermudas to allow the community and the Commission to visually see the impact of the different roof heights. The applicant agreed to do this. 41. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to continue this item to March 4, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of February 18, 1997. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to an adjourned meeting to be held on March 4, 1997, at 10:00 a.m.. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:34 P.M. on February 25, 1997. PC2-25-97 18 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California February 11, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Newkirk to lead the flag salute B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA - A. Staff asked that the agenda be amended to delete the approval of the Minutes of January 28, 1997. Unanimously approved. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Department Report: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - Vesting Tentative Tract 28457 and Site Development Permit 96-593; a request of EZ Okie (Mr. Roger Snellenberger) for approval of a subdivision of 33.1 acres into 116 single family and other lettered public streets and retention basin lots; and approval of house plans 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained within the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. PC2-11-97 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would be able to change his elevations based on market input. Staff stated that based on the requirements of a vesting tract, the applicant is required to build what is approved at the time of the application approval. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they will have to stay with the approval as it is granted by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission conditions the tract to allow flexibility with the elevations at a later date, the tract would have that latitude. It depends on how it is presented and the Planning Commission approval. Should the Planning Commission allow the applicant this flexibility, they will need to be specific as to the guidelines for that approval to avoid confusion at a later date. 3. Commissioner Tyler stated that some of the plans call for a three car garage, but none are shown on the site plan; does that mean that the tract can only be approved with two car garages? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it the Commission's approval contained the right to have the option then they would be able to offer the option. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked how the Commission could give the applicant the flexibility on plotting. 5. Commissioner Butler stated that in regards to the three -car garage issue, he suggested that the house plan (Plan 6) for 2700 square feet with the family room be required to have a three car garage so that if the garage were converted to a bedroom, they would have the three car garage. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated that on the site plan there appeared to be the same floor plan (Plan 4) side by side in the southwest corner. Staff stated that it appeared to be a Plan 4, but after reviewing the plans, one was a Plan 4 and the other a Plan 4A. 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering, reviewed the changes that had been made since the last Commission meeting. He further stated they would like to have the option of building different elevations as the market demands. In reference to the secondary access, it may have been confusing due to the way it was presented, but Tract 24587 would be constructed first. At the completion of Tract 24588, a second access to the tract would be constructed. He went on to addressed the concerns raised by the Fire Marshal. There would be no homeowners' association as there were no amenities being provided that PC2-11-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 would require a homeowners' association. He went on to state that the perimeter landscaping and retention basin would be dedicated to the City. He noted that Section C of the Site Development Permit Resolution reference the house at 1,600 square feet and the actual square footage of the smallest house would be 1,595 square feet. 8. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Smith to explain the access points into both tracts. Discussion followed regarding the ingress/egress for the tracts. In reference to the signal Mr. Smith asked it they could do a traffic study as they do not believe they should have to pay such a large portion of the costs as indicated by the City Engineer. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated that there was a condition that required the secondary access to be constructed after the completion of the 36th home; where was that access to be built. Mr. Smith stated this was an item that needed to be resolved as there were no openings that would allow this. Discussion followed as to possible locations. 10. Commissioner Woodard asked if the access was an emergency or traffic issue. How did he intend to provide this access. Mr. Smith stated the second access was intended to be built after the completion of the first tract. 11. Commissioner Seaton asked where the Palm Royale access would exit onto. Mr. Smith stated at would eventually end at Washington Street. Commissioner Seaton asked when the commercial was planned to be developed. Staff stated that currently there were no plans for the site. 12. Chairman Abels stated there appeared to be a problem with the traffic onto Fred Waring that needed to be resolved. Mr. Smith reviewed alternative access points . 13. Commissioner Woodard asked why Tract 28457 was being built first when the Palm Royale access was the primary access. Mr. Smith stated that would be up to the applicant. Mr. Roger Snellenberger, the applicant, stated they were building Tract 28457 first due to the costs involved with bringing the sewer to the site. He went to explain that the costs associated with the sewer, water, and street improvements were major expenses. If they could pick a location for a temporary street over to Fred Waring Drive to alleviate the traffic pressure it would be very beneficial to them. To have to build the permanent street incurs a cost they cannot afford at this time. PC2-11-97 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 14. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that Condition #74 does not identify the secondary access, it only requires the road to be constructed for the Fire Department upon the completion of 36 homes. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated that Commission should not forget the traffic concerns in conjunction with all the other issues. 16. Commissioner Woodard asked if the access was a fire or traffic problem, as a fire problem is completely different than traffic congestion. Staff stated that the secondary access would become a permanent access at some point in the future when Tentative Tract 28458 is develeoped. There must be two permanent access points. They are currently planned off Palm Royale Drive as it goes northward with the other off Fred Waring Drive half way between Starlight Dunes and Palm Royale Drive. 17. Commissioner Woodard clarified that the first tract when completed, Fred Waring would be able to handle all the traffic as long as there is a secondary, temporary fire protection road. Staff clarified that the condition did not say temporary, but that they provide a secondary access for the Fire Department. Staff s concern was that when the General Plan designated Fred Waring's current street standard, it took into consideration the development of this area. If Fred Waring Drive was constructed to this standard, it would accommodate the traffic generated. The location of the access point is before the Commission and if there is a right in/right out with a left turn movement on Fred Waring Drive with a full signal access off Dune Palms, the Public Works Department has determined this to be adequate. 18. Commissioner Woodard asked when was it imperative that the secondary access be provided for the traffic only. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that there are a number of 40-acre tracts which have only one access or primary entrance to their tracts that are adequate to handle the traffic. The Public Works Department therefore believes that the single access is adequate until the second phase is built. Discussion followed regarding the timing on the secondary access. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked what happens if the tract is not completed; what will happen to the second access. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that La Quinta Palms, Palm Royale, and others all have a single access. 20. Commissioner Gardner asked if the standards established for this tract are the same as those used for other tracts in La Quinta. Staff stated they are consistent. PC2-11-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 21. Commissioner Tyler stated his confusion about when the secondary access would be provided. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated Condition #74 of the tract should be reworded and clarified that it is a fire access only and not a secondary access. 22. Mr. Snellenberger explained there is a sewer easement at the southwest corner and a temporary road could be installed there leading to Fred Waring Drive. It would be across from Vista Drive and would be for fire access only. 23. Commissioner Woodard stated he was a strong proponent of having as many accesses as possible and thanked him for the changes that had been made. He then asked how they would handle the plotting of the homes. Mr. Snellenberger stated he wold like to have some flexibility on the house plan, elevations, and garages. Would like to have the option to have more garages if there is a demand for them. 24. Commissioner Woodard asked if Mr. Snellenberger was willing to submit a plotting plan relative to the elevations. Mr. Snellenberger stated he would be willing to put into writing that no two elevations would be placed next to each other. 25. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that there is no problem with allowing the option of having three car garages. There is a problem in some of the plans showing an optional fourth bedroom where the third car garage would be. If you strike the ability to have the optional bedroom in the optional three car garage area this may allow the flexibility to have the larger garage. On the other issue of allowing more flexibility, the Commission may want to consider adding a condition that he would have the same flexibility as any other developer through the compatibility review. That makes it the same as any other tract. 26. Commissioner Butler questioned that in the three bedroom 2,700 square foot house, if the den was converted to a bedroom, then it is a four -bedroom house which causes the problem with the garage only being a two car garage. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that the City Code would not allow this at the initial construction. Commissioner Butler stated that was true at the original construction, but the homeowner could make the conversion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City did not draft the standards into the Zoning Code to allow the City to regulate what can be done after the house is sold. 27. Commissioner Butler asked if this issue could be discussed later in the meeting under Commissioner Items. PC2-11-97 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 28. Commissioner Woodard stated he was confused as to the requirements of the vesting map. At the previous meeting he understood that the Commission did not have the option of allowing the applicant any latitude regarding plotting. Now he is hearing that they can provide the option. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that she would have to review the requirements of a vesting tract map to be precise on what can and cannot be done. There are certain State requirements that must be met. 29. Mr. Snellenberger stated that he has done several vesting maps and in every one the only concern has been the lots. Each has its area of concern that they want addressed, because the houses have to come back to the Commission for review. 30. Mr. Jim Snellenberger, 79-792 Iris Court, stated he has always chosen to live on a cul-de-sac as he has children. Most families prefer to live in a cul-de- sac. He would not be able to live in a community that requires homeowners' association dues. It is not an option for the average family. 31. Mr. Chris Kaiser, 79-065 Ocotillo, just bought a home in the Quinterra development and she is happy with the home she bought. This tract is the type of home she would like to have in her neighborhood. 32. Mr. Wayne Rich, currently living Palm Springs, soon to be resident in La Quinta, and currently the sales person for the Quinterra homes stated it has been a popular tract as most of Mr. Snellenberger's homes are. Regarding homeowners' association, there is a trend to move away from them not only because of the money, but the politics and issues that accompany them. 33. Mr. Adrian Del Rio, 81-441 Dale Palm Avenue, Indio, has been a resident of the desert for ten years and has spent most of his time working in La Quinta and believes the project will create jobs for people of La Quinta as well as tax money. Mr. Snellenberger's projects are beautiful and live up to their quality of home. 34. Mr. June Watts, Avenida Amistad, has worked with Mr. Snellenberger on several of the signs for his projects on his signs and has always been impressed with his projects. This project is an enhancement to the galley. 35. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. PC2-11-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 36. Commissioner Seaton thanked the applicant for the changes that had been made to the tract. She was still concerned about the traffic on Fred Waring and would like to see it addressed. In addition, she was concerned about the schools and parks and would like to see another access road provided. 37. Commissioner Tyler stated he had three concerns about the project. He too thanked Mr. Snellenberger for the changes that had been made. His concerns were the absence of curvaralinear streets, lack of dedicated space for a park, secondary access, and concern about the use of an Italian name in a Valley that is Spanish. On Page 007 of the staff report, regarding park development, this project is over a mile away from the nearest park, and access to that park requires crossing over Fred Waring Drive. It does not seem possible for children to get to the park. The applicant needs to meet his obligation by modifying the retention basin to make a family park on the perimeter. It would add to the development and they could capitalize on it. On Page 21 of the staff report, referenced should be made that the retention basin would be sized accordingly to the tract. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the underlying parcel map created the project site and the parcel map governs the drainage issue as it relates to this tract. Commissioner Tyler stated there were several areas in the conditions that refer to a gated community and/or homeowners' association and it needs to be made consistent. Some developments have nominal homeowners' association fees. Unless there is a homeowners' association, the CC&R do not have any validity. Plan 3 shows an optional bay for a bedroom or garage. If it is a bedroom it creates four bedrooms and only a two car garage. This needs to be resolved. On Page 60 of the staff report, the language regarding what tract is to the south needs to be corrected. He is also concerned about the school impact. At the last Commission meeting there was a discussion as to how soon the Palm Royale area may be developed; what happens if it never gets built or if the second tract never gets built? This needs to be answered before approving this tract. The temporary access for the Fire Department needs to be resolved as it is not fair to the residents. 38. Commissioner Woodard stated that most of his concerns had been addressed. The cul-de-sac lots are always the most favorable. Plans 2B and 2A at the corners of the cul-de-sac is a concern as the major portion of the yard is dedicated to the side yard and faces the bedrooms instead of to the living/family rooms. Mr. Smith stated this had been straighten out with staff. Commissioner Woodard stated this did not address all of the units orientation. He went on to describe which plans would still be affected. Discussion followed regarding what could be done'to solve the problem. The PC2-11-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 lots need to accommodate the home. Second, on Plan 3 the rear elevation is one continuous gable, this may be objectionable to the neighbors behind. Plan 4 also needs an alternate elevation to be more sensitive to the property to the rear. Plan B has a hip roof and there should be a condition that requires the elevation for Plan 4A and the rear elevation of Plan 3A be modified to have hip roof instead of a gable. The legal aspects of a vested map need to be addressed at some point to allow the developer flexibility regarding his floor plans and elevations 39. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City requirements as they related to a vested map. The application would allow some flexibility if it can be fairly well defined. The compatibility process may allow this flexibility within the envelope of the Vesting Tract. Staff stated that the compatibility review requires the design to come to the Commission by virtue of a public hearing or business item whenever they want to make a change. The Commission would be able to review the changes at that time. Only those issues that can be opened during the compatibility review could be affected. The vested map would protect them against new conditions. 40. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the City's interest is to see that certain homes meet certain conditions, why is it to the City's advantage to change the floor plan as long as there is a preapproval by staff of those homes. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell sated that in reviewing the vesting tract map, the City requires that the details be submitted for the height, size and location of the proposed buildings be shown. This requirement of the application does not limit the Commission the ability to allow a certain amount of flexibility if it can be fairly well defined. This could be added to the conditions. 41. Commissioner Newkirk commended the applicant for the work he had done. Concerning the flexibility of the tract map, he too believed it should be afforded to the applicant. He was not as concerned about the secondary access, as the Fire Department will have a secondary access and they are meeting the requirements of the City. 42. Commissioner Butler stated that most of his issues had been resolved. Some of the issues raised by other Commissioners may not be able to be resolved without requiring the applicant to come back before the Commission. He was still concerned about the bedroom situation on Plan 3; when a bedroom from a garage conversion is allowed and causes a garage problem. He was still concerned about the amount of traffic on Fred Waring Drive at the time of build out. At the time the right -in/ right -out issue is solved along with the second access will solve some of these problems. PC2-11-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 43. Commissioner Woodard stated that Plan 6 has the same problem. On Plan 3 the garage is an issue as well as the additional bedroom not having its own bathroom. 44. Commissioner Gardner commended the applicant on his patience. The conditions imposed on this traffic to resolve some of the traffic concerns is consistent with what other projects have been conditioned. Some of the traffic problems will be alleviated when Washington Street and Highway 111 are completed. With respect to the size of the house, don't know if a 2,700 square foot house is really large in today market, but the market will determine this. 45. Chairman Abels stated that the concerns raised regarding some of the conditions, need to be addressed. Need to keep in perspective what has taken place. Greatest concern is the traffic on Fred Waring. 46. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that some of the issues raised by the Commission could be addressed by adding a new condition: a. Under miscellaneous: changes to the unit location, type, and size is permitted per the compatibility review process. Unit 3 and 6 cannot provide a bedroom option unless third car garage option is provided. If the additional bedroom is offered, there must be a three car garage. b. Units 4A and 3A provide deviation to the rear elevations subject to staff review and approval. C. Condition #74 would refer to a fire access. d. The access for Palm Royale Drive would be resolved during the public hearing for Tract 28457 under Condition 42.A.3, requiring the permanent access. e. The City has adopted a Park Master Plan and it does not identify a park in this area. Should the Commission want a park a private park could be required and it would be maintained by a homeowners' association and credits can be achieved as part of the Quimby provisions. Staff went on to explain the problems that the City had incurred due to Proposition 218, and this was why the applicant was being required to provide a homeowners' association to take care of the perimeter landscaping, etc., per Condition #63. Discussion followed as to the options. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that due the passing of Proposition of 218, the City cannot impose any fees that are an increase without obtaining approval obtaining approval from the City's voters. PC2-11-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 47. Chairman Abels stated that it is important to have the homeowners' association if there is a retention basin. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to make it mandatory to have the applicant provide a homeowners' association. 48. Commissioner Woodard asked if the entrance landscaping would be maintained by the City. Staff stated that Condition #3 stated that the landscaping is to be maintained by the applicant unless he is able to get it into the City's Lighting and Landscaping District. Commissioner Woodard asked if there is no association, is the City's responsibility to maintain it. Discussion followed as to what landscaping could be the City's responsibility and what is the tract's. 49. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they could require the developer to maintain that portion from the back of curb to the wall. In addition, the homeowners' association could be required to maintain the retention basin and perimeter landscaping. Then there would be no need to join the Lighting and Landscaping District. Conditions #63, #64, and #67 would be modified to say that a homeowners' association shall be created and it would have the responsibility to maintain all landscaping. Condition #67, if they provide a private park, they can use Park Fees to construct that park and receive a credit or pay the parkland in -lieu fees. 50. Commissioner Gardner stated it sounds like the developer is being forced to develop a homeowners' association and it seems that anyone who buys a house is going to be charged a fee. How many people is this going to put out of the housing market. This appears to be unfair to this developer. Staff stated that this is the first tract approval since the passing of Proposition 218 which took away the City's ability of adding to any lighting and landscaping costs. If a lighting district if formed, it may only cost each home $50 a month to maintain the streets. Should the developer form a homeowners' association, the cost should be the same. 51. Commissioner Tyler asked if the homeowners' association would be exempt from a Lighting and Landscaping District. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they would be exempt. This requirement should be a staff recommendation for every tract from this date forward. 52. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the rears yards of the lots in the cul-de-sac are oriented to be off the bedrooms. He would like a condition added to require that the cul-de-sac lots accommodate a different plan to addresses the rear yard orientation. PC2-11-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 53. Commissioner Butler stated he did not feel it was fair to tell the applicant where or how, he can plot his lots. This is just adding more conditions to the developer. Commissioner Woodard stated it is the responsibility of the Commission to protect the home buyers. 20 of the lots are not responsive to the major portion of the yard. 54. Commissioner Gardner stated he understands Commissioner Woodard's concern, but what would this do to the energy calculations. Commissioner Woodard stated that most homes are flexible and can be plotted in any direction. It is not imposing anything on the developer. 55. Mr. Snellenberger stated he had no problem with what Commissioner Woodard was asking. 56. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-007 recommending to the City Council approval of EA 96-330 for Vesting Tentative Tract 28457 and Site Development Permit 96-593. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 57. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 008 recommending to the City Council Vesting Tentative Tract 28457, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval, as modified: a. Lots located within the cul-de-sac are to be reoriented and approved by staff b. Unit 4A and 5A are to be modified and approved by staff. c Units 3 and 6 may only offer a third car garage option and cannot provide the optional bedroom. d. Changes to the location, size, and elevation can be allowed through compatibility review process e. Conditions #63 and #67 to be modified. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC2-11-97 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 58. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 009 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 96-593, subject to the Findings and the Conditions of Approval, as modified: a. Section C of the Resolution to be changed from 1595 to 2700. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Continued - Vesting Tentative Tract 28458 and Site Development Permit 96-594; a request of EZ Okie (Mr. Roger Snellenberger) for approval of a subdivision of 28.8 acres into 115 single family and other lettered public streets and well site lots; and approval of house plans 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained within the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked if the rocks that are to be used for landscaping were gravel and if so, what is gravel. Staff stated it is allowed in areas underneath the shrubbery. Chairman Abels recessed the public hearing at 9:54 and reconviened at 9:02 p.m. 3. Mr. Mike Smith, speaking for the applicant, stated he has no objection to the conditions as revised during the public hearing for Tract 29457, except the homeowners' association, but he realizes the impact of Proposition 218. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the problems of Tract 28457 apply here. Staff stated they did. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #7.C. be corrected. 6. Commissioners Seaton and Newkirk stated their concerns had been resolved in the discussions on the prior tract. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked if the second access was for traffic concerns and if other projects similar to this one, only have one access, why require the second access of this developer. If it is a necessary evil, when is it required PC2-11-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 to be constructed. Staff stated that Condition #42.A.3. would be modified to require the access be added prior to the first building permit for the tract with the wording modified as needed. 8. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that the signal construction would not be required until it was warranted. As the conditions are currently written, the access for the second tract would be constructed upon the construction of the first house. Discussion followed as to what improvements would be required by the applicant. 10. Mr. Mike Smith, asked if the condition could read upon "occupancy" of the first house and not "construction of to trigger the street improvements. In addition, the Fred Waring Drive construction be conditioned to coincide with the construction of the tract to the rear. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated no. 11. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 010 recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 96-331 for Vesting Tentative Tract 28458 and Site Development Permit 96-594. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 011 recommending to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 28458, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval, as modified: a. The elimination of one sentence and conditions regarding the homeowners' association C. Modification of Condition #74 to require a secondary fire access prior to issuance of building permit for the 36th house. d. Add condition to bring in compatibility review. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC2-11-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded- by Commissioners Butler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 012 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 96-594, subject to the Findings and the Conditions of Approval. a. Modification to Planning Commission Resolution Paragraph C regarding the house size and building elevations similar to those for Tract 28457. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton. Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Temporary Use Permit 96-127; a request of the La Quinta Arts Foundation for approval of a four day outdoor event (La Quinta Arts Festival) and sign program to be held at the Frances Hack Park on March 13-16, 1997, according to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. I. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk to adopt Minute Motion 97-001, approving Temporary Use Permit 96-127, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked about the billboard at Highway 111 and Washington Street. Staff stated the sign had been approved with the permit process. VII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Commissioner Gardner questioned how the Planning Commission of March 1 lth would be noticed. Following discussion, it was determined that as all Commissioners would be attending the League of California Cities Planners Institute March 11-14, 1997, the Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 1997 would be cancelled due to a lack of a quorum. If an emergency item needed to be heard, they would meet on March 1 Oth. PC2-11-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1997 B. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about the Zoning Code not being specific regarding four bedrooms houses and three car garages and the possibility of a developer changing the extra room to a bedroom and having a 2-car garage. He asked if there was way to use square footage to create verbiage to prevent this and if it could this be added to the proposed changes? Discussion followed. Staff stated that in order to make a recommendation to the City Council a public hearing would have to be scheduled for the Planning Commission and the issues reheard. The original recommendation to Council cannot be changed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was to late to make a formal recommendation to the City Council. Commissioners could speak at the Council public hearing and make a recommendation at that time. The City Attorney recommended staff agendize the subject for a future meeting. Staff asked if the Commission wanted it scheduled for a public hearing or discussion only? Staff would agendize the issue for Commissioner discussion. C. Commissioner Tyler presented a report on the City Council meeting of February 4, 1997. D. Chairman Abels informed the Commission about the interviews for the consultant to do the General Plan Update. Staff informed the Commission that the results of the interviews would be before the City Council for approval to enter into negotiations. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a meeting of February 25, 1997. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:36 P.M. on February 11, 1997. PC2-11-97 15 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 25, 1997 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.15-ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON OR PRIVATE STREET DOTS PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, EAST OF THE BEAR CREEK CHANNEL AND WEST OF THE YUCATAN PENINSULA RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD APPLICANTS/ PROPERTY OWNERS: MR. CHARLES B. MURPHY AND MR. LYNN R. KUNKLE ENGINEER: FITCH ENGINEERING (MR. BILL FITCH) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT (I.E., MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION). GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH INTERIM COVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 294 BACKGROUND: Site Background The site is located on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of the Yucatan Peninsula residential neighborhood (Attachment 1). The 9.15-acre parcel is vacant. Prior grading of this site occurred during construction of the STRT.330-13 1 Bear Creek Channel improvements in the mid-1980's by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Coachella Valley Water District. This channel takes runoff from the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the Whitewater Stormwater Channel which feeds into the Salton Sea. The Bear Creek Bike Path was completed in the early 1990's, and runs along the frontage of this site. In November, 1996, the City Council passed Urgency Ordinance #289 instituting RC (Cove Residential) development standards for this site. The Council's action affected three other areas of the City. The Ordinance was extended on December 17, 1996, to September 30, 1997, by a unanimous vote of the Council becoming Ordinance #294. The City Council implemented the change to ensure that no two-story houses could be built on these properties. Surroundinq Land Uses/Zoning Designations The property to the north and west is zoned Flood Plain and part of the Bear Creek Channel. The properties surrounding the site to the east and south are vacant or developed with existing single family homes under the RC (Residential Cove) District zoning provisions. The single family homes to the east in the Yucatan area are located on lots that are 5,000 square feet or larger with many houses built on merged lots of 10,000 square feet or larger. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Areas along the Bear Creek Channel are designated for a neighborhood park for the Cove residents based on the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1993) and General Plan (Chapter 5). The 35.9-acre recreation corridor is envisioned, when completed, to include areas along the bike and jogging paths for drinking fountains, shade areas (possibly structures) and play structures (See Attachment 2). This year the City will install irrigation and landscaping improvements adjacent to the bike and jogging paths using Urban Forestry grant money and City funds. Under the landscape improvement plans, the area adjacent to this site is designated for ornamental landscape improvements such as Creosote Bush and Red Bird of Paradise shrubs, and Blue Palo Verde and Thornless Mesquite trees. A rest area is planned south of the Tract (i.e., bench and water fountain), but this improvement is not planned to be built under the current work schedule using Urban Forestry money. The Parks and Recreation Department is currently discussing the future Bocation and construction of these future improvements which were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council last year. Additional information on this topic is provided later in this report. STRT.330-13 2 Application Information The applicants are requesting the subdivision of the 9.15 acre site into 19 single family lots for custom homes with private streets. Gating of the project is not proposed at this time. The new single family lots are greater than 12,000 square feet. Street Lot "B", the primary on -site street, is 37' in width (36-feet of paving) with a cul-de-sac at each end. Street Lot "A" provides access to the development from Avenida Montezuma, a public street (Attachment 3, Reduced Map). Street Lot "A'' is located slightly west of Avenida Madero, south of Avenida Montezuma. A triangular shaped retention basin lot (0.2-acres) is proposed at the northeast corner of the site for nuisance water. The developer is currently working with the Coachella Valley Water District to permit storm water runoff from the Tract into the channel under certain circumstances. Public Notice This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 27, 1997. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. No written comments have been received. All correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Planning Commission. Public agency comments have been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - General Plan,'Zoning Code Consistency This site is designated for residential purposes (Medium Density Residential, 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) under the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The density of this project is approximately two dwelling units per acre which is less than the maximum allowed in this land use category. Custom home sites are proposed with lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Under Ordinance #294, the developer is obligated to comply with the Residential Cove District requirements, which establish a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. This map proposes single family lots greater than 12,000 square feet which exceeds the RM and RC provisions. Conditions are recommended to insure the land division request meets all City standards. Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Private on -site streets are proposed for this development. The streets are designed to comply with the Circulation Element standards of the General Plan. The Conditions of Approval require improvements for this project that include streets and other infrastructure improvements necessary for development pursuant to Federal, State, County and City STRT330-13 3 provisions. The recommended Conditions guarantee that all on- and off -site work is consistent with City and other public agency standards. Condition #26 is proposed because the proposed single family lot pad levels on the east side of the project are higher in elevation than the existing single family homes which front onto Avenida Juarez. The City's policy has been to require adjoining projects to retain a grade elevation change of not greater than three -feet higher depending on the site constraints. The reason staff requests a lower height for this project is that it is a small in - fill development and can accommodate a lower pad elevation height to be compatible with the development to the east unless information can be presented that required the developer elevate the site to meet proper drainage requirements or other requirements to install the water and sewer improvements. The developer will have to provide supporting documentation to staff to justify the proposed grade elevation differences. Issue 3 - Health and Safety Concerns The proposed Conditions of Approval require installation of all necessary infrastructure improvements. These include water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. New electric services for each lot will be undergrounded and meet all requirements of the local service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). Plans and fees shall be submitted and paid to the respective serving agency. Issue 4 - Environmental Assessment The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 96- 335 for this project. A copy of the Environmental Assessment is attached (Attachment 4). Copies of the applicant's environmental reports used for assessment of the project are on file with the Community Development Department (e.g., Geotechnical, Hydrology, and Cultural Resources). The City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the applicant's Cultural Resources Report on February 20, 1997, at which time they concluded that the site did not have any special or significant cultural resources that needed preservation because the site was disturbed during construction of the Bear Creek Channel. A copy of this report can be made available to the Commissioner's on request. A copy of the minutes from the meeting is attached (Attachment 5) The Coachella Valley Water District, in their letter dated January 8, 1997, stated that the site is "... protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances." The District also states that the "... area is designated Zone X of Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time." A copy of this letter is on file with the Community Development Department. STRT330-13 4 The applicant's Geotechnical Report, prepared by Southland Geotechnical, Incorporated, states that the site was disturbed during the construction of the channel improvements but is suitable for residential development provided the property is "reworked". The consultant recommends that the site be excavated (three to four feet) to expose the subsurface material and then refilled and compacted to acceptable standards. The Public Works Department has reviewed the applicant's hydrology study and finds that it does comply with City standards. Conditions #28-37 are proposed for this project based on the project engineer's report. Based on submission of the above material, the Environmental Assessment concludes that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment based on implementation of the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in the attached material. Issue 5 - Perimeter Wall/Landscaping The developer has not submitted plans that show the type of wall that will be built around the perimeter of the project. Under Chapter 9.60 of the Zoning Code, the screen walls shall be decorative and designed to include offsets, pilasters, open panels and other features. Staff recommends that the screen wall along Avenida Montezuma, a local street, be approved by the Planning Commission and include decorative features to enhance the parkway landscaping. Wall offsets or jogs are not required if the wall changes height periodically and pilasters are included every 50-feet. Open sections within the wall are encouraged, but not required pursuant to Condition #58. The height of the wall shall not exceed six feet unless a noise study is completed showing that a higher wall is needed to buffer traffic noise from Avenida Montezuma. Additionally, to enhance the entry way into the development, staff recommends that the Planning Commission require eight foot wide landscaping lots on either side of Street Lot "A" to accentuate the project entrance. Lots 15 and 16 would have to be adjusted to accommodate this request. Landscaping improvements for these lots would create a transition zone between the path and the future Avenida Montezuma screen wall (See Condition #79). CONCLUSION: The land division application request is consistent with the City's long-range development plans as contained in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Findings can be made for a recommendation of approval are included in the attached Resolutions along with recommended Conditions. STRT330-13J RECOMMENDATIONS; Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97 _, recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 96-335 for Tentative Tract Map 28409; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28409, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as attached. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Excerpt 3. Map Exhibit - Reduced 4. Environmental Assessment 5. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of February 20'h 6. Large Map Exhibit (Planning Commission Only) Preparel-by: r Ore g oJsdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager STRT330-13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 MURPHY/KUNKLE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 96-335 and Tentative Tract Map 28409; and, WHEREAS, said application 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 96-335); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said application will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that 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 certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified, and less than significant impacts can be addressed by the incorporated mitigation measures and standard City development requirements. 2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards. The project does not have potential to eliminate any important example of California prehistory, as the site was previously disturbed several years ago in conjunction with mass grading and improvement installations associated with the Bear Creek flood control project. earesopc.335 Planning Commission Resolution 97- 3. The proposed Tentative Tract Map does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project will not significantly or adversely alter the type or intensity of residential use already contemplated in the General Plan for the site, and for which surrounding street and flood control improvements have already been completed. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project, whether approved or not, is a consistent representation of the project type to be proposed for the site as long as the current General Plan land use and zoning designations are applicable, and the impacts as identified in the Initial Study will remain similar to or less intensive than alternative projects. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, as the project contemplates less intensive residential uses than those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were addressed in the EIR previously certified for the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 96- 335 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25`h day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: earesopc.335 JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 TO ALLOW A 19-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS LETTERED LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.15 ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 APPLICANTS: C.B. MUR'PHY AND L. R. KUNKLE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25th day of March, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to create 19 single family lots on a 9.15-acre site, generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of Avenida Juarez, more particularly described as: Portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 1, T6E, R6E, SBBM (APN: 773-030-009 and portions of 773-030-010, 773-115-003, and 773-151-012) WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of 'The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 96-335 for this project which states the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on Conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 28409: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. The property is designated Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) per the General Plan. The project density is two dwellings per acre which is under the maximum level for the MDR District. Tentative Tract Map 28409 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element provided conditions are met. RESOPC90-13 /28457-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-. Parkland fees shall be paid to the City to develop parks within the City pursuant to the provisions contained in the General Plan (Chapter 5) and Subdivision Ordinance. The site is zoned RM but subject to RC development standards per Ordinance #294 which permits single family development on lots at least 7,200 square feet or larger. The proposed lots are larger than 12,000 square feet and designed for custom single family houses in compliance with City requirements. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. All streets and improvements in the project, as conditioned, will conform to City standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -site streets are private and designed per the standards of the Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0) of the General Plan. Access to the Tract will be from Street Lot "A" on Avenida Montezuma. The density and design standards for the Tract will comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan and Zoning Code. C. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This previously graded site is vacant and suitable for development based on the environmental studies prepared for the project that are on file with staff. This project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures and Conditions are recommended. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. RESOPC90-13 /28457-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28409 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 City Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RFSOPC90-13 /28457-13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 MURPHY/KUNKLE MARCH 25, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply (i.e., Assessor's Parcel Numbers 773-030-009 and portions of 773-030-01 C, 773-115-003 and 773-151-012). 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28409 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the 28409-13/RES090-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver of a final map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall dedicate 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. Dedications required of this development include: A. Lot A - Private Entry Street - 60-foot width. B. Lot B - Private Street - 37-foot width. C. CVWD maintenance road along Bear Creek Channel - Adequate right of way to accommodate existing roadway as approved by the City Engineer. S. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: 28409-13/RES090-13 2 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 A. Avenida Montezuma -10' The minimum width may be used as an average if a meandering wall design is approved. For developments with public interior streets, perimeter setback lots shall be dedicated to the City. For developments with private interior streets, perimeter setback lots shall remain in private ownership. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 10. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Avenida Montezuma from lots abutting the street. Access to this street shall be restricted to access points listed hereinafter or as approved by the City. 11. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, bike paths, and common areas. 12. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any ,portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 13. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 14. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature 28409-13MS090-13 3 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 15. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and'/or detail sheets from the City. 16. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 17. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Title 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. 28409-13/RES090-13 4 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 19. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 20. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development - wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 21. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 22. Prior to occupatoon of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 23. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 24. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 28409-13/RESO90-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 26. The applicant shall match building pad elevations of existing residential lots along the east boundary of the subdivision unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots within this subdivision shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots not sharing common street frontage where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 28. Stormwater failing on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year 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. 29. 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'/ acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 30. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data indicating otherwise. 28409-13/RES090-13 6 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 31. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. 32. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. 33. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities, i.e.: the La Quinta Building and Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, all areas of common retention basins shall be visible from the adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 34. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 35. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 37. If any storm water or nuisance water from this development is proposed to drain to off -site locations, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oiltwater separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. Drainage to off -site locations and methods of treatment or screening shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. If the applicant utilizes direct drainage of stormwater to the Bear Creek Channel, the Homeowners' Association for this development shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from the direct discharge of the development's stormwater to the channel. The Tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. 28409-13/RESO90-13 7 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 UTILITIES 38. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 39. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 40. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein. 41. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC 1) Lot A (Entry Drive) - 59 feet (curb face to curb face) with 10-foot median. The applicant shall modify the vertical and horizontal alignment of the existing Avenida Montezuma bike path at the entry drive as required by the City Engineer. 2) Lot B - 36 feet wide. 3) Cul de sac curb radius - 45'. Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. 28409-13/RES090-13 8 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 42. Vehicular access shall be restricted to the entry drive, the centerline of which is located approximately 300 feet westerly of the southeast corner of the subdivision, and to any approved emergency access. 43. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 44. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 45. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 46. Street right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 47. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping. 48. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5/6.50" The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix 28409-131RES090-13 9 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 49. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. LANDSCAPING 50. Perimeter walls and required landscaping for the entire perimeter to be enclosed shall be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract unless a phasing plan or construction schedule is approved by the City Engineer. 51. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or lots along Avenida Montezuma. 52. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and comply with Chapter 8.13 LQMC. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 53. Slopes in landscape areas shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 outside the right of way. 54. 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 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 28409-13/RES090-13 10 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 55. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 56. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 57. The perimeter landscaping and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance for the houses within the Tract. Palm trees installed along Avenida Montezuma shall have a minimum brown trunk height of 8-feet, and no less than 80 percent of the trees along Avenida Montezuma shall be 24"- or 36"-box specimen trees (e.g., minimum 1.75" to 3" diameter trunk width per tree type) with remaining trees 15 gallon in size with 1" trunks. Ground mounted lighting shall be used periodically to accent the parkway trees. Shrub spacing shall be 3'-0" on center unless plant types are clustered to form distinctive design themes. The parkway landscaping shall be installed either during construction of the Tract improvements or prior to the release of a Certificate of Occupancy for any house. The developer shall work with the Public Works Department to insure that the planned landscaping improvements along Avenida Montezuma are consistent with the City's plans under the Urban Forestry project. 58. The screen wall along Avenida Montezuma shall be decorative and include pilasters at 50-foot intervals (Chapter 9.60 of LQMC). Wall openings are encouraged. The wall shall vary in height either by grade elevation changes at 100-foot intervals or fluctuations in height, but not exceed six feet in overall height. If additional height is determined by an applicant prepared acoustic study it shall be provided by berming beneath wall. The design and location of the screen wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission during review of the parkway landscaping. The perimeter Tract wall, excluding Avenida Montezuma, shall be constructed using tan slumpstone masonry blocks or other decorative material(s) which is compatible with the project entry wall design. QUALITY ASSURANCE 59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 60. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required 28409-13/RES090-13 11 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Tentative Tract Map 28409 by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 61. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 62. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 63. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements by a Homeowners Association (HOA). The applicant shall maintain off -site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. 64. The applicant shall provide an executive summary maintenance booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 66. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 28409-13/RES090-13 12 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 67. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 13.48). 68. Two checks made out to the County of Riverside in the amounts of $1,250.00 and $78.00 for the project's environmental assessment (Negative Declaration) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24-hours after review of the map by the City Council. FIRE DEPARTMENT 69. Schedule (A) fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2'/2" X 21/") will be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 g.p.m. for a two-hour duration at 20 psi. 70. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be approved and signed by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 71. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 72. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key Operated switches, series KS- 2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire, Public Works and Community Development Departments for review/approval prior to installation. MISCELLANEOUS 73. All houses constructed shall comply with the Uniform Building Code in effect when the plans are submitted for plan check by the Building and Safety Department. 74. The Tract layout shall comply with all Zoning Code requirements. 28409-13/RES090-13 13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 75. Prior to final map approval, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and comment. The CC and R's shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and a recorded copy shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 76. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 96-335 shall be met. 77. Permanent signing for the Tract shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for said structure(s) pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Ordinance. 79. Eight -foot wide landscape lots shall be created along each side of Street Lot "A" on Lots 15 and 16. The length of the landscaping lots shall be 60-feet as measured from the right-of-way line of Avenida Montezuma. 80. All lots, which do not front onto a cul-de-sac, shall have a minimum lot frontage width of 60-feet as required by the RC Zoning District standards. 28409-13/RES090-13 14 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 Figure 2. Location of the study area plotted on a portion of the USGS 7.5' La Quinta, California topographic quadrangle (1959, photorevised 1980). 3 %b ATTACHMENT 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 96-335 Case No: Tentative Tract Map #28409 I. Name of Proponent: Address: Phone: Agency Requiring Checklist Project Name (if applicable) Date: December 12, 1996 Revised: February 25, 1997 C. Brian Murphy/Lynn Kunkle 2105 Balboa Avenue Del Mar, CA 92014 619-793-2425 City of La Quinta None at this time (see below) Tentative Tract Map 28409 represents a request to allow the subdivision of approximately 9.2 acres into 19 single-family lots, along the north side of Avenida Montezuma and east of the Bear Creek flood control channel. CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 760-777-7125 cklst.335 II. 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" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance M. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature w f f Printed Name and Title Date February 25, 1997 Wallace Nesbit. Associate Planner For: City of La Quinta. Community Development Department x Potentially Potentially Significant less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source #(s): X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major X infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaldng X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill'? X iii Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Signtficant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X 1) Unique geologic or physical features? X 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard, or contribute to any existing or projected air quality violation? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X iv Potentially potentially significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigatcd Impact Impact 3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? x d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? x e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle x racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in inWacls to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? x c) Locally designated natural communities, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans'? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? x v Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? R e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 3.12. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? K c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? Potentially Potentially Significant Less11ian Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X r 3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X vii 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 5. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X ►a KI 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, as stated in CEQA Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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. INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 Prepared for: C. BRIAN MURPHY/LYNN KUNKLE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #28409 Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 760-777-7125 December 14, 1996 Amended Fehruury 25, 1997 EA96335.wpd 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 3 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics 4 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 5 3.2 Population and Housing 6 3.3 Earth Resources 6 3.4 Water 8 3.5 Air Quality 8 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 9 3.7 Biological Resources 10 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 11 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 11 3.10 Noise 11 3.11 Public Services 12 3.12 Utilities 12 3.13 Aesthetics 13 3.14 Cultural Resources 13 3.15 Recreation 14 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 14 5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 15 EA96335.wpd SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to make a decision on the proposal. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed project. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project, To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist in the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the potential project impacts. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of La Quinta. rA96335.wpd 0 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study checklist indicates certain potential for significant environmental impacts. As a result, specific mitigation measures have been incorporated, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. Mitigation measures proposed for each issue area are underlined within the discussion. and are summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this addendum Any changes made by the applicant to the project as a result of this assessment, design review or other reason, which would necessitate changes to this addendum, are shown in italics as part of the issue area which any such changes may affect. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County_ . and federal and county lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in May, 1982. The proposed project consists of a request to ,allow the subdivision of approximately 9.2 acres into 19 lots, along the northwesterly edge of Avenida Montezuma and the east side of the Bear Creek flood control facility, between Avenida Juarez and Avenida Morales. The site was previously graded in conjunction with the realignment of the Bear Creek Channel several years ago, and is flat with minimal vegetation. A geotechnical analysis shall be required to be submitted with the proposed project. In addition, hydrologic and cultural resource evaluations have been submitted as requested. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The project incorporates a 19-lot subdivision on approximately 9.0 net acres. This parcel is vacant and has been scarified in conjunction with the Bear Creek Flood Control improvements in the mid- 1980's. Soils consist of alluvial silt/sand, and is well drained. The Bear Creek bike path generally runs along the east side of the channel northward until it approaches this parcel, where it transitions from the channel to the site frontage as it heads southeasterly to Calle Tampico. This concrete Class 1 bikeway was completed in early 1992. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The property is zoned RM (Medium Density Residential), and designated as Park Facilities and Medium Density Residential, which permits the proposed tract development type and density. Staff prepared several revisions to the Zoning Code, which were adopted and became effective in September. 1996. This parcel was included in those changes, having previously been designated Park and zoned Hillside Conservation. However. the characteristics of the property after the flood control channel rerouting and construction no longer warranted the HC designation. .Some Park designation appears to remain on the property. but the Community Development Director has determined that this relates to the bike path and not the land proposed for subdivision with this application. EA96335.wpd 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of this project is to develop a private, single-family development for sale of individual lots to construct custom homes. This subdivision may or may not be access controlled. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed tentative tract will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council for the following: Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project; Approval of a Tentative Tract Map application. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present, however. the same applicant has a general plan amendment and zone change request under review for a potential 70 lot subdivision, located along the east side of the Bear Creek Channel and the west side of Avenida Montezuma, between Calle Chillon and Calle Ensenada (GPA 96-053, CZ 96-080). SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA. Appendix G. 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. Topographic relief ranges from 237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The Valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain Range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the Valley. Local Environmental Setting The subject site is vacant. The project use as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and zoning currently in effect. The large lot, single family custom home types as proposed are generally lower density (approximately 2 units/acre) than that found in the adjoining Cove area (approximately 6 units/acre). A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose uses inconsistent with the current or future land uses contemplated for the project area. The site has been designated Medium Density Residential (MDR), consistent with the surrounding residential areas to the south and east . The project proposes a housing EA96335.wpd product at a density just within the Low Density Residential (LDR) range of the General Plan; i.e. 2 - 4 units/acre; the map proposes 19 lots on 9.15 acres for a density of 2.07 units/acre. 7his density has been determined to be consistent with that set forth in the La Quinta General Plan for the site of Medium Density Residential, 4 - 8 units/acre, in that the proposed density is below the density specified for the site. The proposal will have no significant conflicts with any environmental policies or plans in effect which would apply to the project. C, D - No Impact. There are no agricultural resources or operations which could be affected by the project. There will not be any effect on established areas in the Cove, as this is a smaller, isolated subdivision located on the perimeter of the Cove. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The City's population as of January, 1996 is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 18,046 persons. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City (WDL Economic Overview; 1996 Ed.). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit (1990 Census). Local Environmental Setting The site is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram. The areas surrounding the project on the southeast are similarly designated; hillside and open space property surround the site on the north and east. A, B, C - No Impact. The proposal itself will not exceed any current growth forecasts currently available to or used by the City, nor will it cause any change in anticipated growth patterns or numbers, based on the build out scenarios in the General Plan. The project development is not likely to induce growth in the area, due to extension and upgrade of existing infrastructure in the site vicinity. It is not anticipated to stimulate further residential development significantly, as the custom estate -sized homes proposed with the project would indicate that it would not affect any increase in the market for the typical Cove home. No effects on affordable housing are anticipated due to develcpment of this project. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillside, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the Valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. 1,:A96335.wpd Local Environmental Setting The site consists, in part, of Carrizo and Carsitas soils, underlain with granite and metamorphic rock. The Carrizo and Carsitas soil types have rapid permeability are commonly used for recreational or watershed uses. While they can be used in development of croplands, they are not considered as prime agricultural soils as classified by the State. The soil on this site is influenced by its proximity to the Bear Creek Channel and excavations necessary to realign and construct it. The site is located within a Ground Shaking Zone 3, referenced as a minimal to moderate level of shaking activity, based on the modified Mercalli scale. There are no active faults in the area (LQMEA). A, B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project could present some exposure to geologic hazards associated with fault rupture and ground shaking, due to the potential for earthquake activity in the region. However, impacts associated with such activity will be minimal; there are no identified fault transects in the vicinity of the site. Although the site is identified as susceptible to moderate Ground shaking impact, the soil characteristics indicate that ground failure due to such activity is negligible; the site is not identified as subject to liquefaction potential. The geotechnical investigation submitted by Southland Geotechnical utilized 1996 CDMGJ)SGS mavs. prepared for use in the 1997 UBC, as a basis for their evaluation of seismic risk to this project. The proiect will be required to adhere to standard seismic reinforcement and other requirements as called -for by the (IBC and as set forth in the Southland Geotechnical investigation, dated danuaty, 1997 as Report # P97002. The existing physical conditions in the area will not be changed in a manner which would create any impacts beyond those associated with development of the site in accordance with the General Plan. D - No Impact. There is no potential for seiche, tsunami or volcanic activity. The site is level and protected by the Bear Creek Channel from any potential impact due to breach. E - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Impacts involving potential seismic activity also relate to possible risk associated with rockslide. Although the site is level and not directly impacted by fault or other characteristics, the site is within 150 feet of the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains at some points. Localized seismic activity and/or erosion processes could cause failure in upper elevations of the mountains, dislodging rock and boulder fragments. As identified in the Southland Geotechnical investigation, protection is provided by the Bear Creek Channel, which acts as a trough basin to catch most such debris. The area above the site, across the channel, is mostly an alluvial fan with slopes at or under 10%, and there is no potential identified in the investigation_ for any such rock sliding to occur (.Southland Geotechnical investigation, dated January, 1997 as Report # P97002; City slope analysis). F - Less Than Significant Impact. There will be some change in surface features due to project grading. Such changes will affect stability of the site as the natural substructure is modified. Soil erosion potential will be affected due to loosening and movement of soil material during development; the site is also subject to wind erosion. Standard erosion control and soil management methods as identified in soil reports and addressed in grading plans required for the site will ensure that such impacts will not be significant. Submittal of a dust control plan as required (see Air Quality) will aid in wind erosion reduction. G,H,I - No Impact. The site is not identified as being subject to subsidence or having soils which are expansive. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site with respect to Earth issues (LQMEA; site survey); however, the Southland Geotechnical investigation identifies hydroconsolidation of soils to be a "moderately severe risk ". This is due to the previous Bear Creek Channel alignment which traverses the site and was filled over in 1986 The requirement for adherence to the recommendations of this investigation, as stated previously in this section, will ensure that there is no impact from this condition. EA96335.wpd 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal and stored at Lake Cahuilla. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement In the near future. Local Environmental Setting The vicinity of the proposed project is protected from design storms by the Bear Creek Channel flood control facility and other improvements. The site is level and incorporates well drained soils. The site is designated Zone X on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps in effect for the area, subject to 500 year flood events (CVWD comments; LQMEA). A - Less Than Significant Impact. Current runoff rates will increase due to building and hardscape area development. Hydrology calculations submitted on January 10, 1997, indicate this additional runoff will be detained on -site, and that ultimate dispersal to the Bear Creek Channel is acceptable to CVWD. The project will be required to prepare a final drainage plan and comply with NPDES permit requirements as enforced by the Public Works Department. B through H - No Impact. The area is currently protected from flood impacts by the existing Bear Creek Channel and frontage street improvements. No surface waters or other streams exist which could be affected, and ground water resource quantity and quality will not be significantly impacted. Compliance with NPDES requirements attached to the project permitting will ensure that storm water runoff associated with the project's development will not create any measurable impact to water quality, quantity or hazards. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (S®CAB). Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. Local Environmental Setting La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an arid climate characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the Valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that become suspended in the air primarily due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads. The Valley is currently designated by the EPA as a serious non -attainment area for PM 10, however SCAQMD anticipates that recent EA96335.wpd 9 data will show that the Valley has been in attainment over the last three years. Based on this. SCAQMD is in the process of preparing a PM 10 Maintenance Plan in order to have the area redesignated to attainment status. A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project is not anticipated to create any significant air quality impact. Based on the La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element and the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition , ADT for the project is estimated between approximately 114 and 190, respectively, based on the project lot count. This indicates a negligible impact to air quality from ultimate operation of the project. Ho\%ever, there will be incremental increases to emissions due to development. Short term (construction -related) impacts will result primarily from grading activities, which will generate fugitive dust. Prior to any soil disturbance or grading activitv(ies). the developer shall secure approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FRCP) The plan shall address all proposed development areas as well as those areas which may be disturbed by activity but scheduled for later development The FDCP shall be submitted with any clearing, grading, or other site activity request which will disturb or is related to development of the site, and shall incorporate measures to maintain dust suppression until the project is completed This rgsponsibibly shall run with the land and shall transfer to any subsequent owner of any individual lot, common areas or other lands within this land division until such time as permanent improvements have been complete . The proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. Adams Elementary School is the nearest non-residential sensitive receptor, located on Calle Tampico about 1 mile northeast of the site. The project itself will be a residential receptor when developed. Constriction -related air quality impacts will occur primarily from grading activities and other soil disturbances. The required FDCP will address these short-term construction impacts. C, D - No Impact. The project has no potential to effect any climatological change. and negligible potential to create objectionable odors. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and new or resurfaced roads since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways in the City network include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street. Fred Waring Drive, and 50th Avenue. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience seasonal variation; late wintericarly spring months represent the peak tourist season. Local Environmental Setting The project has direct frontage on Avenida Montezuma, which intersects with Juarez. Madero and Sinaloa along this frontage. These streets have a 60 foot right-of-way, with 36 feet between curbs. As local streets, they have a capacity of about 3.000 vehicles per day. Madero and Sinaloa have been reconstructed to intersect with Montezuma at near -right angles. The La Quinta General Plan establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) "D" for all intersections during A.M. or P.M. peak hours without adequate mitigation. LOS is a hierarchical classification of qualitative measures of traffic flow. ranging from A (free flo\y) to F (unacceptable saturation). A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The proIcct \vial unquestionably create some increased trips and congestion, however, the roadway capacities for local streets and other major thoroughfares in the area will EA96335.wpd 10 be able to absorb the additional traffic, which is not estimated to exceed 190 ADT. The applicant will be required to dedicate and install all on -site street improvements as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department in accordance with the conditions of approval for the project and any development agreement(s). The project is not anticipated to create any significant design -related hazards or any type of inadequate access situation. The project access does, however, appear to create an angled intersection across from Avenida Madero, and is offset from that centerline about 70 feet as shown on the tentative map exhibit. This is not considered to be significant due to the lower design speeds associated with the local street patterns. It is also likely that the realignment of Madero will match up \\ ith the project access, although this is not shown on the tentative map exhibit. Traffic safety improvements as typically required of new development will also provide reductions in traffic hazard impacts, commensurate with development of the site, and should improve the overall safety level of the intersection and adjacent roadways in general. C, D - No Impact. The project access may be gated. \\ hich could slightly hinder emergency access. However, this type of access control has never been identified as a concern by public safety authorities. provided that gate designs are reviewed for appropriate controls and operational characteristics of the affected agencies. This is a standard requirement for gated projects which \\ ill be applied to this proposal. Parking on -site will be provided for each home lot in accordance with Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code. E - Less Than Significant Impact. Some impact to safety of bicyclists and pedestrians using the existing Bear Creek bike path will result due to this proposal, from cars entering and exiting the project. Adequate traffic control measures will be required to avoid conflicts. F, G - No Impact. The project is not required to pro\ ide for alternative transportation infrastructure, or to submit a TDM plan, as there are no employees associated with the residential subdivision. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected by, water, air or rail traffic. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies wlthin the Colorado Desert Two ecosystems are found within the City. the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecos}stems is found in the LQMEA. Local Environmental Setting The subject area is vacant. with level terrain and minimal vegetation. The native vegetation is desert scrub, but the majority of the site has previously been disturbed in recent history. There are no ripariam'wetland habitats or streambeds on the site. and the LQMEA identifies the site as outside the range of any threatened or endangered floral or faunal species. A through E - No Impact. There is negligible potential for wildlife habitat to exist on the site. There is no protective or sheltering vegetation. dune mounds or other features which could be conducive to any wildlife species, primarily due to previous disturbances of the site. There are no significant or otherwise predominant tree stands or other vegetation on the site. No wetland areas are shown to be on or traverse the site. and the location of the site adjacent to improved streets and property precludes any potential migration of wildlife. EA96335.wpd 11 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. Where are no known oil resources in the City. Energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District and Southern California Gas Company. Local Environmental Setting The site does not lie within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist of alluvial sands underlain by metamorphic rock; the soils are well -drained and permeable, and may be used for agricultural purposes. There is no history that the site has been utilized for any specific purpose in the recent past (LQMEA; Resource Assessment for TTM 28409, 297). A, B - No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources in any manner which could be considered wasteful. Construction of the project will be required to meet State energy standards as typically enforced by the Building and Safety Department, and to comply with any applicable energy conservation policies as established in the La Quinta General Plan. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta. the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may post significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County: transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental.Setting The project site is vacant and has not been used for any tNpe of manufacturing in the past. A through E - No Impact. There is negligible or no potential risk of explosion and/or release of hazardous substances due to the project. The on -site storage of certain amounts of chemical compounds in various packaging, such as general household products, and other potentially hazardous materials (pool chlorine, pesticides, etc.) could occur in individual homes. Storage of potentially hazardous products are regulated by State and Federal legislation, and %vIll also be subject to Fire and Health Department standards as in effect and applicable at the time. The project does not have any potential to interfere with emergency response or create any health hazards. The site is not in an area susceptible to increased fire hazards relative to brush, grass or trees, as minimal or no susceptible vegetation exists in the immediate area 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the Citv are created by a variety of sources in and near the Citv. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and High\\ay 1 11. and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the Highway and major arterials, but can be impacted by aircraft noise from Bermuda Dunes, usually of a short duration. EA96335.wpd 12 Local Environmental Setting Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic. The propem- is vacant and therefore not a current source of noise. The site is within 1/4 mile of the La Quinta Resort and Club golf course maintenance facility to the northeast of the site, and Surrounded by residential uses. A - Less Than Significant Impact. Increases in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal, though they will not be significant. Roadway noise will increase incrementally as traffic volumes increase. The majority of the traffic volume in this area is related to new sine le family unit construction /occupation and relat;-d pass through trips. It is not anticipated that the additional N olumes attributable to this sites development will create any significant increases in noise levels. B - No Impact. Minimal noise impacts are anticipated due to development of this project. The proposed residential use is not considered as typically being a source of extreme or severe noise levels to surrounding uses. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services aro provided to the CitN through a contract with the R1%crsidc County Sheriff's Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City, Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane. and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio. and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Local Environmental Setting Riverside County Fire Station 432 and Station #70 are located approximately I mile cast and 4 miles southeast of the project site, respectively, Station #31 is located in Bermuda Dunes on 42nd Avenue and Adams Street, approximately 5 miles northeasterly of the project site. The Sheriff's office maintains a check -in facility in the City's EOC. Other governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center. A through E - No Impact. The project will not impact public services, based upon the comments received. All necessary public services can be provided to the project without compromising any existing levels of public service. The proponents will have to pay school fees as established by Desert Sands Unified School District for residential projects. Recommendations from other agencies Nti111 be considered as part of project review. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical po\\cr suppl} and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cable ision services the area for cable television service. The Coachella Vallev Water District (CVWD) provides Nvater and sewer service to the Cit\. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormNvater drainage system is administered by CVWD. which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. EA96335.wpd 13 The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous. mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The subject site is undeveloped at present. Off -site street and flood control improvements have been completed, along with sewer and water line extensions being in place. Some utility trunk extensions and connections will be necessary to develop the property. CVWD has provided a "will serve" letter for the project. A through F - No Impact. The proposed project Nvill require some degree of alteration to existing facilities, however, the responses received from the responsible purveyors do not present an} significant concerns to indicate that major new systems or retrofitting will be necessary to serve the project. 3.13 AESTHETICS Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Views of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west. A, B - No Impact. The project will have little or no impact on scenic vistas, as there are no scenic viewsheds identified in the LQMEA at this location The height of the proposed structures may block some direct view lines, but the impact will be minimal, as residential views in the area originate within a close proximity of the mountains and therefore do not have extended line of sight perspectives. Structures will be limited to one story, 17 feet ground to roof line per Ordinance 294. The overall design of the project should not have any demonstrable negative aesthetic effects. C - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposal will create additional light and glare from outdoor, low-level residential lighting. The City has an adopted "Dark Sky_ " ordinance which regulates lighting types and shielding characteristics, however, most residential lighting will be exempt. A lighting plan for perimeter and other common area landscaped areas will be re\ic\\ ed and conditioned to be consistent with the Outdoor Light Control provisions of the Zoning Code for height shielding and lighting type pursuant to approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills. The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The proposal is located close to the Santa Rosa Mountain foothills. No historic structures exist in the immediate area. The site is generally barren of any \cgetation. A cultural resource assessment (CRA) was required to be submitted with the development applications. and was received on February h. 1997. The report indicates that the area has "virtually no potential to yield prehistoric or historic materials ''. A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The herita,s c resources assessment prepared.1br this subdivision EA96335.wpd 14 indicates negligible potential.for any cultural resources to be located on this site, and does not recommend monitoring of the site during construction. The initial checklist determination is therefore changed to a finding of "No Impact " for Issue 3.14.A and R (Heritage Resources Assessment: 17M 28409; Archaeological Advisors, Group; February, 1997). C Through E - No Impact. The cultural resources survey did not identify any historic resources on the site. Development of the project has no potential to of feet cultural values beyond those which may be addressed by cultural resource monitoring, and no existing religious uses are associated with the site. 3.15 RECREATION Local Environmental.Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources, facilities and future needs of the City. The Cite contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City_ and designated pedestrian hiking trails. A, B - No Impact. The proposed project v6II not affect demand for recreational facilities or existing recreation. While the project may attract additional residents from La Quinta and other communities. it is not likely that the project will attract a significant number of nex\ residents. Existing opportunities it ill not be affected, as it has been determined that no designated park land hes within the tract boundary. The amount of park use to be developed along the Bear Creek Channel indicates that sufficient area will he provided .for. even without any additional park land within this tract. This tract will, however, be required to pav in lieu dedication fees, amounting to an equivalent of .16245 acres of land. SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts. as summarized under Earth Resources. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: a) The proposed Tentative Tract Map does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. as the project in question \\ ill not be developed in am manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current Citv standards. b) The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term cm ironmental goals, as the proposed project will not significantly alter the types or intensity of the residential uses already contemplated in the General Plan. c) The proposed Tentative Tract Map \\ nil not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable \\lien considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. in that the proposed project is a consistent representation of thz project tvpc envisioned for the site as long as the current General Plan land use and zoning designations are applicable, and the impacts as identified in the Initial Study will remain EA96335.wpd 15 similar to subsequent projects. The project site is also surrounded by existing subdivided areas subject to infill development. which were considered in the La Quinta General Plan EIR. d) The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates uses similar to those alreadv assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were addressed in the EIR previously certified for the General Plan. These uses are residential and do not pose any direct risks to the human population. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of this assessment: 0 La Quinta General P9an Update: October 1992 0 La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment: October 1992 0 SCAQMD CEQA A4r Quality Handbook. April 1993 o Geotechnical Investigation: 7'TAJ 8409: Southland Geotechnical, Inc.. Report 1197002, January 1997 o Heritage Resource Assessment Report: 7'1M 28409, prepared by James Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group, February 1997 o ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 4th Edition. 1987 These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were used in the preparation of this Initial Study. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. The following potentially significant impacts identified in the checklist were determined as adequately addressed by the previously listed documents 0 Earth Resources C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addenduni where underlined. A Mitigatien Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been prepared for the project that \\ ill become a part of the conditions of approval attached to the project approvals and permits. Prepared by: Date: H. Wallace H. Nesbit Associate Planner EA96335.wpd rn 0 00 N �Cd Cd � j M U � � F" Liz 0 O FvWiW H Q A U zA dw ax UU UV W U z H Wz •.: x o zz O w� n" O w v� r I ►� �w �w Mz oza A z A �U U as �O w G7 c d z� z �• � U Cj Qj a� aj � E� a" •� 4.•�;° U W •c � ce � as � e�z rn 00 00 N A U pq �WA � W U O� VV b ua b Ld a � � o P4 �7 w oqA a s�A � o 0 pa �4 oo o� vo 00 N I A z� zA ►.a � U UU aj o W U U Z a. U caa ao � � c •L � � > CAS ca i, .0 C7 � ' a a ®Cj aA E- Qj = a F, U ao o u a > ' ca 'o el; C\ v 00 N i a F•+ A U� �A a�x U U U U U U CA : �Z CO G7 ; O A �p4 Ate° as 4� H��w� 4•s Wo kn®00% MU'� OH . im� via ON 00 N i A z � WA �x �U 0 UU U Eb �a �o �o w w U -,7 r z o W cc n 00 00 N E� A �w U �x UU U W �a �o ®z w Q � � a' M � O E� A UU7 O U U �a a� O w � � w W v � W � '�' W d •� W a� v 00 N A AA � x � U V V U C7 a �O o0 �� �O w Q � o rZ H �a M z o z o► rn v 00 N i i aU ®x U U W U rO ®aj w � � o U W A w� °z U Qj Mz ® za A z� W W U 0 x U U o WW v �+ o a� � a o � w. E,• z" %a 0 a s, ax w �o ov ®z p o `� w ►F.r Q. &D p r W •� M z i i E� Ca ' W z r_\ < x FM U UU U �a zz 0 0.4 �o w a - u Qw �x WU ® x V V � c zs ►b � a� > o V a a Q o � � +• o o �z �o �z a� m w U o w c OtOz �� moo. cl Qj �Wo P-4 vim,•= w � F'� U •o s.� ;� � o w,..,o n,, E oU M� off �x c u a �v,a rn v0 00 N F A z W ►mod ax U UU U C7 W �a �o �z �o w Qj Q ; � o ..4 .r rn v 00 N B Z �W ox U U U V C7 Wz F � �z 0 Al w" �o w Fr ►.• .., CG ao tn •� W a � � w Q r W •1 0 M Z 0 :� z d Historical Preservation Commission February 20, 1997 the City La Quinta, Chambers. Staff wil as it is 2. Ms. A ATTACHMENT 5 I be held at the La Quinta City Hall Council an agenda is mailed to the Commission as soon Frefta stated that during a dispute as to the exact to the different citieA Valley" is to be used make up the Val obtained that Chairman she was working on, Coachella Valley. thanked Ms. Pena for her offer and asked staff to obtain a copy of the map. F. Environmental Assessment 96-335 for Tentative Tract 28409; a request of A & M Builders for a Heritage Resources Assessment by Archaeological Advisory Group of the area north of Avenida Montezuma, west of Avenida Juarez, and southeast of the Bear Creek Channel for a subdivision of 9.15 acres 19 single family lots. They are requesting to not have a monitor on site as the CVWD has done a lot of grading work prior to any archaeological work being completed. The possibility of artifacts present on the project site could not be substantiated due to the disturbances that have taken place over an extended period of time. They are therefore recommending that a monitor not be required to be on site for grading. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Wright asked staff to clarify the location of the project. Staff clarified that there were two projects proposed for this general area but that this project is in an area that has been designated as residential and is at the north end of the Channel. There are to be 19 residential units planned in a southwest design on lots sizes of 12-15,000 square feet. 3. Chairman Millis stated that as this area is at the bottom of the Bear Creek Channel and before the rechanneling the water that ran through there was so rapid that anything would have been washed away. 4. There being no questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners DeMersman/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 97-005, approving the request to not have a monitor on site during grading. Unanimously approved. HPC2-20 5 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 25, 1997 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.15-ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON OR PRIVATE STREET LOTS PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, EAST OF THE BEAR CREEK CHANNEL AND WEST OF THE YUCATAN PENINSULA RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD APPLICANTS/ PROPERTY OWNERS: MR. CHARLES B. MURPHY AND MR. LYNN R. KUNKLE ENGINEER: FITCH ENGINEERING (MR. BILL FITCH) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT (I.E., MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION). GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH INTERIM COVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 294 BACKGROUND: Site Background The site is located on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of the Yucatan Peninsula residential neighborhood (Attachment 1). The 9.15-acre parcel is vacant. Prior grading of this site occurred during construction of the STRT.330-13 1 Application Information The applicants are requesting the subdivision of the 9.15 acre site into 19 single family lots for custom homes with private streets. Gating of the project is not proposed at this time. The new single family lots are greater than 12,000 square feet. Street Lot "B", the primary on -site street, is 37' in width (36-feet of paving) with a cul-de-sac at each end. Street Lot "A" provides access to the development from Avenida Montezuma, a public street (Attachment 3, Reduced Map). Street Lot "A" is located slightly west of Avenida Madero, south of Avenida Montezuma. A triangular shaped retention basin lot (0.2-acres) is proposed at the northeast corner of the site for nuisance water. The developer is currently working with the Coachella Valley Water District to permit storm water runoff from the Tract into the channel under certain circumstances. Public Notice This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 27, 1997. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. No written comments have been received. All correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Planning Commission. Public agency comments have been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - General Plan/Zoning Code Consistency This site is designated for residential purposes (Medium Density Residential, 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) under the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The density of this project is approximately two dwelling units per acre which is less than the maximum allowed in this land use category. Custom home sites are proposed with lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Under Ordinance #294, the developer is obligated to comply with the Residential Cove District requirements, which establish a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. This map proposes single family lots greater than 12,000 square feet which exceeds the RM and RC provisions. Conditions are recommended to insure the land division request meets all City standards. Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Private on -site streets are proposed for this development. The streets are designed to comply with the Circulation Element standards of the General Plan. The Conditions of Approval require improvements for this project that include streets and other infrastructure improvements necessary for development pursuant to Federal, State, County and City STRT330-13 3 provisions. The recommended Conditions guarantee that all on- and off -site work is consistent with City and other public agency standards. Condition #26 is proposed because the proposed single family lot pad levels on the east side of the project are higher in elevation than the existing single family homes which front onto Avenida Juarez. The City's policy has been to require adjoining projects to retain a grade elevation change of not greater than three -feet higher depending on the site constraints. The reason staff requests a lower height for this project is that it is a small in - fill development and can accommodate a lower pad elevation height to be compatible with the development to the east unless information can be presented that required the developer elevate the site to meet proper drainage requirements or other requirements to install the water and sewer improvements. The developer will have to provide supporting documentation to staff to justify the proposed grade elevation differences. Issue 3 - Health and Safety Concerns The proposed Conditions of Approval require installation of all necessary infrastructure improvements. These include water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. New electric services for each lot will be undergrounded and meet all requirements of the local service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). Plans and fees shall be submitted and paid to the respective serving agency. Issue 4 - Environmental Assessment The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 96- 335 for this project. A copy of the Environmental Assessment is attached (Attachment 4). Copies of the applicant's environmental reports used for assessment of the project are on file with the Community Development Department (e.g., Geotechnical, Hydrology, and Cultural Resources). The City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the applicant's Cultural Resources Report on February 20, 1997, at which time they concluded that the site did not have any special or significant cultural resources that needed preservation because the site was disturbed during construction of the Bear Creek Channel. A copy of this report can be made available to the Commissioner's on request. A copy of the minutes from the meeting is attached (Attachment 5) The Coachella Valley Water District, in their letter dated January 8, 1997, stated that the site is "... protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances." The District also states that the "... area is designated Zone X of Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time." A copy of this letter is on file with the Community Development Department. STRT330-13 The applicant's Geotechnical Report, prepared by Southland Geotechnical, Incorporated, states that the site was disturbed during the construction of the channel improvements but is suitable for residential development provided the property is "reworked". The consultant recommends that the site be excavated (three to four feet) to expose the subsurface material and then refilled and compacted to acceptable standards. The Public Works Department has reviewed the applicant's hydrology study and finds that it does comply with City standards. Conditions #28-37 are proposed for this project based on the project engineer's report. Based on submission of the above material, the Environmental Assessment concludes that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment based on implementation of the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in the attached material. Issue 5 - Perimeter Wall/Landscaping The developer has not submitted plans that show the type of wall that will be built around the perimeter of the project. Under Chapter 9.60 of the Zoning Code, the screen walls shall be decorative and designed to include offsets, pilasters, open panels and other features. Staff recommends that the screen wall along Avenida Montezuma, a local street, be approved by the Planning Commission and include decorative features to enhance the parkway landscaping. Wall offsets or jogs are not required if the wall changes height periodically and pilasters are included every 50-feet. Open sections within the wall are encouraged, but not required pursuant to Condition #58. The height of the wall shall not exceed six feet unless a noise study is completed showing that a higher wall is needed to buffer traffic noise from Avenida Montezuma. Additionally, to enhance the entry way into the development, staff recommends that the Planning Commission require eight foot wide landscaping lots on either side of Street Lot "A" to accentuate the project entrance. Lots 15 and 16 would have to be adjusted to accommodate this request. Landscaping improvements for these lots would create a transition zone between the path and the future Avenida Montezuma screen wall (See Condition #79). CONCLUSION: The Band division application request is consistent with the City's long-range development plans as contained in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Findings can be made for a recommendation of approval are included in the attached Resolutions along with recommended Conditions. STRT330-13 5 Iltl�'i RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97 recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 96-335 for Tentative Tract Map 28409; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28409, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as attached. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Excerpt 3. Map Exhibit - Reduced 4. Environmental Assessment 5. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of February 20t' 6. Large Map Exhibit (Planning Commission Only) STRT330-13 IN I, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Pla Wing Manager 0 0�z(. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 MURPHY/KUNKLE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25" day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 96-335 and Tentative Tract Map 28409; and, WHEREAS, said application 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 96-335); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said application will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that 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 certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified, and less than significant impacts can be addressed by the incorporated mitigation measures and standard City development requirements. 2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards. The project does not have potential to eliminate any important example of California prehistory, as the site was previously disturbed several years ago in conjunction with mass grading and improvement installations associated with the Bear Creek flood control project. earesopc.335 Planning Commission Resolution 97- 3. The proposed Tentative Tract Map does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project will not significantly or adversely alter the type or intensity of residential use already contemplated in the General Plan for the site, and for which surrounding street and flood control improvements have already been completed. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project, whether approved or not, is a consistent representation of the project type to be proposed for the site as long as the current General Plan land use and zoning designations are applicable, and the impacts as identified in the Initial Study will remain similar to or less intensive than alternative projects. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, as the project contemplates less intensive residential uses than those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were addressed in the EIR previously certified for the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 96- 335 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25`h day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: earesopc.335 () it 8 JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta,-California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quanta, California 1)01", PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 TO ALLOW A 19-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS LETTERED LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.15 ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 APPLICANTS: C.B. MURPHY AND L. R. KUNKLE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25th day of March, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to create 19 single family lots on a 9.15-acre site, generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of Avenida Juarez, more particularly described as: Portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 1, T6E, R6E, SBBM (APN: 773-030-009 and portions of 773-030-010, 773-115-003, and 773-151-012) WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 96-335 for this project which states the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on Conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 28409: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. The property is designated Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) per the General Plan. The project density is two dwellings per acre which is under the maximum level for the MDR District. Tentative Tract Map 28409 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element provided conditions are met. RESOPC90-13 /28457-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Parkland fees shall be paid to the City to develop parks within the City pursuant to the provisions contained in the General Plan (Chapter 5) and Subdivision Ordinance. The site is zoned RM but subject to RC development standards per Ordinance #294 which permits single family development on lots at least 7,200 square feet or larger. The proposed lots are larger than 12,000 square feet and designed for custom single family houses in compliance with City requirements. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. All streets and improvements in the project, as conditioned, will conform to City standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -site streets are private and designed per the standards of the Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0) of the General Plan. Access to the Tract will be from Street Lot "A" on Avenida Montezuma. The density and design standards for the Tract will comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan and Zoning Code. C. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This previously graded site is vacant and suitable for development based on the environmental studies prepared for the project that are on file with staff. This project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures and Conditions are recommended. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. REsoPC90-13 /28457-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-, WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28409 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 City Planning Commission, held on the 251 day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC90-13 /28457-13 i I I '-' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 MURPHY/KUNKLE MARCH 25, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply (i.e., Assessor's Parcel Numbers 773-030-0,09 and portions of 773-030-010, 773-115-003 and 773-151-012). 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28409 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the 28409-13/RES090-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver of a final map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall dedicate 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. Dedications required of this development include: A. Lot A - Private Entry Street - 60-foot width. B. Lot B - Private Street - 37-foot width. C. CVWD maintenance road along Bear Creek Channel - Adequate right of way to accommodate existing roadway as approved by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: 2 28409-13/RES090-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 A. Avenida Montezuma - 10' The minimum width may be used as an average if a meandering wall design is approved. For developments with public interior streets, perimeter setback lots shall be dedicated to the City. For developments with private interior streets, perimeter setback lots shall remain in private ownership. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 10. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Avenida Montezuma from lots abutting the street. Access to this street shall be restricted to access points listed hereinafter or as approved by the City. 11. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, bike paths, and common areas. 12. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S 13. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 14. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature 28409-13/RES090-13 3 J1 � (1 i `l Planning Commission Resolution 97-. Tentative Tract Map 28409 blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 15. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 16. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 17. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Title 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. 28409-13/RES090-13 4 v Planning Commission Resolution 97- Tentative Tract Map 28409 Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 19. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 20. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development - wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 21. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 22. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 23. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 24. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 28409-13/RESO90-13 5 ! Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 26. The applicant shall match building pad elevations of existing residential lots along the east boundary of the subdivision unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots within this subdivision shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots not sharing common street frontage where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 28. Stormwater failing on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year 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. 29. 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 determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 30. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data indicating otherwise. 28409-13/RES090-13 6 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 31. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. 32. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. 33. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities, i.e.: the La Quinta Building and Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, all areas of common retention basins shall be visible from the adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 34. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 35. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 37. If any storm water or nuisance water from this development is proposed to drain to off -site locations, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oiltwater separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. Drainage to off -site locations and methods of treatment or screening shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. If the applicant utilizes direct drainage of stormwater to the Bear Creek Channel, the Homeowners' Association for this development shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from the direct discharge of the development's stormwater to the channel. The Tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. 28409-13/RESO90-13 % 0 � rl Planning Comm-ission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 UTILITIES 38. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 39. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 40. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein. 41. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC 1) Lot A (Entry Drive) - 59 feet (curb face to curb face) with 10-foot median. The applicant shall modify the vertical and horizontal alignment of the existing Avenida Montezuma bike path at the entry drive as required by the City Engineer. 2) Lot S - 36 feet wide. 3) Cul de sac curb radius - 45'. Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. 28409-13/RES090-13 H. ■Y�M. Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 42. Vehicular access shall be restricted to the entry drive, the centerline of which is located approximately 300 feet westerly of the southeast corner of the subdivision, and to any approved emergency access. 43. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 44. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 45. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 46. Street right of way geometry for cuts de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 47. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping. 48. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5/6.50" The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix 28409-13/RES090-13 9 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 49. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. LANDSCAPING 50. Perimeter walls and required landscaping for the entire perimeter to be enclosed shall be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract unless a phasing plan or construction schedule is approved by the City Engineer. 51. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or lots along Avenida Montezuma. 52. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and comply with Chapter 8.13 LQMC. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 53. Slopes in landscape areas shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 outside the right of way. 54. 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 5-feet of curbs along public streets. fl 28409-13/RES090-13 3 17 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 55. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 56. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 57. The perimeter landscaping and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance for the houses within the Tract. Palm trees installed along Avenida Montezuma shall have a minimum brown trunk height of 8-feet, and no less than 80 percent of the trees along Avenida Montezuma shall be 24"- or 36"-box specimen trees (e.g., minimum 1.75"' to 3" diameter trunk width per tree type) with remaining trees 15 gallon in size with 1" trunks. Ground mounted lighting shall be used periodically to accent the parkway trees. Shrub spacing shall be 3'-0" on center unless plant types are clustered to form distinctive design themes. The parkway landscaping shall be installed either during construction of the Tract improvements or prior to the release of a Certificate of Occupancy for any house. The developer shall work with the Public Works Department to insure that the planned landscaping improvements along Avenida Montezuma are consistent with the City's plans under the Urban Forestry project. 58. The screen wall along Avenida Montezuma shall be decorative and include pilasters at 50-foot intervals (Chapter 9.60 of LQMC). Wall openings are encouraged. The wall shall vary in height either by grade elevation changes at 100-foot intervals or fluctuations in height, but not exceed six feet in overall height. If additional height is determined by an applicant prepared acoustic study it shall be provided by berming beneath wall. The design and location of the screen wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission during review of the parkway landscaping. The perimeter Tract wall, excluding Avenida Montezuma, shall be constructed using tan slumpstone masonry blocks or other decorative material(s) which is compatible with the project entry wall design. QUALITY ASSURANCE 59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 60. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required 28409-13/RES090-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 61. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 62. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 63. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements by a Homeowners Association (HOA). The applicant shall maintain off -site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. 64. The applicant shall provide an executive summary maintenance booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 66. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 12 28409-13/RE8090-13 i , Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409 67. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 13.48). 68. Two checks made out to the County of Riverside in the amounts of $1,250.00 and $78.00 for the proj,ect's environmental assessment (Negative Declaration) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24-hours after review of the map by the City Council. FIRE DEPARTMENT 69. Schedule (A) fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2'/2" X 2'/2") will be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 g.p.m. for a two-hour duration at 20 psi. 70. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be approved and signed by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 71. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 72. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key Operated switches, series KS- 2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire, Public Works and Community Development Departments for review/approval prior to installation. MISCELLANEOUS 73. All houses constructed shall comply with the Uniform Building Code in effect when the plans are submitted for plan check by the Building and Safety Department. 74. The Tract layout shall comply with all Zoning Code requirements. ji t 28409-13/RES090-13 13 "�r' Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Tract Map 284C9 75. Prior to final map approval, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and comment. The CC and R's shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and a recorded copy shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 76. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 96-335 shall be met. 77. Permanent signing for the Tract shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for said structure(s) pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Ordinance. 79. Eight -foot wide landscape lots shall be created along each side of Street Lot "A" on Lots 15 and 16. The length of the landscaping lots shall be 60-feet as measured from the right-of-way line of Avenida Montezuma. 80. All lots, which do not front onto a cul-de-sac, shall have a minimum lot frontage width of 60-feet as required by the RC Zoning District standards. 14 28409-13/RES090-13 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 Figure 2. Location of the study area plotted on a portion of the USGS 7.5' La Quinta, California topographic quadrangle (1959, photorevised 1980). 3 Y ATTACHMENT 3 f e W WI::! NB�B 4e8 Q c w A A I A I s K e � Q x e \ X •e / ATTACHMENT 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 96-335 Case No: Tentative Tract Map #28409 I. Name of Proponent: Address: Phone: Agency Requiring Checklist Project Name (if applicable) Date: December 12, 1996 Revised: February 25, 1997 C. Brian Murphy/Lynn Kunkle 2105 Balboa Avenue Del Mar, CA 92014 619-793-2425 City of La Quinta None at this time (see below) Tentative Tract Map 28409 represents a request to allow the subdivision of approximately 9.2 acres into 19 single-family lots, along the north side of Avenida Montezuma and east of the Bear Creek flood control channel. CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 760-777-7125 cklst.335 II. 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" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise H Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance M. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature w H ,/L,/ Date February 25. 1997 Printed Name and Title Wallace Nesbit. Associate Planner For: City of La Quinta, Community Development Department F Potentially Potentially significant Las Than significant Unless signiicant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source #(s): X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major X infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or till? X �8 • 111 Potentially Potentially sigmficant Leas Than Significant Unless Signtticant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X I) Unique geologic or physical features? X. 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard, or contribute to any existing or projected air quality violation? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X iv t Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? x c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? x d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? x e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle x racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? x e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X. 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans'? x b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? x v Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.9. RISK OF UPSETIB UMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? % b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X. b) Police protection? c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 3.12. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? K vi 0 1' c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Potennally Potentially Significant less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ►.1 d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X. 3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic; vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect'? X c) Create light or glare? X 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X vii Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 5. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, as stated in CEQA Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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. INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 Prepared for: C. BRIAN MURPHY/LYNN KUNKLE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #28409 Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta. California 92253 760-777-7125 December 14. 1996 Amended Fehruurj, 25, 1997 EA96335.wpd TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 3 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Phvsical Characteristics 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics 4 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 5 3.2 Population and Housing 6 3.3 Earth Resources 6 3.4 Water 8 3.5 Air Quality 8 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 9 3.7 Biological Resources 10 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 11 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 11 3.10 Noise 11 3.11 Public Services 12 3.12 Utilities 12 3.13 Aesthetics 13 3.14 Cultural Resources 13 3.15 Recreation 14 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 14 5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 15 EA96335.wpd OA (.. 0 9 SECTION 1• INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for project review. as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to make a decision on the proposal. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed project. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines. include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project. mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist in the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the potential project impacts. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of La Quinta. EA96335.wpd O V 4 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study checklist indicates certain potential for significant environmental impacts. As a result, specific mitigation measures have been incorporated, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. Mitigation measures proposed for each issue area are underlined within the discussion, and are summarized in the Mitigtion Monitoring Program attached to this addendum Any changes made by the applicant to the project as a result of this assessment . design review or other reason, which would necessitate changes to this addendum, are shown in italics as part of the issue area which any such changes may affect. SECTION 2• PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County_ . and federal and county lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated ui May, 1982. The proposed project consists of a request to ,allow the subdivision of approximately 9.2 acres into 19 lots, along the northwesterly edge of Avenida Montezuma and the east side of the Bear Creek flood control facility, between Avenida Juarez and Avenida Morales. The site was previously graded in conjunction with the realignment of the Bear Creek Channel several years ago, and is flat with minimal vegetation. A geotechnical analysis shall be required to be submitted with the proposed project. In addition, hydrologic and cultural resource evaluations have been submitted as requested. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The project incorporates a 19-lot subdivision on approximately 9.0 net acres. This parcel is vacant and has been scarified in conjunction with the Bear Creek Flood Control improvements in the mid-1980's. Soils consist of alluvial silt/sand, and is well drained. The Bear Creek bike path generally runs along the east side of the channel northward until it approaches this parcel. where it transitions from the channel to the site frontage as it heads southeasterly to Calle Tampico. This concrete Class 1 bikeway was completed in early 1992. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The property is zoned RM (Medium Density Residential), and designated as Park Facilities and Medium Density Residential, which permits the proposed tract development type and density. Staff prepared several revisions to the Zoning Code, which were adopted and became effective in September. 1996. This parcel was included in those changes, having previously been designated Park and zoned Hillside Conservation. However. the characteristics of the property after the flood control channel rerouting and construction no longer warranted the HC designation. Some Park designation appears to remain on the property. but the Community Development Director has determined than this relates to the bike path and not the land proposed for subdivision with this application. BA96335."d 04 1 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of this project is to develop a private. single-family development for sale of individual lots to construct custom homes. This subdivision may or may not be access controlled. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project. the government agency is the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed tentative tract will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council for the following: 0 Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project; o Approval of a Tentative Tract Map application. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present: however. the same applicant has a general plan amendment and zone change request under review for a potential 70 lot subdivision, located along the east side of the Bear Creek Channel and the west side of Avenida Montezuma, between Calle Chillon and Calle Ensenada (GPA 96-053, CZ 96-080). SECTION 3• ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA, Appendix G. 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. Topographic relief ranges from 237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The Valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain Range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the Valley. Local Environmental Setting The subject site is vacant. The project use as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and zoning currently in effect. The large lot. single family custom home types as proposed are generally lower density (approximately 2 units/acre) than that found in the adjoining Cove area (approximately 6 units/acre). A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose uses inconsistent with the current or future land uses contemplated for the project area. The site has been designated Medium Density Residential (MDR), consistent with the surrounding residential areas to the south and east. The project proposes a housing EA96335.wpd? `�' 0 product at a density just within the Low Density Residential (LDR) range of the General Plan; i.e. 2 - 4 units/acre; the map proposes 19 lots on 9.15 acres for a density of 2.07 units/acre. This density has been determined to be consistent with that set forth in the La Quinta General Plan for the site of Medium Density Residential, 4 - 8 units/acre, in that the proposed density is below the density specified for the site. The proposal will have no significant conflicts with any environmental policies or plans in effect which would apply to the project. C, D - No Impact. There are no agricultural resources or operations which could be affected by the project. There will not be any effect on established areas in the Cove, as this is a smaller, isolated subdivision located on the perimeter of the Cove. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The City's population as of January, 1996 is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 18,046 persons. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City (WDL Economic Overview; 1996 Ed.). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit (1990 Census). Local Environmental Setting The site is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram. The areas surrounding the project on the southeast are similarly designated; hillside and open space property surround the site on the north and east. A, B, C - No Impact. The proposal itself will not exceed any current growth forecasts currently available to or used by the City, nor will it cause any change in anticipated growth patterns or numbers, based on the build out scenarios in the General Plan. The project development is not likely to induce growth in the area, due to extension and upgrade of existing infrastructure in the site vicinity. It is not anticipated to stimulate further residential development significantly, as the custom estate -sized homes proposed with the project would indicate that it would not affect any increase in the market for the typical Cove home. No effects on affordable housing are anticipated due to development of this project. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillside, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the Valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. EA96335.wpd 7 Local Environmental Setting The site consists, in part, of Carrizo and Carsitas soils, underlain with granite and metamorphic rock. The Carrizo and Carsitas soil types have rapid permeability are commonly used for recreational or watershed uses. While they can be used in development of croplands, they are not considered as prime agricultural soils as classified by the State. The soil on this site is influenced by its proximity to the Bear Creek Channel and excavations necessary to realign and construct it. The site is located within a Ground Shaking Zone 3, referenced as a minimal to moderate level of shaking activity, based on the modified Mercalli scale. There are no active faults in the area (LQMEA). A, B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project could present some exposure to geologic hazards associated with fault rupture and ground shaking, due to the potential for earthquake activity in the region. However, impacts associated with such activity will be minimal; there are no identified fault transects in the vicinity of the site. Although the site is identified as susceptible to moderate Ground shaking impact, the soil characteristics indicate that ground failure due to such activity is negligible; the site is not identified as subject to liquefaction potential. The geotechnical investigation submitted by Southland Geotechnical utilized 1996 CDMG,VSGS maps, prepared for use in the 1997 UBC, as a basis for their evaluation of seismic risk to this project. The project will be required to adhere to standard seismic reinforcement and other requirements as called for by the UBC, and as set forth in the Southland Geotechnical investigation, dated January. 1997 as Report # P97002. The existing physical conditions in the area will not be changed in a manner which would create any impacts beyond those associated with development of the site in accordance with the General Plan. D - No Impact. There is no potential for seiche, tsunami or volcanic activity. The site is level and protected by the Bear Creek Channel from any potential impact due to breach. E - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Impacts involving potential seismic activity also relate to possible risk associated with rockslide. Although the site is level and not directly impacted by fault or other characteristics, the site is within 150 feet of the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains at some points. Localized seismic activity and/or erosion processes could cause failure in upper elevations of the mountains, dislodging rock and boulder fragments. As identified in the Southland Geotechnical investigation, protection is provided by the Bear Creek Channel, which acts as a trough basin to catch most such debris. The area above the site, across the channel, is mostly an alluvial fan with slopes at or under 10%, and there is no potential identified in the investigation for any such rock sliding to occur (Southland Geotechnical investigation, dated January, 1997 as Report # P97002; City slope analysis). F - Less Than Significant Impact. There will be some change in surface features due to project grading. Such changes will affect stability of the site as the natural substructure is modified. Soil erosion potential will be affected due to loosening and movement of soil material during development; the site is also subject to wind erosion. Standard erosion control and soil management methods as identified in soil reports and addressed in grading plans required for the site will ensure that such impacts will not be significant. Submittal of a dust control plan as required (see Air Quality) will aid in wind erosion reduction. G,H,I - No Impact. The site is not identified as being subject to subsidence or having soils sshich are expansive. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site with respect to Earth issues (LQMEA. site survey); however, the Southland Geotechnical investigation identifies hydroconsolidation of soils to be a "moderately severe risk ". This is due to the previous Bear Creek Channel alignment which traverses the site and was filled over in 1986. The requirement for adherence to the recommendations of this investigation, as stated previously in this section, will ensure that there is no impact from this condition. EA96335.wpd �► 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous laver of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal and stored at Lake Cahuilla. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future. Local Environmental Setting The vicinity of the proposed project is protected from design storms by the Bear Creek Channel flood control facility and other improvements. The site is level and incorporates well drained soils. The site is designated Zone X on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps in effect for the area, subject to 500 year flood events (CVWD comments; LQMEA). A - Less Than Significant Impact. Current runoff rates will increase due to building and hardscape area development. Hydrology calculations submitted on January 10, 1997, indicate this additional runoff will be detained on -site, and that ultimate dispersal to the Bear Creek Channel is acceptable to CVWD. The project will be required to prepare a final drainage plan and comply with NPDES permit requirements as enforced by the Public Works Department. B through H - No Impact. The area is currently protected from flood impacts by the existing Bear Creek Channel and frontage street improvements. No surface waters or other streams exist which could be affected, and ground water resource quantity and quality will not be significantly impacted. Compliance with NPDES requirements attached to the project permitting will ensure that storm water runoff associated with the project's development will not create any measurable impact to water quality, quantity or hazards. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (S©CAB). Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. Local Environmental Setting La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the Valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that become suspended in the air primarily due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads. The Valley is currently designated by the EPA as a serious non -attainment area for PM 10, however SCAQMD anticipates that recent EA96335.wpd � Vol data will show that the Vallev has been in attainment over the last three years. Based on this. SCAQMD is in the process of preparing a PM 10 Maintenance Plan in order to have the area redesignated to attainment status. A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project is not anticipated to create any significant air quality impact. Based on the La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element and the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 4th Edition , ADT for the project is estimated between approximately 114 and 190, respectively, based on the project lot count. This indicates a negligible impact to air quality from ultimate operation of the project. HoN\ever, there will be incremental increases to emissions due to development. Short term (construction -related) impacts will result primarily from grading activities, which will generate fugitive dust. Prior to any soil disturbance or grading activity(ies) the developer shall secure auuroval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) The plan shall address all proposed development areas. as well as those arm which may be disturbed by activity but scheduled for later development The FDCP shall be submitted with any clearing, grading. or other site activity reQuest which will disturb or is related to development of the sib, and shall incorporate measures to maintain dust suppression until the project is completed This =onsibil4 shall run with the land and shall transfer to any subsequent owner of any individual lot. common areas or other lands within this land division until such time as permanent improvements have been completed. The proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. Adams Elementary School is the nearest non-residential sensitive receptor, located on Calle Tampico about 1 mile northeast of the site. The project itself will be a residential receptor when developed. Constriction -related air quality impacts will occur primarily from grading activities and other soil disturbances. The required FDCP will address these short-term constriction impacts. C, D - No Impact. The project has no potential to effect any climatological change. and negligible potential to create objectionable odors. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and new or resurfaced roads since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways in the City network include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street. Fred Waring Drive, and 50th Avenue. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience seasonal variation: late winter,carly spring months represent the peak tourist season. Local Environmental Setting The project has direct frontage on Avenida Montezuma, which intersects with Juarez. Madero and Sinaloa along this frontage. These streets have a 60 foot night -of -way. with 36 feet between curbs. As local streets, they have a capacity of about 3.000 vehicles per day. Madero and Sinaloa have been reconstructed to intersect with Montezuma at near -right angles. The La Quinta General Plan establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) "D" for all intersections during A.M. or P.M. peak hours without adequate mitigation. LOS is a hierarchical classification of qualitative measures of traffic flow, ranging from A (free floe ) to F (unacceptable saturation). A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The pro1cct Nvill unquestionably create some increased trips and congestion. however, the roadway capacities for local streets and other major thoroughfares in the area will EA96335.wpd 7 10 be able to absorb the additional traffic, which is not estimated to exceed 190 ADT. The applicant will be required to dedicate and install all on -site street improvements as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department in accordance with the conditions of approval for the project and any development agreement(s). The project is not anticipated to create any significant design -related hazards or any type of inadequate access situation. The project access does. however, appear to create an angled intersection across from Avenida Madero, and is offset from that centerline about 70 feet as shown on the tentative map exhibit. This is not considered to be significant due to the lower design speeds associated with the local street patterns. It is also likely that the realignment of Madero will match up \% ith the project access, although this is not shown on the tentative map exhibit. Traffic safety improvements as typically required of new development will also provide reductions in traffic hazard impacts, commensurate with development of the site, and should improve the overall safety level of the intersection and adjacent roadways in general. C, D - No Impact. The project access ma\ be gated. w hich could slightly hinder emergency access. However, this type of access control has never been identified as a concern by public safety authorities, provided that gate designs are reviewed for appropriate controls and operational characteristics of the affected agencies. This is a standard requirement for gated projects which \y111 be applied to this proposal. Parking on -site will be provided for each home lot in accordance with Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code. E - Less Than Significant Impact. Some impact to safety of bicyclists and pedestrians using the existing Bear Creek bike path will result due to this proposal, from cars entering and exiting the project. Adequate traffic control measures will be required to avoid conflicts. F, G - No Impact. The project is not required to provide for alternative transportation infrastructure. or to submit a TDM plan, as there are no employees associated with the residential subdivision. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected by, water, air or rail traffic. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert Two ecosystems are found within the City. the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA. Local Environmental Vetting The subject area is vacant. with level terrain and nuninial vegetation. The native vegetation is desert scrub, but the majority of the site has previously been disturbed in recent history. There are no riparian/wetland habitats or streambeds on the site. and the LQMEA identifies the site as outside the range of any threatened or endangered floral or faunal species. A through E - No Impact. There is negligible potential for wildlife habitat to exist on the site. There is no protective or sheltering vegetation, dune mounds or other features which could be conducive to any wildlife species, primarily due to previous disturbances of the site. There are no significant or otherwise predominant tree stands or other vegetation on the site. No wetland areas are shown to be on or traverse the site, and the location of the site adjacent to improved streets and property precludes any potential migration of wildlife. EA96335.wpd ty 1 '� 11 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District and Southern California Gas Company. Local Environmental Setting The site does not lie within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils Nvithin the site consist of alluvial sands underlain by metamorphic rock: the soils are well -drained and permeable. and may be used for agricultural purposes. There is no history that the site has been utilized for any specific purpose in the recent past (LQMEA; Resource Assessment for TTM 28409. 2197). A, B - No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources in any manner which could be considered wasteful. Construction of the project will be required to meet State energy standards as typically enforced by the Building and Safety Department, and to comply with any applicable energy conservation policies as established in the La Quinta General Plan. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Although large scale, hazardous waste generating emplo}went is not yet located within La Quinta. the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may post significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County: transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the past. A through E - No Impact. There is negligible or no potential risk of explosion and/or release of hazardous substances due to the project. The on -site storage of certain amounts of chemical compounds in various packaging, such as general household products, and other potentially hazardous materials (pool chlorine, pesticides, etc.) could occur in individual homes. Storage of potentially hazardous products are regulated by State and Federal legislation. and dill also be subject to Fire and Health Department standards as in effect and applicable at the time. The project does not have any potential to interfere with emergency response or create any health hazards. The site is not in an area susceptible to increased fire hazards relative to brush, grass or trees, as minimal or no susceptible vegetation exists in the immediate area 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety_ of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 1 11. and tcmporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the Highway and major arterials, but can be impacted by aircraft noise from Bermuda Dunes, usually of a short duration. EA96335.wpd !� i 12 Local Environmental Setting Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic. The property is vacant and therefore not a current source of noise. The site is within 1 /4 mile of the La Quinta Resort and Club golf course maintenance facility to the northeast of the site. and surrounded by residential uses. A - Less Than Significant Impact. Increases in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal. though they will not be significant. Roadway noise will increase incrementally as traffic volumes increase. The majority of the traffic volume in this area is related to new single familv unit construction /occupation and related pass through trips. It is not anticipated that the additional Volumes attributable to this sites development will create any significant increases in noise levels. B - No Impact. Minimal noise impacts are anticipated due to development of this project. The proposed residential use is not considered as typically being a source of extreme or severe noise levels to surrounding uses. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the Cit\ through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City, Station 432 on Frances Hack Lane. and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio. and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Local Environmental Setting Riverside County Fire Station #32 and Station #70 are located approximately 1 mile east and 4 miles southeast of the project site, respectively. Station #31 is located in Bermuda Dunes on 42nd Avenue and Adams Street, approximately 5 miles northeasterly of the project site. The Sheriff's office maintains a check -in facility in the City's EOC. Other governmental services in La Quinta are provided b. City staff at the Civic Center. A through E - No Impact. The project will not impact public services, based upon the comments received. All necessary public services can be provided to the project without compromising any existing levels of public service. The proponents will have to pay school fees as established by Desert Sands Unified School District for residential projects. Recommendations from other agencies will be considered as part of project review. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical po%\cr supply and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cable ision services the area for cable television service. The Coachella Vallev Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the Cit} . CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by CVWD. which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. EA96335.wpd 6 ! 19 13 The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous. mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The subject site is undeveloped at present. Off -site street and flood control improvements have been completed, along with sewer and water line extensions being in place. Some utility trunk extensions and connections will be necessary to develop the property. CVWD has provided a "will serve" letter for the project. A through F - No Impact. The proposed project will require some degree of alteration to existing facilities; however, the responses received from the responsible purveyors do not present any significant concerns to indicate that major new systems or retrofitting will be necessary to serve the project. 3.13 AESTHETICS Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Views of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west. A, B - No Impact. The project will have little or no impact on scenic vistas, as there are no scenic viewsheds identified in the LQMEA at this location The height of the proposed structures may block some direct view lines, but the impact will be minimal, as residential views in the area originate within a close proximity of the mountains and therefore do not have extended line of sight perspectives. Structures will be limited to one story, 17 feet ground to roof line per Ordinance 294. The overall design of the project should not have any demonstrable negative aesthetic effects. C - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposal will create additional light and glare from outdoor, low-level residential lighting. The City has an adopted "Dark Sky_ " ordinance which regulates lighting types and shielding characteristics, however, most residential lighting will be exempt. A lighting plan for perimeter and other common area landscaped areas Nvill be reyieA\ cd and conditioned to be consistent with the Outdoor Light Control provisions of the Zoning Code -for height shielding and lighting type pursuant to approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills. The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventor.. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental SettinI The proposal is located close to the Santa Rosa Mountain foothills. No historic structures exist in the immediate area. The site is generally barren of any N cgetation. A cultural resource assessment (CRA) was required to be submitted with the development applications. and was received on February h. 1997. The report indicates that the area has "virtually no potential to yield prehistoric or historic materials " A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The heritage resources assessment prepared tier this subdivision EA96335.wpd t 14 indicates negligible potential for anv cultural resources to be located on this .Site, and does not recommend monitoring of the site during construction. The initial checklist determination is therefore changed to a finding of "No Impact" .for Issue 3.14.A and B (Heritage Resources Assessment: 77M 28409, Archaeological Advisory Group; February. 1997). C Through E - No Impact. The cultural resources survey did not identify any historic resources on the site. Development of the project has no potential to aject cultural values beyond those which may be addressed by cultural resource monitoring, and no existing religious uses are associated with the site. 3.15 RECREATION Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources, facilities and future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. A, B - No Impact. The proposed project \gill not affect demand for recreational facilities or existing recreation. While the project may attract additional residents from La Quinta and other comnnulitics. it is not likely that the project will attract a significant number of ne\\ residents. Existing opportunities w ill not be affected, as it has been determined that no designated park land lies within the tract boundary. %'he amount of*park use to be developed along the Bear Creek Channel indicates that sufficient area will he provided for, even without any additional park land within this tract. This tract will, however, be required to pay in lieu dedication fees, amounting to an equivalent of .16245 acres of land. SECTION 4• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study_ for this project identified potentially significant impacts. as summarized under Earth Resources. The following findings can be made regarding the mandator\- findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: a) The proposed Tentative Tract Map does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. as the project m question \\ ill not be developed in am manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards. b) The proposed Tentative Tract Map %gill not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term cm ironmental goals. as the proposed project will not significantly alter the types or intensity_ of the residential uses already contemplated in the General Plan. c) The proposed Tentative Tract Map \\ ill not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable \\hen considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project is a consistent representation of the project type envisioned for the site as long as the current General Plan land use and zoning designations are applicable, and the impacts as identified in the Initial Study will remain EA96335.wpd 15 sinular to subsequent projects. The project site is also surrounded by existing subdivided areas subject to infill development. which were considered in the La Quinta General Plan EIR. d) The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans. either directly or indirectly. as the project contemplates uses similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. and which were addressed in the EIR previously certified for the General Plan. These uses are residential and do not pose any direct risks to the human population. SECTION 5• EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of this assessment: o La Quinta General Plan Update: October 1992 o La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment: October 1992 U SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993 s GeotechnicalInvestigation: TTM 8409:.tiouthlond Geotechnical, Inc.. Report .. 1)97002. January 1997 0 Heritage Resource Assessment Report: I TM 28409, prepared by James Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group, February 1997 o ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 4th Edition. 1987 These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were used in the preparation of this Initial Studv. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. The following potentially significant impacts identified in the checklist were determined as adequately addressed by the previously listed documents ♦ Earth Resources C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum where underlined. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been prepared for the project that v ill become a part of the conditions of approval attached to the protect approvals and permits. Prepared by: Date: 34le /97 Wallace H. Nesbit Associate Planner EA96335.wpd w A U� z � Q� a� OV d w U z F wz �O zz 0 w� ao w R �d a•� U rn 00 00 N F d A dA �x U d U w� �a �o o� a� wa ao w z ra 0 00 N I A U m Q W ►@ U o Uv 0 C L U G. U = ao .� L as 0 a a0 5 VA 3� i a U 0 U a J 'o a cl o a�Wr a' wo °° C � v Cj cs C CICJ c.d -�:tz F W W) `� a a a❑ o ,^ E-' A z� < W W ox U U ;A a E� UVU � �° U a a ^, Coro � �c .40 Wz �a A zo �a oz as A as O A a a cn �a .4 o no A� y,• ®� cnU'> rn 00 00 N I F� A z� SAWW �x 0. U O� UU W U E� C7 Wz �a ®z w F W � o H s i Er A U� z A d W �U G®J d G W �a �o ® z 0.0 rA rA w� c: a �= O a c ., O u w L d ® u a W .. :a ,ao W Q a A U� z �Q ax �UW OV w U Fb C7 �o ®z w� w ca a w Qj ►.' w Q�� M z rn v 00 N Ca U Ci z �W �UWW 0V C4 U W z� 00 a W� a0 w ca c W o o �za M z o rn v 00 N L� F Q Q 0° z c �W ax �w Ox UU W U W �O ®z o w � � o o� � Q •� U W � W y 14z ®za R 0 CYN v 00 N �im W d A U � z �w �U � a c ° a� � � o w w �7 � a o a .ss W � � �a �o zz a0 c I z�° o �� 0 0 v 00 N i F A U� zA �x U O� U U d aW U �a �o zz �o w W � Q •� U .. v i F A U � z �w �x U Ox . U U B � a a" W zz � o U � a 2 o � ... o •L pA �c �c U) m U vn W _ r yr Cn p �z F CL (aa y m m E- ►� o e^ J •o o � o U 00-1 rn 00 N I F A U:: zQ @ W �x U � M UU ot U 6j] zL � pG m C v� E� zz C 04 w� w GJ v Q�. � . J +� •7 tom,,, c C7 t« •: 00-1 .* ell z O 0-1z_ 0 i W Q z� ax �^ U � W U U B W F� U H C7 Wz ac zz 0 w� ao w w � w a Mz o �za Historical Preservation Commission February 20, 1997 91 2. ki the City La Quinta, Chambers. Staff as it is receiveil ATTACHMENT 5 an ll be held at the La Quinta City Hall Council t an agenda is mailed to the Commission as soon j J fia stated that during resear ok she was working on, a dispute as to the exact b of the Coachella Valley. She one to the different citi a boundaries she was give ording to the school She stated that if the wor a Valley" is to be used tion be made as to the e aries that make up the Val e volunteered to give st that she had obtained that boundaries she understoo e Coachella Valley. Chairman Millis thanked Ms. Pena for her offer and asked staff to obtain a copy of the map. Environmental Assessment 96-335 for Tentative Tract 28409; a request of A & M Builders for a Heritage Resources Assessment by Archaeological Advisory Group of the area north of Avenida Montezuma, west of Avenida Juarez, and southeast of the Bear Creek Channel for a subdivision of 9.15 acres 19 single family lots. They are requesting to not have a monitor on site as the CVWD has done a lot of grading work prior to any archaeological work being completed. The possibility of artifacts present on the project site could not be substantiated due to the disturbances that have taken place over an extended period of time. They are therefore recommending that a monitor not be required to be on site for grading. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Wright asked staff to clarify the location of the project. Staff clarified that there were two projects proposed for this general area but that this project is in an area that has been designated as residential and is at the north end of the Channel. There are to be 19 residential units planned in a southwest design on lots sizes of 12-15,000 square feet. 3. Chairman Millis stated that as this area is at the bottom of the Bear Creek Channel and before the rechanneling the water that ran through there was so rapid that anything would have been washed away. 4. There being no questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners DeMersman/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 97-005, approving the request to not have a monitor on site during grading. Unanimously approved. HPC2-20 5 1 i STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 25, 1997 CASE NO.: TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 97-137 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A SOAP BOX DERBY RACE TO BE HELD ON APRIL 5, 1997 LOCATION: ON AVENIDA BERMUDAS BETWEEN CALLE ARROBA AND CALLE NOGALES APPLICANT: GREATER COACHELLA VALLEY SOAPBOX DERBY (MRS. LUCIA MORAN, RACE DIRECTOR) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA BECAUSE THE EVENT IS A MINOR TEMPORARY USE OF THE LAND THEREBY HAVING NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT PER SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4 (E)). BACKGROUND: Event Request On February 27, 1997, the Community Development Department received an applucation to hold the third annual Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby in La Quinta on April 5, 1997. The Derby event is planned to be held on Avenida Bermudas between Calle Arroba and Calle Nogales. The outdoor event consists of participants between the ages of 9-16, purchasing a kit and building a car from the materials. The built car is raced down the street competing with other participants for best race time. Last year 46 entrants participated in the event held at the same location (Attachments 1 and 2). Derby racing begins at approximately 10:00 A.M., with pre -race activities such as street closures beginning as early as 6:00 A.M. and end as late as 6:00 P.M. It is anticipated that approximately 1,000 people may attend this event. The City Council on February 18, 1997, became a co-sponsor of the event by contributing money and various in -kind services (e.g., staff and equipment, etc.). City personnel will be installing the traffic barricades and traffic control signs for this special event to assist the event organizers. The applicant's request to close Avenida Bermudas for the event will be reviewed by the City Council on April 1, 1997. TUP137-13 Zoning Code Provisions The Pianning Commission can approve the request (Section 9.100.140) provided Findings are made and Conditions imposed, as needed. These include health and safety provisions, parking, security, and traffic related mitigation measures. The Zoning Code permits the following temporary advertising for events of this type: A. One banner per street frontage not to exceed 32 sq. ft.; B. One portable on- or off -site sign not to exceed 55 sq. ft.; C. 30 off -site signs (i.e., directional signs); and, D. 15 bunting signs. Signs covered under Item C are limited to six square feet if placed in the City's right-of-way or twelve square feet if on private property. A sign application for this event has not been submitted. Any signs installed for the upcoming event shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation. Staff Comments The event organizers are currently working with various public agencies to determine the proper security and fire protection needs for the one -day event. Additionally, the applicant has hired various contractors to help run the event including food caterers and other providers. No problems were experienced at last year's event. Therefore, Findings for approval and be made and are included in the attached material. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 97- , approving the Third Annual Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby event, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as attached. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Application Information Prepated by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning(Manager TUP137-13 MINUTE MOTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 97-137 GREATER COACHELLA VALLEY SOAP BOX DERBY MARCH 25, 1997 FINDINGS: 1. The event will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community in the area of the proposed event. A. Various public agency permits are required prior to the event occurring to insure it will be conducted in an acceptable manner. Health Department permits are required for all food and beverage vendors serving the event, and police and fire personnel will be on hand to assist the organizers in providing a safe environment for vehicles and patrons at the event. No problems are anticipated which would be detrimental to the community based on the recommended Conditions. B. This project is categorically exempt under Section 15304 (Class 4(e)) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the outdoor event is being conducted on an existing public street and the areas along the race course are adequate to accommodate the participants and guests. C. Temporary signs directing patrons to the event will be displayed along various public streets in the community. The signs will be placed so that they do not interfere with traffic safety signs or other facilities (i.e., traffic signals, etc.). Sign removal will occur immediately after the event is over to guard against the signs becoming roadside debris or litter. 2. There is adequate area to conduct the event and to accommodate the anticipated attendance. The areas along the race course can accommodate the participants and various facilities are provided to ensure the event is successful (i.e., restrooms, first -aid station, food and beverages, parking, and other facilities). Parking areas will be provided adjacent to Avenida Bermudas on other existing public streets as required by the City Council during review of the street(s) closure permit request. CONDITIONS: The following Conditions shall be completed by March 31, 1997: Arrangements shall be made with the Building and Safety Department to inspect the site on the day of the race. CONAPRVL137-12 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Temporary Use Permit 97-137 Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby March 25, 1997 2. Afire inspection is required for temporary structures (tents, etc.) or any open flame devices by the Riverside County Fire Department before installation and use. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Tom Hutchison, Fire Safety Specialist, at 863-8886. Fire lanes shall be established and/or maintained during the special event. 3. An encroachment permit shall be issued for any signs placed in the City's rights -of - way. Signs in the City right-of-way shall be mounted on maximum 2-inches by 2- inches wood posts unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. No signs shall be closer than 100-feet from an intersection. Temporary signs shall be posted no closer than 5-feet from the edge of the paved area of any public road or street and placed a minimum of 200-feet from an identical sign. Signs in the right- of-way shall not exceed 6 square feet, and signs on private property shall not exceed 12 square feet. Signs placed on private property shall be installed only if authorization from the owner has been secured prior to installation. All signs shall be placed in a manner which does not obstruct traffic or street signs or other important equipment (Chapter 9.160 of the Sign Ordinance). 4. A bond in the amount of $100.00 shall be posted to insure that all off -site directional signs are removed by April 8, 1997. The security can be a Certificate of Deposit or Letter of Credit naming the City as beneficiary of the account, or cash. The security deposit is refundable provided the signs are removed after the event. The Community Development Department shall receive the deposit. 5. A notice shall be given to the existing property owners and/or tenants in the immediate area informing them of the upcoming special event and associated parking restrictions and access routes. A copy of the written notice shall be given to the Community Development Department. 6. Proof of Liability Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 shall be posted with the City with its employees or representatives named as additionally insured. General Conditions 7. The outdoor event is permitted to be held on April 5, 1997, between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. 8. Portable restrooms shall be provided as required by the Building and Safety Department. Restroom facilities to accommodate the physically challenged shall also be provided. CONAPRVI,137-12 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Temporary Use Permit 97-137 Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby March 25, 1997 9. Temporary trash receptacles shall be provided so that trash/debris can be deposited accordingly. The site shall be left clean of any litter at the close of the event. 10. Riverside County Sheriffs Deputies shall be employed during the event to provide security and traffic control supervision as determined by their agency through prior contractual arrangements. 11. All food and beverage vendors shall obtain a City Business License. 12. If ground excavation is required, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-422-4133. The service is free of charge provided USA is given at least two days' notice. 13. Before any cranes, forklifts, or other aerial equipment is raised, please check for existing overhead wires. 14. All designated private security personnel must be licensed by the State of California and possess a current Private Security Guard license. 15. The Community Development Department may impose additional conditions, or revoke this permit, if any problems arise during the event that needs special attention or consideration. 16. Parking areas for patrons and participants shall be paved. 17. All public streets surrounding the Soap Box Derby event shall not be blocked or barricaded unless prior approval has been obtained from the City Council and Public Works Department. 18. Any signs installed for the Derby shall be approved as to size and location by the Community Development Director. CONAPRVL137-12 ATTACHMENTS CITY OF LA QUINTA posed Use r ration: �- >essor's Parcel No.: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 PERMIT NO.. 13 �•c of `'Ee��`�M� ATTACHMENT I I�R TION FOR MINOR TEMP RARY OUTDOOR EVENT / 9% 7. Ty/;ea /WltlaAL VA iDA El-2n�uo E x -ARh igth of Activity (Dates):6/�/ �, 1 �/ 9 ,urs of Activity: CL'"qn% — 6 � - uipment Set Up Date: � J� C, �7 Equipment Removal Date: ' Jr - / `1 udmum number of people workine at site during activity at any one time: aximum number of people expected to attend the event at any one time: �b0 `�� co rtal Per Day: % , C, Grand Total: L AV PPLICANT: Ptj 2- ,�?J 3 5 Name: C (C / A %� A� �A� c �� RAC �R Daytime Phone:. 6 V -3 76 Mailing Address: P Z�X Signature ROPERTY OWNER: Name r/ L, c� Mailing Address: C' X Signature: �Al Daytime Phone: 7 /7 - 7COO -aa j 3 fom,.4o2 • war CASE MAP CASE No. Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby Exhibit "A" St. 52 ACE .00ATION SCALE: nts Material Submitted Late ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS FOR TUP 97-137 ATTACH5-C SAAY AP L s LAQUM.k In cooperation with the Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley and the City of La Quinta Invites your participation in the GREATER COACBELLA VALLEY AP ]SOX DER. Weigh-in and trial runs start at 8 a.m. down Avenida Bermuda at. Calle Colima in La Quinta. j 4 v The Soap Box Derby is a youth car race program which has run nationally since 1934. Girls and boys, ages 9 through 16, purchase a car kit and build the car to race. These cars are raced down a street with an incline and the winner goes on to national competition. The cars have no motors and are propelled only by the gravitational force provided from racing on a decline. The race is run in heats of two cars at a time. A winners time bracket and a second place time bracket list is kept for maximum participation. Trophies, prizes and t-shirts are given to winners. WHEN: APR IL, 5 V 7 6:00am-9:00am Race set up 9:00am-6:04m Races held 6:00pm-7:00pm Race cleanup EQUIPMENT: Barricades for street closure Pop-up *tents for vendors Trucks to haul in cars Ramps to start cars offfrom Banners announcing sponsors of event Waste receptacles by Waste Management Porta-potties for crowd use NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 40 approximate entrants (children racing) 30-40 adult volunteers to help with event WBERE: Held on Avenida Bermuadas'from Calle Arroba to Cape Chilmahua. The race will occupy three easterly lanes of Avenida Bermudas with a .westerly lane converted temporarily to a ono-4y lane for local residents. TRAMC CONTROL. Utilizing temporary signage, barricades and volunteers in the V.I.P. program. Parking will utilize existing legal street parking surrounding area as well as any designated near -by areas the City will allow. • INSURANCE: husurance is provided by All American Soap Box Derby once a franchise has been purchased. This transaction is still being worked out pending finding. Insurance will state `City of La Quint&' as additionally insured. EMERGENCY RESPONSE: Tun Buckley from the Fire Department will provide response. LL4 ; CITY C.- I�'�l:Ui aTr PLAINNING. JEP;",c7f,' ---'T ia r:= AvE MN OH 44310-3663 RED - - — - I'MATIOML SOAP BOX DERSY ITM 0 BOX 7233 Ind OH 44306--7233 f` °` DATE (MMIDD/YY) '�.. , .. 03-0?-97 .,THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATIO ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICAT HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AP LEND, EXTEND O ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOV COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE iA GOiAPAY GREAT ATWJCZN COMPANY B IWTFORD COMPANY C COMPANY D jSi'.: *..: .: .. r. n: .n... .. vi;.:::. v:}?. .v.[. •. ::. i::.: i...... ::: .: ..; - ..:i.i.?'i+}:??:..4.wL'rw.: k{:.?:v:;. ^,:.: i. n.:{.:{:.::?: p.. ;.,; ;.. ,o-. ..,.., .. _. _ - :...., -,ec $ : m ..... »....�. "�z3, i,;�«: c:•:::xa »» ::.>..: n•; . .:.. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURER NAMED ABOVE.FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE,ISSUED OR AAIjY� NSURANCE AFQRpEIa BY SHE P LICIES DESCR , IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUS16NS AND CONDITIONS OP SUCAPOLf ES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIM TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION: LIMITS (MM/DYY) D/DATE (MMWD/YY) GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE_ tI -$ 1,000, COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY QP 7-01-22-01-03 05/ 18/ 96 05/ 18/ 97 PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG t $ I) 000 ► 01 tVCLAIMS MADE ' XX OCCUR 1 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY .$ OWNER'S& CONTRACTOR'SPROT EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000rm X Participants Liability I FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $ - - - MED EXP (Any one person) Is LIABILJTY AUTOMOBILEAUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ ANY AUTO f f ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) - ---- - - - HIRED AUTOS r BODILY INJURY $ NON -OWNED AUTOS (Per ardent) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ I GARAGE LIABILITY �. r "�',�I ,\ ( ; AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT 1 $ ANY AUTO ) �" �, J� I �- �� OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT $ ,_ - AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY 1 u ' r EACH OCCURRENCE - -- _$ - - - UMBRELLA FORM �zzJ CI ��( tiTl'' AGGREGATE -- y $ --- - OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM At:, WORKERS COMPENSATION AND TOR STATU- � H------ - EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY EL EACH ACCIDENT :$ r— THE PROPRIETOR/ PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE INCL , EL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE I $ ial. Risk F ; 45SR750382 Participant 12/01 /96 12/01 /97 ,$250 Dental Limit Accidental 45M,750381 Volunteer ! 12/01;96 .12/01/97 $5,000 Accidental Death $5, 000 Accident Medical :RIPTION OF OPERArONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS Certificate ho der'*" S g named below shall be an additional scared as pertains to the Licensen, Sponsorship, or running of your All American Soap Box rby :went to be run an the fol awi slates: ce Date -- April 5, 1997 itain Date - April 12, 1997 aTA �€ :'.:_...:<.. ' � .: •:..:..i..::,..: , ;.:::>;.:� ;.: iCANCELL>�►TT07�.<>::> , TIC ::.:..,:...... n .....:..... ',..:.. Cz'tD M Chi C=vli VA3-T.PY SOAP BOX DAY TCIT>YTf'' �O�F LaQU TM,T - P, °l^.r�ml �zicxa:� cr�rB C uLLA wi :,Ezz' 42600 CXTO E 911, STIC 110 PAT11 DE:;,r CA 92211 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAII 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILIP ANY KIND UPON TH COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES 7 D REPRE ATIV )RD 25-S (il )0ACORD CORPORATION 1! PLANNING COMMISSION BI #B STAFF REPORT DATE: March 25, 1997 CASE NO.: Sign Application 97-375 APPLICANT: Wells Fargo Bank (Lauri's Permit Service) PROPERTY OWNER: Albertsons Supermarket REQUEST: Approval of new sign and deviation to approved sign program for bank mini -branch located in Albertson's Supermarket. LOCATION: 78-630 Highway 111 in the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: 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. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (Mixed Regional Commercial) ZONING: CR (Regional Commercial) BACKGROUND: Wells Fargo Bank is in the process of installing a mini -branch (28'-2" by 14') in the Albertson's Supermarket in the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center (Attachment 1). With the exception of a minor exterior door modification, all of the work is interior. SIGN REQUEST: The applicants wish to install a sign on the outside of the supermarket to identify the bank use inside. The proposed sign is an internally illuminated can 73" high by 13' 10 1 /2" long and 12" deep (31.2 square feet ) mounted on the white vertical stucco wall above the window area just west of the westerly side entry into the market. The submitted elevation plan of the front of the market shows the location of the proposed sign (Attachment 2). The proposed sign will read "Wells Fargo" with their "stagecoach" logo on the right side. Three fourth's of the sign face background will be red, with the balance black. "Wells Fargo" will be gold in color with the logo white (Attachment 3). STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - Specific Plan/Zoning Code Consistency sa97375pc The approved sign program for this Shopping Center (111 La Quinta Shopping Center) provided for one main sign 122 square feet in area for Albertson's Supermarket. To permit additional signs requires this review to amend the center sign program. For in -line minor tenants, block style individual illuminated channel letters with an optional logo is permitted. Letter height allowed is 24", with the length allowed to be a maximum of 75% of the leasehold width, with a maximum 50 square feet of sign area. Based on the 28 feet of bank frontage, the length of 13' 10 1/2" is acceptable provided the height does not exceed 18 inches. A reduced height is appropriate for the new sign since Albertsons's space has already been allowed a 122 square foot main sign. National or regional tenants are permitted to use corporate or their standard signs with approval. To date, several tenants have done this. However, no cabinet signs have been approved for in -line tenants. Channel letter signs should be maintained for design continuity. Issue 2 - Previous Review The elevation plan shows "pharmacy" and "food" signs as existing on the face of the market. These signs were previously requested in 1992, but not approved and therefore, are not existing. During the previous Albertson's sign request amendment , it was determined that ancillary signs identifying a product or service rendered are not acceptable. Signs need to identify the name of a tenant's business. Since this bank use is more than just an ATM station, there is justification to permit an additional sign. (RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 97-_, approving Sign Application 97-375, and permitting deviation to the sign program for the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center, subject to the findings as noted above and subject to the attached Conditions. Attachments: 1. Wells Fargo floor plan 2. Sign exhibits (large plans for PC only) 3. Sign plan with colors Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: a Christine di lorio, Planning Manager sa97375pc MINUTE MOTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPLICATION 97-375 WELLS FARGO BANK MARCH 25, 1997 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval of this sign application shall expire and become void one year from date of approval unless it is installed, or extended pursuant to Municipal Code requirements. 2. "Wells Fargo" shall consist of individual internally illuminated channel letters, a maximum of 18 inches in height and 13'-10.5" in length including "stagecoach" logo. 3. Prior to sign fabrication, final sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval to determine compliance with conditions. Conappsa97375 c" M C. N T 1 2k Sm \/ /) t | /0 Wells Fargo Bank co> ° q § ■2 HWYIll a WashingtonSt La Qulm%Calf rn& § [\ -923 (� Alblsto%Store #167 mgm z -c NZ Z Z � c d� ' o O W N O J i- Q Z V� The Desert Sun Across the valley City aims to boost business La Quanta: New program covers part of the cost of offering loans to owners of small businesses. By ANDRWEW SILVA The Desert Sun LA QUINTA — Every little bit helps. At least that's what the city of La Quinta hopes as it launches a plan to help small businesses get loans. The City Council has set aside $10,000 to cover part of the cost of getting loans under a state pro- gram. Another $10,000 will be spent on brochures, direct mailings and other materials to let businesses know about the new program. "We're certainly thrilled," La- Quinta Chamber of Commerce President Michelle Dallas said. "Anything that can be done to assist small businesses is very beneficial to the city." City officials hope the program will expand next fiscal year to $25,000 to $50,000 depending on demand and where there is enough money avail- able in the budget, Assistant City Manager Mark Weiss said. The city last year approved its first economic development plan. Helping small businesses get loans is part of that plan. Businesses not only provide jobs and services for residents, but income for the city government. Of the city's $8.3 million in annu- al income, $1.4 million comes from sales tax generated by businesses. At least one La Quinta business- woman said it can be incredibly frus- trating to find a small business loan. "Where were you two years ago when I needed you?" asked Beverly Stokes upon hearing about the new program. She owns The Postal Place at Highway Ill and Washington Street. When she tried to start her business, she was turned down by every bank and agency she went to. Eventually, she used her life sav- ings to get started and now is glad she doesn't have a ton of debt hang- ing over her head. She did apply to a county program after her business was up and running, but there was no money available. She is not sure she would even try to take advantage of the new city program. "I would like to expand, but after what I've been through, it's not worth it," she said. Weiss said the goal is eventually to provide as much help as possible for small businesses, including in- formation about where to go for expertise. On the financial side, the city's program will pick up the 2 percent fee required for a loan un- der the California Capital Access Program, which is for businesses that don't qualify for Small Busi- ness Administration loans. The loans are made through regu- lar banks, but the fee goes into a pot of money that provides insurance for the lender if the loan goes bad. For example, if a business applies for a $100,000 loan, the city will pay its $2,000 fee. The Chamber of Commerce's Dal- las said the chamber will work with the city to help publicize the program. There are other joint efforts in the works to let businesses know 'the city is willing to help, she said. "We'll do everything we can to help them get the word out," she said. To comment City of La Quanta, 777-7000. r e 0j, C Z u V s � OF TO: TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 13, 1997 SUBJECT: RECRUITMENT FOR BOARDS/COMMISSIONS Based on Council's recent actions regarding the various Boards and Commissions, the City Clerk's Office is currently recruiting for all current vacancies and vacancies that will be occurring June 301h. Advertisements have been placed in both the Palm Desert Post and the Chamber Newsletter and will soon run in The Desert Sun. The advertisements are indicating that attendance at least two meetings of the board/commission for which they intend to apply is a requirement. Therefore, interviews will be conducted by the Council during June. Council may wish to utilize one of their Special Meetings for this purpose. Staff will be seeking direction from Council in this regard as time gets nearer. L. t cc: City Manager All Directors ,->