Loading...
1997 09 15 PC�OFTH� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA An Special Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California September 15, 1997 9:00 A.M. **NOTE** Beginning Resolution 97-058 Beginning Minute Motion 97-012 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the Lime 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 July 22, 1997 and August 12, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes B. Department Report PC /AG:ENDF. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-083 SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT 4 TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 97-607 AND 97-608 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003 Applicant .......... KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns, KSL Desert Resorts, Inc. Location & Request: 1. Approval of Environmental Assessment 97-343, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential 4-8 du. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from LDR (Low Density Residential 24 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50"' Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 3. Approval of a Change of Zone from RM (Medium Density Residential 4-8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the LaQuinta Tennis Club, and from RL ( Low Density Residential 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 5Uh Avenue and 240 feet south of Eisenhower Drive. 4. Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121E to update the plan and allow new development and uses for the area comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts, and the southeast corner of 50t Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map to divide approximately 62.5 acres into 134 lots for the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. PC IAG:ENDA 6. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-607 to allow removal o seven tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, an( maintenance facilities and replace with 119 "residential specific plan" units and a health spa of approximately 20,200 square feet it the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calli Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east sid of Avenida Obregon, across from the two existing sunken tenni courts. 7. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-608 to allow constructioi of a 244 space employee parking lot on approximately 2.4 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50t Avenue, and 240 fee east of Eisenhower Drive. 8. Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure architectura compatibility between historic structures and proposed construction pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. Action: ............. Resolution 97- Resolution 97- Resolution 97- Resolution 97- Resolution 97- Resolution 97- Resolution 97- , and Resolution 97- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. STREET VACATION 97-035 Applicant .......... Chuck Knox Location ........... The easterly five feet of Lot 19 and the westerly five feet of Lot 1 of the La Quinta Golf Estates, Unit Number 1 Request ............ Determination of La Quinta General Plan consistency with propose, vacation of public utility easements at the La Quinta Golf Estates Unit Number 1 Action ............. Minute Motion 97- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS 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 July 22, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER / 11 A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 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, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Gardner to excuse Commissioner Tyler. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. D. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for election of Chair and Vice Chair. 1. Nominations for Chair were opened. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Woodard to nominate Commissioner Butler for Chair. 3. There being no other nominations, it was moved and second to close the nominations and Commissioners Butler was elected unanimously. 4. Nominations for Vice Chair were opened. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to nominate Commissioner Woodard as Vice Chair. 6. There be no other nominations, Commissioner Woodard was elected as Vice Chair unanimously. 7. Commissioner Butler assumed the Chair and Commissioner Woodard assumed the Vice Chair. PC7-22-97 I Plannin; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Staff asked that the Agenda be amended to delete the approval of the Minutes of July 8, 1997. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 24, 1997. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Kirk abstainirig. B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. Staff stated there was none. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Zoning Code Amendment 97-056; a request of the City of La Quinta for approval of a prohibition of independent used vehicle sales, excluding new vehicle sales with associated used vehicle sales in the Regional Commercial District. Commissioner Seaton withdrew due to a potential common law conflict in regard to divided locality on advice of the City Attorney. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted that there currently was one used vehicle dealership within this area and they had submitted a time extension request which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future date. 3. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to verify when this item would be before the Commission. Staff stated the extension request would be heard before by the Commission before the implementation of this Code Amendment. PC7-22-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 4. Chairman Butler asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Greg Shannon, 74-596 Pepper Tree Drive, Palm Desert, spoke on behalf of Mr. Suitt, owner of the used vehicle lot, and stated he would like to request the Commission approve an extension of time for the Conditional Use Permit to allow this used vehicle dealership to continue operating. Mr. Suitt is hoping to sell the property within the next year. The lot currently sells between 15-20 cars a month which produces income for the City. He stated Mr. Suitt's reason for asking for this extension was due to the extensive conditions that had been placed on the project, the cost involved to meet those conditions, and the time he had been in operation. 5. Mr. Tom Suitt, 38315 Maracaibo Drive, Palm Springs, owner of the used vehicle lot, gave the Commission a history of the property. He stated that he recognized that this use was not a proper use of the property, but due to the extensive improvements he had been required to make, he believed approval of this request was warranted. The business does produce $75,000 in revenue for the City. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked what the time limit was for noticing this project. Staff clarified that the issue raised by Mr. Suitt is not on this Agenda, but will be before the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Gardner clarified that the item before the Commission was the Code Amendment and that Mr. Suitt's issue will be before the Commission in August. He further asked for clarification that this Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not affect Mr. Suitt at this time. Staff stated that the Amendment would not come into affect until October, if approved by the Commission and Council. 9. Commissioner Abels stated that Mr. Suitt's request is not an issue before the Commission at this meeting. Staff confirmed that it was not. 10. Chairman Butler stated that by approving the Amendment the Commission would be prohibiting any used vehicle sales lot that was not in conjunction with a new vehicle sales lots. Staff stated this was true. PC7-22-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 22. 1997 11 There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 053 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 97-056, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Seaton and Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. ComITLissioner Seaton rejoined the meeting. B. Continued - Site Development Permit 97-606; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval to construct a 2,816 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant with drive - through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center currently under construction. 1. Chairman Butler 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. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to identify which signs would face south. Staff clarified which signs faced the different elevations. 3. Commissioner Seaton clarified that the applicant was asking for two menu boards and staff was recommending only one. Staff stated that was true. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked what the status was of the small trees that were to be replaced at the Home Depot site. Staff stated this item did not relate to this project. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that correspondence had been received from Home Depot regarding their difficulty in obtaining the right size trees, but the problem was being resolved. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked why the site plan that was in their packet was not the same as what was being shown on the presentation and was the Commission approving the total plan. Staff stated the plan before them was for Jack in the Box restaurant and the remaining of part of Phase II. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with the upper parking PC7-22-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 22. 1997 and asked if the Commission was being asked to approve the entire site plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the application before the Commission was for the approval of a 2,860 square foot Jack in Box restaurant with drive a through on Pad #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Center. The applicant had submitted a concept for Parcel 2, but the approval before the Commission was only for the Site Development Permit for Jack in the Box restaurant. The Commission would have the opportunity to review and approve the other parcels as they are submitted. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to identify the area the Commission was reviewing for approval. Staff identified the area on the site plan for the Commission. 6. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Doug Cooper, Greenburg Farrow Architecture, representing the applicant, stated the Jack in the Box is the focus of this request. He further stated that the signs had been an issue at their last meeting as they were asking for four signs. They were still asking for four signs. As Jack in the Box is a nationally recognized tenant it is their opinion they should be allowed to have their standard signs as all other nationally recognized businesses have four signs. Now that the building is turned more perpendicular to Highway 111, the signs are needed. With regard to the height of the berm, the berm and landscaping combined are to reach a total of four feet. The conditions state that the berm will be four feet. In regard to the trees at Home Depot, they are having to search for a different tree as the African Sumac is not available in the required box size and caliper as conditioned. However, as stated by staff, the tree issue will be resolved. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the request again. Staff stated Pad #3 which was for the Jack in the Box restaurant site was the only issue before the Commission. Chairman Butler clarified that the item before them is the Site Development Permit and not the sign program. Staff affirmed that the sign program was the next item on the Agenda as a separate item. Staff stated Jack in the Box would be setting the precedent, but the Commission will be reviewing the buildings for Pads #1 and #2 when they are submitted in the future. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated that part of the Conditions of Approval do contain conditions regarding the signs. Staff stated that a Finding #6 contained in the Resolution, and Condition #48 regarding the signs are a part of this approval. As the issues overlay, the Commissioner can combine the two applications. Discussion followed regarding the two Agenda items. PC7-22-97 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 10. Chairman Butler asked which item would be more important to take first. Staff suggested that staff give the staff report for the sign program and combine the two items for Commission discussion. It was determined that the Commission will finish discussion regarding the Site Development Permit first. 11. Mr. Mike Walsh, Jack in the Box, Development Department, stated he would like to request corporate identity signs on the face of the building. At the last meeting, he understood that there would be sufficient signs at this location. They are asking for signs on the east, west and Highway I I I elevations. The east side is the most important as this is the entry to the Center. In addition, they would like to use a channel sign on the east side . 12. Commissioner Woodard stated that with the signs on the south, east, and west side, why is the sign on the north side important. Mr. Walsh stated the north is important so that those in the Center can find their location. 13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing. 14. Chairman Butler stated the signs were confusing, but beyond the signs, has the parking problem been solved? The trees and the separation from the entry area had been resolved and lowering the building silhouette had created an excellent product. The issue of signs is the question and it would help if they were able to see a better picture of what the applicant was asking. The sign on the east elevation is being requested to be enlarged and he did not see where it would fit. Mr. Walsh stated it was his understanding from the last meeting that staff was recommending signs on all four sides, but the staff report only recommends two sides, deleting the east side entirely. He was asking to retain the east side signs with channel letters and increase the sign size above the drive through window. Instead of the 2-foot by 6-foot square sign, they would use the channel signs. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked where the east elevation sign would be placed. Mr. Walsh stated it would be horizontal, 10 to 12 feet long, above the drive through window. Commissioner Woodard stated the structure is only 10 or 12 feet long. The sign would be on the fascia for the entire length of the east elevation. The south and west elevation would be as presented on the plans. The west and south elevation would have no change. Commissioner Seaton asked if the west would stay as submitted. Mr. Walsh stated that was true. PC7-22-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 22. 1997 16. Chairman Butler stated he would like to see a sign on the east elevation, but it should not cover the entire area. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives. 17. Commissioner Woodard stated that others have received the same amount of signs and in some instances, more. 18. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant preferred the box or the channel letters. Mr. Walsh stated he would prefer to have a larger red box sign. Commissioner Kirk clarified that the box was six and a quarter square feet and the channel letters would be 15 square feet. In addition, the trademark sign was much more preferable than the larger sign. Staff clarified that the Commission was approving the signs on the east, west, and south elevations, with no sign on the north side, and only one menu board. 19. There being no further comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing. 20. Commissioner Woodard complemented the applicant on his resubmital which met the Commission's request. He asked to see the color board. Staff stated it was the same as the last meeting. Commissioner Woodard informed the applicant that if Home Depot was planning to submit plans for Pads # 1 and #2 as shown on this plan, as well as the parking layout, he would have a problem. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated he agreed with the east elevation sign and the box sign. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-054 approving Site Development Permit 97-606, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified: a. Signs would be permitted on the east, west, and north elevations. 23. Commissioned Gardner asked whether the four foot berm was being approved, or as the applicant requested. It was his understanding that the Sheriff's Department requested that the interior not be hidden. Staff clarified that in the Department's comments, there were no comments from the Sheriff's Department regarding this. Discussion followed regarding the height of the berming and landscaping. PC7-22-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 22. 1997 24. Commissioner Woodard stated that berming has a much greater affect. 25. Commissioner Gardner asked what site plan the Commission would receive. Staff stated it would be the site plan as revised by the applicant. 26. Commissioner Woodard asked that the motion be amended to require the landscaping plan be returned to the Planning Commission for approval. 27. Commissioners Abels/Kirk amended their motion to include the landscaping plans be resubmitted for approval by the Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Permit 97-383; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval of a planned sign program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. 3. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the location of the monument sign. Staff stated it was required that it be moved further west. Commissioner Gardner asked why they wanted the sign moved. Staff stated that customers coming from the west will turn into the shopping center at the signal and their first opportunity to see the sign would be at this location. By putting it at the signal it would encourage people to enter at the signal rather than at the illegal right turn-in/out location. 4. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to identify the other monument sign locations. PC7-22-.97 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 5. Commissioner Kirk asked why moving the sign to the west would be a better breaking up of the traffic. It might be better if the Home Depot customer entered off Jefferson Street rather than going through the parking lot maze. Staff clarified that other tenants of the Center would be identified on the sign as well. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated he was surprised that there was no sign at the corner of Jefferson and Highway 111. People traveling west will enter Home Depot -at their parking lot entrance. Those traveling east will use the signal entrance causing this signal entrance to become a major impact on the parking lot. Will this signal become the entrance to the tenants to the west of this site or will there be another signal at the other location? Staff stated there will be no signal to the west of the one proposed. Commissioner Woodard stated that the monument sign will then have to identify all the other uses and asked where the other tenants signs would be located. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the tenants to the west would be able to enter off of Dune Palms Avenue or Highway I I I which will be signalized. Discussion followed regarding monument sign locations. 7. Commissioner Seaton asked what the size of the other tenants would be and what other tenants would be present. Staff explained the plan. 8. Commissioner Gardner asked if a traffic study had been completed to show where their customers would be coming from, east or west. Staff, stated that was a question for the applicant, Mr. Cooper. 9. Mr. Tom Searles, consultant for Home Depot, stated this sign would not have Home Depot on it. West bound traffic will not use the signal to enter Home Depot. This monument sign is for the future tenants that have not been obtained yet. As to where the majority of the traffic would come from, it is unknown. Right now the traffic comes from the east as their are more houses in that direction, but they believe the future traffic will come from both areas. In regard to the second phase of development, it will be market driven and the uses will come back to the Planning Commission as they are obtained. They do not have an understanding of the parking until these tenants are obtained. PC7-22-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 055 approving the Planned Sign Program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center for Sign Permit 97-383, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. B. Continued - Site Development Permit 97-611; a request of Century Crowell for approval of a new prototype single family house plan for Tract 27899. Chairman Butler 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 pointed out that for a two car garage, the doors are to have a minimum 16-foot wide clearance and the garage door opening shall be a minimum distance of two feet between the garage and property line. 2. Chairman Butler asked for the width of the single car garage door opening. Staff stated it was seven feet wide Commissioner Woodard asked what the width of the three car garage would be. Staff stated it would be 31-feet from outside to outside. 4. Chairman Butler asked if there were any conditions that the driveway be the same width as the garages. Staff stated that Condition #7 required them to be the minimum width of the required garage door opening. If the Commission wanted to make sure the driveway is the same on all the plans, the condition could be amended to delete the word "required". 5. Commissioner Kirk questioned Condition #3 as to whether it was to read "shall" or "will". Staff agreed it should be "shall". Commissioner Kirk asked what the Riverside County Agricultural Commission had to do with approving the plants. Staff stated they reviewed the plant pallet to make sure no prohibited plants are brought in from outside the Coachella Valley. PC7-22-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 22., 1997 6. Chairman Butler stated his concern that the painted walls would not hold up against the watering. Staff stated they could be require to be an integral color other than grey. 7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, representing the applicant, stated he had only one comment regarding the width of the garage door and the two - foot side returns. Their firm builds and sells 200 homes in a year and have never had any resistence from their buyers regarding these two issues. They get 30% of their buyers from referrals. When it comes to this type of issue, they believe they are the professionals and can determine whether a one foot or two foot side is best. They are confident that these designs would meet the Commission's approval. As they have not had any problems, they would not like to be required to change the design. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked what the selling price would be for the different units. Mr. Cunningham stated that for the Del Rey it will be a continuation of what is being built now, $114,0004145,000, depending on the upgrades. The Marbella would be $140,000 to $160,000, which are a step above the Topaz. Topaz, which is in its last phase, is a step above the Del Rey. Commissioner Kirk stated it appears the public wants the three -car garages. Mr. Cunningham stated the market is open to two car garages. Because of the current zoning regulations regarding the number of garages being calculated on the number of bedrooms, it has put a burden on the industry. They would prefer the buying public determine the number of garages. Commissioner Kirk asked what Mr. Cunningham thought about the driveway apron. Mr. Cunningham stated that normally they run the garage widths to the width of the door plus six inches. 9. Commissioner Gardner stated that Century had sold a number of houses and he was very satisfied with their products. His concern was with the area between the single car and double car garage as it seems to be out of balance. It puts the car to close to the inside wall of the garage prohibiting a person from exiting their car on the right side. Mr. Cunningham stated that from an architectural standpoint they are experiencing a resistence from the buying public to having nothing but garage fronts on the houses. Therefore they want to create more of a golf cart look by off -setting the third garage. PC7-22-97 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 10. Commissioner Abels questioned their wisdom as to whether the buying public' would recognize the difference. Mr. Cunningham stated it is not a sellers market; buyers are sophisticated and know what they want. He would prefer to have the industry dictate. 11. Commissioner Woodard stated he is philosophically going to stop making comments regarding the design of tract homes as it is unfair to compare custom homes to tract homes. It is unfair to ask this company to make changes based on custom home design. However, he is totally supportive of staff s recommendation and he believes the house elevations do need additional detail and a differential between the face of the surfaces. Without dimensional change the house will be somewhat lacking. 12. Commissioner Seaton asked where the models would be located. Mr. Cunningham stated they would be at the corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. Commissioner Seaton asked if they would have ten parking spaces. Mr. Cunningham stated they would have ten parking spaces.. 13. Chairman Butler asked staff if there was a requirement for patio awning on the south facing houses. Staff stated a policy had been initiated and was being adhered to, but was not included in the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance and therefore, was no longer required. Mr. Cunningham clarified further that the Building and Safety Director had stated that from an energy standpoint the requirement could not be upheld. Therefore, it was not included in the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. 14. Chairman Butler commended Mr. Cunningham on the design of the homes, the mix, and colors, and in particular the walls in the dark brown color for the Del Rey project. Mr. Cunningham stated it was his understanding that this new color would not be allowed under the new Zoning Ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the block wall. Staff stated that as it relates to masonry fencing, they should refer to Section 9.60.030.3 of the Code. 15. Commissioner Abels commended Mr. Cunningham on submitting a complete package for the Commission to review and stated it was a fine product. PC7-22-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-056 approving Site Development Permit 97-611, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Abels stated he would like to go on record as stating that since the dissolution of the Design Review Board and with the increase in the Planning Commission members from five to seven members, it is important that the Planning Commission have some members who are fully qualified in design issues. The Commission should listen to their comments as this was the purpose in consolidating the two Commissions. 1. Chairman Butler stated he agreed with this comment and he would encourage any member of the Commission that has specific feelings regarding design review to state them; however, the comments should not challenge the applicant or become an issue. At times, some of the design review questions becomes too intense and rather than being an improving factor it becomes a critical issue. The Commission has a right to take these issues into consideration, but they should be monitored. 2. Commissioner Woodard stated that it was his understanding that the purpose of the- Commission was to look at the design and zoning issues of every submittal. If this is not true, he would like to have it clarified at this meeting. 3. Chairman Butler stated it is staff s responsibility to make a recommendation based on their design review before it is submitted to the Commission. The PC7-22-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 22., 1997 Commission then has the right to review staff s recommendation and either accept or reject them. If a Commissioner does not agree, then that Commissioner should be monitored to see that those criticisms are constructive and to the point. 4. Staff stated its review of the project is based on its compliance with all adopted policies, regulations, etc., and then makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission's responsibility is then two -fold; the Planning Commission looks at the design issues as recommended by staff and any other issues any Commissioner may have. 6. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the Commission is to review projects as they relate to the adopted goals and policies of the City of La Quinta and its regulations. Staff also does this and brings this recommendation to the Commission. There are no adopted goals and polices that relate to design except for area known as The Village. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated that at one time there were explicate directions regarding how the Commission was to review a project regarding review and design. If this was true, he would like to have this agendized for discussion. 8. Commissioner Abels stated that regardless of whether or not there were specific guidelines, they were only a plus or minus. The Commission has an obligation to approve projects if they have met all the City's requirements. 9. Commissioner Woodard suggested that all Commissioners have contributed design ideas and criticism and this is what has added to the design of the City. They all may not had the same opinion, but it is the Commission's responsibility to look at projects from the standpoint of design, color, materials, etc. He will try in the future to keep his comments to a minimum. 10. Chairman Butler stated this discussion was not meant to be an attack on Commissioner Woodard, but in terms of the Commission's goals, it is their responsibility to smoothly transition the applicant through the process in terms of reviewing the project design and zoning regulations in a timely manner. He has however, sat through meeting after meeting hearing criticism PC7-22-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 from Commissioner Woodard and if those criticisms were put in the form of a motion which would allow the Commission to vote on them, it would have accomplished a lot more in less time. Then over time, he will be able to see which direction the Commission agrees and disagrees. The projects need to be reviewed in a business fashion. He would suggest that Commissioners sit with staff and let staff put some of their concerns in the staff report and let the Commission review them while reading the reports. Micro analyzing the project should not be done at the Commission meeting. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to look at zoning in terms of what the Commission's function is and provide an opportunity where the Commission could have a discussion and develop a policy to guide them. 12. Commissioner Woodard stated he was bringing this issue up because he had wanted to have a discussion with the Commission regarding this issue. If he was wrong, then he will back off. He concurred with Commissioned Kirk's statement. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on August 12, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. on July 22, 19,97. PC7-22-97 15 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California July 22, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman AbOs who asked Commissioner Woodard to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Gardner to excuse Commissioner Tyler. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. D. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for election of Chair and Vice Chair. l . Nominations for Chair were opened. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Woodard to nominate Commissioner Butler for Chair. 3. There being no other nominations, it was moved and second to close the nominations and Commissioners Butler was elected unanimously. 4. Nominations for Vice Chair were opened. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to nominate Commissioner Woodard as Vice Chair. 6. There be no other nominations, Commissioner Woodard was elected as Vice Chair unanimously. 7. Commissioner Butler assumed the Chair and Commissioner Woodard assumed the Vice Chair. PC7-22-97 I Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 II. PU13LIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Staff asked that the Agenda be amended to delete the approval of the Minutes of July 8, 1997. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 24, 1997. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Kirk abstaining. B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. Staff stated there was none. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Zoning Code Amendment 97-056; a request of the City of La Quinta for approval of a prohibition of independent used vehicle sales, excluding new vehicle sales with associated used vehicle sales in the Regional Commercial District. 1. Commissioner Seaton withdrew due to a potential common law conflict in regard to divided loyalty on advice of the City Attorney. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted that there currently was one used vehicle dealership within this area and they had submitted a time extension request which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future date. 3. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to verify when this item would be before the Commission. Staff stated the extension request would be heard before by the Commission before the implementation of this Code Amendment. PC7-22-97 2 Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 4. Chairman Butler asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Greg Shannon, 74-596 Pepper Tree Drive, Palm Desert, spoke on behalf of Mr. Suitt, owner of the used vehicle lot, and stated he would like to request the Commission approve an extension of time for the Conditional Use Permit to allow this used vehicle dealership to continue operating. Mr. Suitt is hoping to sell the property within the next year. The lot currently sells between 15-20 cars a month which produces income for the City. He stated Mr. Suitt's reason for asking for this extension was due to the extensive conditions that had been placed on the project, the cost involved to meet those conditions, and the time he had been in operation. 5. Mr. Tom Suitt, 38315 Maracaibo Drive, Palm Springs, owner of the used vehicle lot, gave the Commission a history of the property. He stated that he recognized that this use was not a proper use of the property, but due to the extensive improvements he had been required to make, he believed approval of this request was warranted. The business does produce $75,000 in revenue for the City. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked what the time limit was for noticing this project. Staff clarified that the issue raised by Mr. Suitt is not on this Agenda, but will be before the Commission at a later date. 8. Commissioner Gardner clarified that the item before the Commission was the Code Amendment and that Mr. Suitt's issue will be before the Commission in August. He further asked for clarification that this Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not affect Mr. Suitt at this time. Staff stated that the Amendment would not come into affect until October, if approved by the Commission and Council. 9. Commissioner Abels stated that Mr. Suitt's request is not an issue before the Commission at this meeting. Staff confirmed that it was not. 10. Chairman Butler stated that by approving the Amendment the Commission would be prohibiting any used vehicle sales lot that was not in conjunction with a new vehicle sales lots. Staff stated this was true. PC7-22-97 3 Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 11 There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 053 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 97-056, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Seaton and Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Seaton rejoined the meeting. B. Continued - Site Development Permit 97-606; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval to construct a 2,816 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant with drive - through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center currently under construction. 1. Chairman Butler 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. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to identify which signs would face south. Staff clarified which signs faced the different elevations. Commissioner Seaton clarified that the applicant was asking for two menu boards and staff was recommending only one. Staff stated that was true. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked what the status was of the small trees that were to be replaced at the Home Depot site. Staff stated this item did not relate to this project. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that correspondence had been received from Home Depot regarding their difficulty in obtaining the right size trees, but the problem was being resolved. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked why the site plan that was in their packet was not the same as what was being shown on the presentation and was the Commission approving the total plan. Staff stated the plan before them was for Jack in the Box restaurant and the remaining of part of Phase II. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with the upper parking 130-22-97 4 Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 and asked if the Commission was being asked to approve the entire site plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the application before the Commission was for the approval of a 2,860 square foot Jack in Box restaurant with drive a through on Pad #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Center. The applicant had submitted a concept for Parcel 2, but the approval before the Commission was only for the Site Development Permit for Jack in the Box restaurant. The Commission would have the opportunity to review and approve the other parcels as they are submitted. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to identify the area the Commission was reviewing for approval. Staff identified the area on the site plan for the Commission. 6. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Doug Cooper, Greenburg Farrow Architecture, representing the applicant, stated the Jack in the Box is the focus of this request. He further stated that the signs had been an issue at their last meeting as they were asking for four signs. They were still asking for four signs. As Jack in the Box is a nationally recognized tenant it is their opinion they should be allowed to have their standard signs as all other nationally recognized businesses have four signs. Now that the building is turned more perpendicular to Highway 111, the signs are needed. With regard to the height of the berm, the berm and landscaping combined are to reach a total of four feet. The conditions state that the berm will be four feet. In regard to the trees at Home Depot, they are having to search for a different tree as the African Sumac is not available in the required box size and caliper as conditioned. However, as stated by staff, the tree issue will be resolved. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the request again. Staff stated Pad #3 which was for the Jack in the Box restaurant site was the only issue before the Commission. 8. Chairman Butler clarified that the item before them is the Site Development Permit and not the sign program. Staff affirmed that the sign program was the next item on the Agenda as a separate item. Staff stated Jack in the Box would be setting the precedent, but the Commission will be reviewing the buildings for Pads #1 and #2 when they are submitted in the future. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated that part of the Conditions of Approval do contain conditions regarding the signs. Staff stated that a Finding #6 contained in the Resolution, and Condition #48 regarding the signs are a part of this approval. As the issues overlay, the Commissioner can combine the two applications. Discussion followed regarding the two Agenda items. PC7-22-97 5 Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 10. Chairman Butler asked which item would be more important to take first. Staff suggested that staff give the staff report for the sign program and combine the two items for Commission discussion. It was determined that the Commission will finish discussion regarding the Site Development Permit first. 11. Mr. Mike Walsh, Jack in the Box, Development Department, stated he would like to request corporate identity signs on the face of the building. At the last meeting, he understood that there would be sufficient signs at this location. They are asking for signs on the east, west and Highway I I I elevations. The east side is the most important as this is the entry to the Center. In addition, they would like to use a channel sign on the east side . 12. Commissioner Woodard stated that with the signs on the south, east, and west side, why is the sign on the north side important. Mr. Walsh stated the north is important so that those in the Center can find their location. 13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing. 14. Chairman Butler stated the signs were confusing, but beyond the signs, has the parking problem been solved? The trees and the separation from the entry area had been resolved and lowering the building silhouette had created an excellent product. The issue of signs is the question and it would help if they were able to see a better picture of what the applicant was asking. The sign on the east elevation is being requested to be enlarged and he did not see where it would fit. Mr. Walsh stated it was his understanding from the last meeting that staff was recommending signs on all four sides, but the staff report only recommends two sides, deleting the east side entirely. He was asking to retain the east side signs with channel letters and increase the sign size above the drive through window. Instead of the 2-foot by 6-foot square sign, they would use the channel signs. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked where the east elevation sign would be placed. Mr. Walsh stated it would be horizontal, 10 to 12 feet long, above the drive through window. Commissioner Woodard stated the structure is only 10 or 12 feet long. The sign would be on the fascia for the entire length of the east elevation. The south and west elevation would be as presented on the plans. The west and south elevation would have no change. Commissioner Seaton asked if the west would stay as submitted. Mr. Walsh stated that was true. PC7-22-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 16. Chairman Butler stated he would like to see a sign on the east elevation, but it should not cover the entire area. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives. 17. Commissioner Woodard stated that others have received the same amount of signs and in some instances, more. 18. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant preferred the box or the channel letters. Mr. Walsh stated he would prefer to have a larger red box sign. Commissioner Kirk clarified that the box was six and a quarter square feet and the channel letters would be 15 square feet. In addition, the trademark sign was much more preferable than the larger sign. Staff clarified that the Commission was approving the signs on the east, west, and south elevations, with no sign on the north side, and only one menu board. 19. There being no further comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing. 20. Commissioner Woodard complemented the applicant on his resubmital which met the Commission's request. He asked to see the color board. Staff stated it was the same as the last meeting. Commissioner Woodard informed the applicant that if Home Depot was planning to submit plans for Pads # 1 and #2 as shown on this plan, as well as the parking layout, he would have a problem. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated he agreed with the east elevation sign and the box sign. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-054 approving Site Development Permit 97-606, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified: a. Signs would be permitted on the east, west, and north elevations. 23. Commissioned Gardner asked whether the four foot berm was being approved, or as the applicant requested. It was his understanding that the Sheriff's Department requested that the interior not be hidden. Staff clarified that in the Department's comments, there were no comments from the Sheriff's Department regarding this. Discussion followed regarding the height of the berming and landscaping. PC7-22-97 7 Planning; Cornmission Meeting July 22, 1997 24. Commissioner Woodard stated that berming has a much greater affect. 25. Commissioner Gardner asked what site plan the Commission would receive. Staff stated it would be the site plan as revised by the applicant. 26. Commissioner Woodard asked that the motion be amended to require the landscaping plan be returned to the Planning Commission for approval. 27. Commissioners Abels/Kirk amended their motion to include the landscaping plans be resubmitted for approval by the Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Permit 97-383; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval of a planned sign program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. 3. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the location of the monument sign. Staff stated it was required that it be moved further west. Commissioner Gardner asked why they wanted the sign moved. Staff stated that customers coming from the west will turn into the shopping center at the signal and their first opportunity to see the sign would be at this location. By putting it at the signal it would encourage people to enter at the signal rather than at the illegal right turn-in/out location. 4. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to identify the other monument sign locations. PC7-22-97 8 Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 5. Commissioner Kirk asked why moving the sign to the west would be a better breaking up of the traffic. It might be better if the Home Depot customer entered off Jefferson Street rather than going through the parking lot maze. Staff clarified that other tenants of the Center would be identified on the sign as well. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated he was surprised that there was no sign at the corner of Jefferson and Highway 111. People traveling west will enter Home Depot at their parking lot entrance. Those traveling east will use the signal entrance causing this signal entrance to become a major impact on the parking lot. Will this signal become the entrance to the tenants to the west of this site or will there be another signal at the other location? Staff stated there will be no signal to the west of the one proposed. Commissioner Woodard stated that the monument sign will then have to identify all the other uses and asked where the other tenants signs would be located. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the tenants to the west would be able to enter off of Dune Palms Avenue or Highway 111 which, will be signalized. Discussion followed regarding monument sign locations. 7. Commissioner Seaton asked what the size of the other tenants would be and what other tenants would be present. Staff explained the plan. 8. Commissioner Gardner asked if a traffic study had been completed to show where their customers would be coming from, east or west. Staff, stated that was a question for the applicant, Mr. Cooper. 9. Mr. Tom Searles, consultant for Home Depot, stated this sign would not have Home Depot on it. West bound traffic will not use the signal to enter Home Depot. This monument sign is for the future tenants that have not been obtained yet. As to where the majority of the traffic would come from, it is unknown. Right now the traffic comes from the east as their are more houses in that direction, but they believe the future traffic will come from both areas. In regard to the second phase of development, it will be market driven and the uses will come back to the Planning Commission as they are obtained. They do not have an understanding of the parking until these tenants are obtained. PC7-22-97 9 Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 055 approving the Planned Sign Program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center for Sign Permit 97-383, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. B. Continued - Site Development Permit 97-611; a request of Century Crowell for approval of a new prototype single family house plan for Tract 27899. 1. Chairman Butler 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 pointed out that for a two car garage, the doors are to have a minimum 16-foot wide clearance and the garage door opening shall be a minimum distance of two feet between the garage and property line. 2. Chairman Butler asked for the width of the single car garage door opening. Staff stated it was seven feet wide 3. Commissioner Woodard asked what the width of the three car garage would be. Staff stated it would be 31-feet from outside to outside. 4. Chairman Butler asked if there were any conditions that the driveway be the same width as the garages. Staff stated that Condition #7 required them to be the minimum width of the required garage door opening. If the Commission wanted to make sure the driveway is the same on all the plans, the condition could be amended to delete the word "required". 5. Commissioner Kirk questioned Condition #3 as to whether it was to read "shall" or "will". Staff agreed it should be "shall". Commissioner Kirk asked what the Riverside County Agricultural Commission had to do with approving the plants. Staff stated they reviewed the plant pallet to make sure no prohibited plants are brought in from outside the Coachella Valley. PC7-22-97 10 Planning; Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 6. Chairman Butler stated his concern that the painted walls would not hold up against the watering. Staff stated they could be require to be an integral color other than grey. 7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, representing the applicant, stated he had only one comment regarding the width of the garage door and the two - foot side returns. Their firm builds and sells 200 homes in a year and have never had any resistence from their buyers regarding these two issues. They get 30% of their buyers from referrals. When it comes to this type of issue, they believe they are the professionals and can determine whether a one foot or two foot side is best. They are confident that these designs would meet the Commission's approval. As they have not had any problems, they would not like to be required to change the design. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked what the selling price would be for the different units. Mr. Cunningham stated that for the Del Rey it will be a continuation of what is being built now, $114,000-$145,000, depending on the upgrades. The Marbella would be $140,000 to $160,000, which are a step above the Topaz. Topaz, which is in its last phase, is a step above the Del Rey. Commissioner Kirk stated it appears the public wants the three -car garages. Mr. Cunningham stated the market is open to two car garages. Because of the current zoning regulations regarding the number of garages being calculated on the number of bedrooms, it has put a burden on the industry. They would prefer the buying public determine the number of garages. Commissioner Kirk asked what Mr. Cunningham thought about the driveway apron. Mr. Cunningham stated that normally they run the garage widths to the width of the door plus six inches. 9. Commissioner Gardner stated that Century had sold a number of houses and he was very satisfied with their products. His concern was with the area between the single car and double car garage as it seems to be out of balance. It puts the car to close to the inside wall of the garage prohibiting a person from exiting their car on the right side. Mr. Cunningham stated that from an architectural standpoint they are experiencing a resistence from the buying public to having nothing but garage fronts on the houses. Therefore they want to create more of a golf cart look by off -setting the third garage. PC7-22-97 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 10. Commissioner Abels questioned their wisdom as to whether the buying public would recognize the difference. Mr. Cunningham stated it is not a sellers market; buyers are sophisticated and know what they want. He would prefer to have the industry dictate. 11. Commissioner Woodard stated he is philosophically going to stop making comments regarding the design of tract homes as it is unfair to compare custom homes to tract homes. It is unfair to ask this company to make changes based on custom home design. However, he is totally supportive of staff s recommendation and he believes the house elevations do need additional detail and a differential between the face of the surfaces. Without dimensional change the house will be somewhat lacking. 12. Commissioner Seaton asked where the models would be located. Mr. Cunningham stated they would be at the corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. Commissioner Seaton asked if they would have ten parking spaces. Mr. Cunningham stated they would have ten parking spaces.. 13. Chairman Butler asked staff if there was a requirement for patio awning on the south facing houses. Staff stated a policy had been initiated and was being adhered to, but was not included in the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance and therefore, was no longer required. Mr. Cunningham clarified further that the Building and Safety Director had stated that from an energy standpoint the requirement could not be upheld. Therefore, it was not included in the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. 14. Chairman Butler commended Mr. Cunningham on the design of the homes, the mix, and colors, and in particular the walls in the dark brown color for the Del Rey project. Mr. Cunningham stated it was his understanding that this new Go1or would not be allowed under the new Zoning Ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the block wall. Staff stated that as it relates to masonry fencing, they should refer to Section 9.60.030.3 of the Code. 15. Commissioner Abels commended Mr. Cunningham on submitting a complete package for the Commission to review and stated it was a fine product. PC7-22-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1997 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-056 approving Site Development Permit 97-611, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Dirk Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Abels stated he would like to go on record as stating that since the dissolution of the Design Review Board and with the increase in the Planning Commission members from five to seven members, it is important that the Planning Commission have some members who are fully qualified in design issues. The Commission should listen to their comments as this was the purpose in consolidating the two Commissions. 1. Chairman Butler stated he agreed with this comment and he would encourage any member of the Commission that has specific feelings regarding design review to state them; however, the comments should not challenge the applicant or become an issue. At times, some of the design review questions becomes too intense and rather than being an improving factor it becomes a critical issue. The Commission has a right to take these issues into consideration, but they should be monitored. 2. Commissioner Woodard stated that it was his understanding that the purpose of the Commission was to look at the design and zoning issues of every submittal. If this is not true, he would like to have it clarified at this meeting. 3. Chairman Butler stated it is staff s responsibility to make a recommendation based on their design review before it is submitted to the Commission. The PC7-22-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 22. 1997 Commission then has the right to review staff s recommendation and either accept or reject them. If a Commissioner does not agree, then that Commissioner should be monitored to see that those criticisms are constructive and to the point. 4. Staff stated its review of the project is based on its compliance with all adopted policies, regulations, etc., and then makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission's responsibility is then two -fold; the Planning Commission looks at the design issues as recommended by staff and any other issues any Commissioner may have. 6. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the Commission is to review projects as they relate to the adopted goals and policies of the City of La Quinta and its regulations. Staff also does this and brings this recommendation to the Commission. There are no adopted goals and polices that relate to design except for area known as The Village. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated that at one time there were explicate directions regarding how the Commission was to review a project regarding review and design. If this was true, he would like to have this agendized for discussion. 8. Commissioner Abels stated that regardless of whether or not there were specific guidelines, they were only a plus or minus. The Commission has an obligation to approve projects if they have met all the City's requirements. 9. Commissioner Woodard suggested that all Commissioners have contributed design ideas and criticism and this is what has added to the design of the City. They all may not had the same opinion, but it is the Commission's responsibility to look at projects from the standpoint of design, color, materials, etc. He will try in the future to keep his comments to a minimum. 10. Chairman Butler stated this discussion was not meant to be an attack on Commissioner Woodard, but in terms of the Commission's goals, it is their responsibility to smoothly transition the applicant through the process in terms of reviewing the project design and zoning regulations in a timely manner. He has however, sat through meeting after meeting hearing criticism PC7-22-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 22., 1997 from Commissioner Woodard and if those criticisms were put in the form of a motion which would allow the Commission to vote on them, it would have accomplished a lot more in less time. Then over time, he will be able to see which -direction the Commission agrees and disagrees. The projects need to be reviewed in a business fashion. He would suggest that Commissioners sit with staff and let staff put some of their concerns in the staff report and let the Commission review them while reading the reports. Micro analyzing the project should not be done at the Commission meeting. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to look at zoning in terms of what the Commission's function is and provide an opportunity where the Commission could have a discussion and develop a policy to guide them. 12. Commissioner Woodard stated he was bringing this issue up because he had wanted to have a discussion with the Commission regarding this issue. If he was wrong, then he will back off. He concurred with Commissioned Kirk's statement. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abell to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on August 12, 1997, a:t 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. on July 22, 1997. PC7-22-97 15 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California August 12, 1997 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting- of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Staff requested that Temporary Use Permit 97-146 be added to the Agenda as an emergency item that was submitted after the Agenda was posted and the event will take place before the next Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to add Temporary Use Permit 97-146 to the Agenda as Business Item C. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of July 8, 1997. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Minutes be amended on Page 10, to note the opening of the Public Comment portion of the hearing; Page 20, Item 62 he had stated, "He too takes offense with those who complain that the City deliberately scheduled these hearings when the winter residents are away. As a full time resident of the Desert he objects to the idea that the business of the City should be restricted PC8-12-97 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 to the winter months. He additionally expressed concern that changes are submitted to the Planning Commission at the last minute; Page 21, Item 69 and 70 he voted AYE; Page 30, Item 30, "Commissioner Tyler asked if the traffic signal at La Quinta Centre Drive would be operational for Phase L"; Page 34, Item 38, "...Jefferson Street to mitigate an imagined emissions hot spot....". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. Staff stated there was none. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-022; a request of Tom Suitt for approval of a one year time extension for a used vehicle sales lot. Commissioner Seaton withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Commissioner Abels asked staff to explain why the Commission was approving a one year extension instead of a two year. Staff stated the Zoning Code allows the Commission to set whatever time is deemed appropriate and it was staff s determination that due to the zone change along Highway 111, a one year extension was appropriate. In addition, staff would like the applicant to have an annual review. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant could come back in a year and ask for an additional extension. Staff stated that at the end of a one year extension, the applicant would not be able to obtain any further extensions as the use would not be consistent with the Zoning Code. Commissioner Abels reminded the Commission that when they were reviewing the Zoning Code change for Highway 111, this applicant addressed the Commission regarding his use and ability to continue. Commissioner Abels stated that due to the expense of establishing the business and due to the sales tax provided to the City from this business, in his opinion it would be worth it to the City to approve a two year extension. 4. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant would be able to meet the PC8-12-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, ] 997 conditions by the September I" deadline. Staff stated the violations had been in existence for a long time and needed to be addressed. In regard to the time extension, the Commission can approve a two year, if that is their desire. 5. Commissioner Tyler noted that the applicant had not asked for a two year extension. Commissioner Abels stated that was due to staff s recommendation for a one year extension. 6. Commissioner Gardner asked if the applicant met all the conditions and was granted a one year extension, what would he have to go through to get a second extension? Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the two issues were not tied together. The new ordinance will be in effect 30- days after the second reading and at that time no new used car lots will be allowed on Highway 111. If Mr. Suitt waits to the end of a one year extension to request a second, he will not be allowed to do so as the ordinance will then be in effect. It is up to the Commission to grant whatever time limit they believe is appropriate. 7. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Planning Commission could give a two year extension. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the regular conditional use permit does not allow latitude in approving a time extension. This conditional use permit is for a temporary use and there are no specific regulations governing temporary conditional use permits. As there is no way to determine when the auto mall will be operational and as the intent of the new ordinance was to prohibit used car lots not associated with a new car dealership, from the Highway 111 area, .staff made the determination to grant a one year extension. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked if the time extension could be conditioned to the opening of the auto mall. Staff noted that this was possible except it was an open ended extension as it was unknown when the auto mall would open. Commissioner Kirk suggested a two year extension or the opening of the auto mall, whichever came first. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff what steps had been taken by the City to see that the conditions had been met. Staff stated they would have to review the Code Enforcement files to see what had been done. Staff did know that the Code Enforcement Department had not been aggressively trying to resolve the problems. PC8-12.97 3 Planning Commission Meeting August: 12, 1997 10. There being no further questions, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would. like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Suitt, applicant/owner, stated that when he originally applied for this conditional use permit, it took 12-months to meet all the Conditions of Approval. He was concerned as he had not been notified of the violations and therefore was not aware of any violations. He will see that they are corrected immediately. His concern was that the business had only been in operation for nine months even though they had been approved two years prior. He realized this was an interim use, but to allow him only a one year extension is a "drop dead" situation with no opportunity to recoup his expenses to open the business originally. In his opinion, it was a reasonable request to ask for a two year extension and he would appreciate the Commission's consideration in approving a two year extension. 11. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant was aware of the Conditions of Approval at the time of the original approval. Mr. Suitt stated he was aware of them at the time of approval. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to identify what the violations the application had not met. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was primarily their signs and parking lot lights. Commissioner Woodard asked if these violations had occurred since the original approval. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was the business owners responsibility to know the City's code regarding his operation. 12. Commissioner Gardner asked if the applicant could meet all the conditions as mentioned by staff. Mr. Suitt stated they would be corrected as soon as possible. The lights do not appear to be obtrusive, but if they are in violation, he will take them down. He would like to have them due to security problems. 13. Mr. Greg Shannon, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated he was assisting the applicant in his efforts to sell the property. He requested the applicant be granted the two year extension to enable him the time necessary to recoup his financial costs in getting the operation started. He has stated he will resolve all the violations and has already met City requirements by dedicating the land necessary for street improvements. PC8-12-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting August; 12, [997 14. Commissioner Kirk stated he was supportive of staff s general recommendation. He would support a one year extension with up to a two year extension or the opening of the auto mall. 15. Commissioner Gardner stated that granting the approval predicated upon the opening of the auto mall had not occurred to him, but it was an excellent idea. In his opinion the applicant should have a reasonable length of time to recover his costs. 16. Commissioner Abels stated he concurred with both of those comments. Commissioner Woodard also agreed. 17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 056 approving Conditional Use Permit 97-022, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval, as amended: a. The outstanding conditions are to be met by October 1, 1997; b. The extension be for two years or the opening of the first dealership of the auto mall. C. Arrangements were to be made for the applicant to meet with the City Engineer to go over the conditions. 18. Commissioner Gardner asked how the applicant would be notified of the auto mall opening and what time frame would he be given to close his operation once they were open. 19. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that once the first dealership is issued its Certificate of Occupancy, staff will notify the applicant of the time he has to close his business. Discussion followed as to how many days the applicant would have after the notification and alternatives should the auto mall open in less than one year. 20. Commissioner Kirk asked that the motion be amended to state the extension would be for a minimum of one year, regardless of when the auto mall opened. 21. Commissioner Tyler amended his motion to state the extension would be granted for a minimum of one year but not to exceed two years or, 45-days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the first car dealership. PC8-12-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Seaton rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 97-387; a request of Beer Hunter Sports Pub & Grill for approval of new identification signs on Washington Street and Highway 111. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked how the sign on the east facing wall, that will now have the new sign, compared to the existing sign in size? Staff stated the applicant could best explain this. The current sign size is 14-feet in length and 12-inches in height. 3. Mr. Gary Wright, "Architectural Neon", 74-990 Joni Drive, #3C, Palm Desert, representing the applicant, stated the existing sign consisted of letters that are 12-inches high, centered in the opening, for a total sign size of 4-feet wide by 20-feet long. The new sign will have the words "Beer Hunter" in 12- inch elongated letters within a ten inch high cabinet. 4. Chairman Butler asked if the new sign was to be illuminated whereas, the current sign was not. Mr. Wright stated this was true, but it would help to identify the building. The current sign is dark and difficult to see. Chairman Butler asked if the north elevation sign was existing and illuminated. Mr. Wright stated there is a three foot by four foot illuminated cabinet sign that sits under the eaves and is very dark. 5. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern was with the light and size of the sign and the applicant's desire to draw more patrons. Why are the signs needed when the business is packed every night. Mr. Wright stated that their purpose was not to draw on the local patrons but the out-of-town customers PC8-12-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, [997 who have a hard time locating the building. The applicant owns three businesses in the Valley, as well as one out of town, and would like their signs to be consistent. 6. Commissioner Abels stated that when the signs were originally approved, the Commission had discussed at length the signs. In addition, he did not believe it was hard to find the building. He would agree with a small new sign on the north elevation along with a monument, but not on the east or south elevations. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked if the signs proposed meet the City's standards. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the sign for the east elevation meets the City's standards, if the Commission can make the finding. The illumination is allowed. The lower sign can only be approved if the Commission makes the finding that the applicant has a disadvantage due to the construction of the building and therefore does not have enough sign visibility onto Highway 111. Commissioner Woodard asked how small the sign would have to be to conform to the sign regulations, if the Commission could not make the finding. Staff stated it would have to be a wall sign 50 square feet, and it could be illuminated. Commissioner Woodard clarified that the Commission was to determine whether the disadvantage was a hardship that entitled them to the additional signs. Staff stated that was true except for the monument sign. Discussion followed regarding the applicant's request. 8. Commissioner Seaton clarified the location of the signs with staff, and stated she had a problem with the monument sign. In addition, she would like to have something done to take care of the trash disposal area. Mr. Wright stated the side wall varies in height from three to four feet and is very limiting to signage. This elevation is crucial for the traffic on Highway 111. Without this sign they are reduced to a three by four foot sign on the wall. They would like to have their name and identification logo on the sign. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to identify the locations of the other businesses. Mr. Wright stated one was in Cathedral City, Palm Desert, and La Quinta. In addition, there is one in Orange County. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated this intersection has been upgraded by the City and Caltrans and is one of the busiest intersections in the Valley. Signs therefore, need to be discreet. This Beer Hunter has more signage than any 13C8-12-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 of their other establishments. The east -facing sign is currently blocked by the City's street improvement sign, but will be readily visible after the sign is removed. The building was configured as it is before they acquired the building and the applicant saw no need to change the building sign and now the community is accustomed to it. He would not like to see the freestanding sign at this location. Rather than clutter up the area with two signs, he would suggest one sign that stated "Beer Hunter" and leave off "Sports Pub and Grill". If they want further visibility on the existing monument signs for the shopping center, they need to pursue this with the Center. He is strongly opposed to another monument sign. 11. Commissioner Seaton stated she concurred with most of what Commissioner Tyler stated, but does believe the applicant should have the east elevation sign as presented. 12. Commissioner Woodard stated he thought the east facing sign, if modified to contain just the logo with the wording "Beer Hunter", would be attractive. He concurs with staff regarding the reduction in size for the free standing sign on the north. It is well known that it is a sports pub. He would support a reduction of the east elevation freestanding sign and staff s recommendation for the north elevation sign. 13. Commissioner Abels stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard's comments. 14. Commissioner Gardner stated he could agree with the sign on the north elevation, but could not agree with the monument sign. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked if Commissioner Gardner agreed that there should be signage on the north side. Commissioner Gardner stated he agreed with the sign that is currently there and the addition of the logo under the eave. 16. Commissioner Kirk asked Commissioner Abels to elaborate on the issues that were discussed when the original sign program was approved. Commissioner Abels stated he did not remember the exact details, only that the Commission spent a lot of time discussing the signs. He was originally opposed to a 13C8-12-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting Augus�[ 12, 1997 monument sign, but if it were reduced in size, it would be appropriate. Commissioner Kirk asked if the reduced monument sign is the one depicted on the plans. Commissioners discussed the size of the signs. 17. Mr. Wright stated he would be willing to reduce the mounding to accommodate the requested signs. Commissioner Woodard asked how far the mound would be lowered. Mr. Wright stated approximately 12-inches lower than the existing. Commissioner Woodard asked if the sign would be 12-inches lower than what was shown on the plans. Mr. Wright stated he did not measure it according to the landscaping, so he was not positive as to where the sign would fall in relation to the roof overhang. Commissioners discussed alternatives with the applicant. 18. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would be willing to come back with a revision after noting the changes suggested by the Commission?. Chairman Butler stated the options before the Commission were to approve the request as recommended, modify the request, or continue the project and ask the applicant to make modifications as noted by the Commission and come back. He was however, uncertain whether the monument sign would be approved even if it were revised and brought back. 19. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurred with Commissioner Woodard's statements and supported staff s recommendation to reduce the size of the sign. The applicant may want to consider coming back with revisions keeping in mind the suggestions made by Commissioner Woodard; using the wording "Beer Hunter" with the logo. If the monument sign is reduced, all the proposed changes may be confusing. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated the building has been there for years with the existing landscaping. If the landscaping is lowered to accommodate the sign, it is going to change the nature of the corner and he was not sure that would be an improvement. 21. Commissioner Abels asked the applicant how much of the landscaping area would be removed. Mr. Wright stated it would have to be blended to work into the existing landscaping. Commissioner Abels stated he would be in favor of continuing the request to the Commission's next meeting. PC8-12-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 22. Chairman Butler informed the applicant that he was not sure as to how the Commission would vote if a vote were taken at this time. He then asked if the applicant would prefer to make revisions to the submittal and come back in September. Mr. Wright asked what the Commission wanted him to bring back. Chairman Butler discussed the alternatives that had been suggested. 23. Staff suggested the Commission make a motion to give the applicant some direction as to what the Commission was wanted. 24. Mr. Wright reminded the Commission that the buildings across the street had illuminated signs (AAA, Green Burrito, etc.). Chairman Butler stated they were reviewing the proposal that was brought to the Commission at this time. 25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 97-010 approving Sign Application 97-387, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended by staff and modified as follows: a. The east elevation sign would consist of the logo and "Beer Hunter". b. The height of the north elevation monument sign shall not exceed the height of the building eave which can be accomplished by modification of the berm. The maximum height of letters shall not exceed 12-inches. 26. Commissioner Gardner asked what options were left to the applicant after the vote was taken. Staff stated it would depend on the outcome of the vote. The Commission could move to continue, approve, approve with modification, or deny the request. The motion failed on a three-four vote. 27. Commissioner Tyler suggested eliminating the freestanding monument sign, keeping the existing sign, or adding "Beer Hunter" to enhance it. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commissioner to clarify what was meant by "enhancement". Commissioner Tyler stated it was to make it bigger, brighter, or both. Staff stated there needed to be a determination as to what that means and does it require going back to the Commission for their approval. Discussion followed as to possible alternatives. Pc8-12-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting August. 12, 1997 28. Mr. Wright stated that the north elevation by Code, is allowed 50 square feet. If the monument and additional sign is not approved, he is still allowed to have up to 50 square feet for a sign. Staff stated that was true only if the sign is in scale with the building wall. 29. Chairman Butler asked how large the free standing sign was. Mr. Wright stated it was three feet wide by 10 feet high. 30. Commissioner Woodard asked why Commissioner Tyler did not want the new proposal. 31. Commissioner Tyler stated he had no objection to the existing logo sign on the north side being relocated or enlarged up to 15 square feet and illuminated. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 97-010 to leave the existing logo sign on the north elevation, or allowing it to be relocated or enlarged up to 15 square feet and illuminated. The motion carried with Commissioner Kirk voting No. 32. Mr. Wright asked if he could appeal this decision. Staff stated he had 15 days to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council and gave instructions on what had to be done. B. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590 AMENDMENT #1; a request of Jordan Architects, Inc., Lapis Energy Organization Inc., for approval of a site and building area revision for Parcel 3 of Tentative Parcel Map 28422, relating to the approved self -storage use proposed by Lapis Energy. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to repeat their recommendation in regards to Building "C". Staff stated it was to approve the proposal as presented except Building "C" as it would require a Specific Plan Amendment. It would require the applicant keep the RV parking spaces, as originally approved, or submit a Specific Plan Amendment to allow additional storage building spaces. PC8-12-97 I I Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 3. Commissioner Seaton asked why the applicant was requesting the change to the RV parking. Staff stated the original buyer fell out of the purchase and the new buyer is not interested in having the outdoor RV parking spaces. Commissioner Seaton stated that due to the recent problems regarding RV parking, she hated to see it go. Staff stated they had informed the applicant that this is a sensitive issue to the City and the process they will have to go through to change the project. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked what the walkway was that was adjacent to the office manager's building on the right side of the building. Mr. Kenneth Carrell, architect for the project stated it was the walkway leading into the manager's residence to allow him a private entrance. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked what the zoning was to the east of this site. Staff stated it was CR-Regional Commercial and Commercial Park. Commissioner Woodard stated the site is roughly one football length in depth and two football fields wide, and asked if the Fire Department had determined whether or not they could get in or out of the site. Staff stated that since it is similar to what was previously approved, it was not resubmitted to the Fire Department. The Fire Department will have transmitters to enter the security entrance gates that access north and south adjacent to the office. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that if there were a fire or accident there is only one way out. Staff stated the previous proposal had two gates. The applicant stated there were two gates at the front only. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated the approved proposal had a break up of the wall along Dune Palms Road and now the insets are being eliminated. Staff stated this was a change of the new owner. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated that in the staff report it appeared that this project was being tied into the Auto Mall project which was a great distance away. Staff clarified that the reference in the staff report was not to the Auto Mall project, but tp the uses contained within this Specific Plan for Parcel 2 which is for auto repair/retail use. Discussion followed regarding the uses proposed for the project. PC8-12.-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 8. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, Chairman Butler opened the meeting for Commission discussion. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was that the City did enact an RV Parking Ordinance to reduce the RV parking problem in the City. The original proposal allowed relief of this problem. Mr. Carrell, speaking for the applicant stated their intent was to have the vehicles parked inside the building. Commissioner Tyler stated that if that is the intent, he would support the project. 9. Commissioner Seaton asked how many RV's could be parked inside. Mr. Carrell stated it would be determined by how many bays he could get into the plan. It is not known yet how the unit mix will be distributed. 10. Commissioner Seaton asked if the number of RV's would be greatly reduced. Mr. Carrell stated it should not be greatly reduced, but perhaps less than 10%. 11. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if Building "C" was an issue that should even be discussed by the Commission at this time. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it would come back to the Commission under the Specific Plan Amendment, if the applicant applied for the change. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated the previous wall was designed to give some relief, now it is back to the "Great Wall of China" concept. He would hate to see the wall regress. Mr. Carrell stated the gaps were removed for security purposes. The buildings were stepped back at those locations so the gap would still be there but would be a full building instead of the wall. Commissioner Tyler suggested the applicant give a lot of thought to the design of the wall and the landscaping. Mr. Carrell stated they have a landscape architect dealing with this project specifically. The landscaping and retention basin are their priorities. 13. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was a problem having berms in the landscape setbacks when they are also being used as retention basins because you cannot have a berm and a retention basin in the same location. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was a problem. Staff is recommending the Highway 111 Guidelines incorporate a guideline specifying that retention basins for the project not be within the Highway 111 landscape setback. Commissioner Woodard reminded the Commission that this project is two YC8-1 2-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 football fields wide and that is a lot of land. He then asked staff how they could obtain the undulation if this is against retention basin requirements. Staff stated that since the location of the retention basin is not specified within the development standards, it would have to be a condition of the project. At present the grading plan shows the entire retention area within the Highway 111 setback. Discussion followed. 14. Commissioner Woodard asked how the Commission could condition this project to not have the retention basin within the Highway I I I landscape setback. Mr. Carrell stated it was their intention to undulate the retention basin. Commissioner Woodard stated he wanted this requirement added to the conditions. Staff stated they were looking toward requiring the retention within the landscape setbacks be specifically for the street runoff and the site itself contain the retention area for the project so each will serve a different purpose. This would limit the depth of the basins. Commissioner Woodard stated that if this was true it would change the architecture, as the project is built out to the landscape setback. 15. Commissioner Woodard commended the applicant on the design of the managers quarters, but the treatment on Dune Palms Road is lacking. Originally there were three openings, now the great wall. The original design had different heights as well as the undulation. He would recommend that the previous approvals be required to be brought into this application and require additional roof elements on Dune Palms Road as this had deteriorated drastically from what they approved. 16. Commissioner Gardner agreed with Commissioner Woodard. 17. Commissioner Kirk agreed with the lack of articulation on Dune Palms Road and the deterioration of the design on the project frontage. 18. Chairman Butler stated there were a lot of concerns that have been raised. As Building "C" is not a part of this approval it will come back for consideration at a later date. The architectural design on Dune Palms has been changed enough to be an issue. The retention basin, as designed, is in conflict with what the City is trying to do with berming in the landscape setback areas. How does the Commission address the major design changes that could be caused due to retention basins in the landscape setbacks? Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that as they could affect the overall project, they could be brought back with the Specific Plan Amendment. PC8-12-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to continue this project to come back with the Specific Plan and address all design and retention basin issues at that time. Unanimously approved. C. Minor Temporary Outdoor Event 97-146 - Mariachi Festival (PGA West Tennis & Fitness Center; a request of KSL Desert Resorts, Inc., for approval of a temporary use permit to have the 7th Annual Mariachi Festival benefitting the VIVA Charities Boys & Girls Club of the Coachella Valley. 1. Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Planning Manger Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Mr. Morey Mortinson, representing KSL, stated he submitted the plans as he had in previous years. He then went on to explain the project. 4. Chairman Butler asked if Code Enforcement or outside agencies would have to make an inspection before the event. Staff stated that if there were to be any outdoor stages on the grounds they will need to have a building inspection. Discussion followed regarding the project circulation and the conditions. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to adopt Minute Motion 97-011 approving Minor Temporary Outdoor Event 97-146, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: PC8-12-97 15 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 A. Discussion regarding the Hillside Conservation Ordinance. 1. Chairman Butter commended staff on their report as it was very informative and thorough. 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. Commissioner Tyler asked if the City was obligated to comply with the Department of Fish and Game's request. Staff stated the City is obligated to comply with outside agencies as they have the right to review and comment on any project. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked where the line is drawn as to when the Fish and Game should to be notified. Staff stated that as a general rule, whenever a project is subject to CEQA in relation to General Plan and Change of Zone projects they should be notified and given an opportunity to respond. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission wasn't directed by the City Council to review the Hillside Ordinance. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the City Council directed staff to review and bring any recommendations back to the Council. Staff therefore, has brought it to the Commission for their comment. 5. Commissioner Woodard questioned staff s regarding Discussion Item #2 of the report and asked if a qualified geologist should be hired to determine the toe of slope before the toe of slope or average slopes guidelines are determined for developable property? Doesn't the City make policy decisions before hiring someone? Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that was true and it was an issue up for discussion. The City has the option of hiring its own geologist to review any reports at any time. This is tentative and there are other options, but the City has to discuss the toe of slope and alluvial fan. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees with staff s direction; slope averaging may not make sense for La Quinta and hiring a geologist may not make sense. Generally he found that most liabilities have not come to fruition. He would like to see risk assessment. His concern is with some legality issues. The PC8-12.97 16 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 Indian Wells Ordinance prohibits development on slopes with a 20% or greater slope, but what if a parcel had all over 20% slopes, could that be a taking, if we were to consider this on an area that was being considered for annexation? Regarding the Rancho Mirage Ordinance which requires a vote of the public, if La Quinta is considering this, he does not believe it makes a lot of sense. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated he thought it would be a huge expense for the City to hire a geologist to survey all the mountains around the City. It would seem more practical to have the applicant do the survey. 8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman thanked the Commissioners for their comments and staff would see that they are forwarded on to the City Council. B. Discussion Regarding the Responsibility of the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Jerry Herman gave the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairrpan Butler asked staff to clarify that even though staff does do a design review of projects, how could the design review function of the Commission move along more smoothly. As the Commission reviews staff s recommendation on their design review and makes their modifications/changes, maybe the communication regarding this function could be improved to create a better product. Commissioner Woodard asked if it was possible for the applicant to supply a vicinity map with his submittal. In addition, staff needs to define the scale the applicant is to submit with their projects. Staff stated revisions would be made. Commissioner Woodard complimented staff on the submission package. He will try to be more specific during the review process in the future as it is a very important part of the Commission's responsibilities. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated it is important for each of the Commissioners to listen to a tape of their meetings periodically to get an understanding of how the Commission appears to the audience. PC8-12-97 17 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1997 5. Commissioner Kirk commented that Commissioner Woodard should continue with his detailed design review of the projects as it is an important aspect of the Commission's responsibilities. He then read a portion of Section 2.29.020 of the City's Code and suggested it would be worth the Commission's time to consider appointing a subcommittee to review large projects. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell's opinion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she was surprised to hear that there is still authority to appoint and affix membership of standing and temporary committees. The purpose of the City Council adopting combined policies for all the Commissions was to standardize them specifically. The City Council dissolved the Design Review Board to not create another layer for an applicant to go through for approval. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked if the subcommittee would have to be agendized and have to hold public hearings. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the committee was making a recommendation to the Planning Commission, yes it would be subject to the Brown Act. Discussion followed regarding alternatives. C. Commissioner Tyler's gave his report of the City Council meeting of August 5, 1997. D. Commissioner Woodard asked staff about the lack of landscaping on the Home Depot site. Specifically, why was it not bermed or hedged to hide the parking. Staff stated it was a temporary situation that staff is resolving. ADJOURNMENT: There being no fixffier business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on September 23, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission. was adjourned at 10:02 P.M. on August 12, 1997. PC8-12-97 18 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 CASE NOS.: Environmental Assessment 97-343, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permits 97-607 and 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 APPLICANTS: KSL Recreation Corp. And its Assigns (SP 121 E, Amend. #4, Zone Change 97-083, SDP 97-608, and Cert. Of Appropriateness 97-003); KSL Land Corp. And its Assigns (GPA 97-054); and KSL Desert Resorts, Inc. (TT 28545 and SDP 97-607). REQUEST AND LOCATIONS: 1. Approval of Environmental) Assessment 97-343, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (see EA Resolution for Environmental information). 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential 4-8 du. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from LDR (Low Density Residential 24 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50" Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 3. Approval of a Change of Zone from RM (Medium Density Residential 4-8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from RL ( Low Density Residential 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50" Avenue and 240 feet south of Eisenhower Drive. 4. Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121 F_ to update the plan and allow new development and uses for the area comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa c:\mydata\wpdocs\spl2leccrpt.wpd Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts, and the southeast corner of 50" Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map to divide approximately 62.5 acres into 134 lots for the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. 6. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-607 to allow removal of seven tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, and maintenance facilities and replace with 119 "residential specific plan" units and a health spa of approximately 20,200 square feet in the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east side of Avenida Obregon, across from the two existing sunken tennis courts. 7. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-608 to allow construction of a 244 space employee parking lot on approximately 2.4 acres, located approximately 220 feet south of 501h Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 8. Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure architectural compatibility between historic structures and proposed construction, pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 97-343 for this request pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is recommended for certification. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Open Space, Golf Course Open Space, Tourist Commercial, Watercourse/Flood Control, Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), and Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). ZONING: OS (Open Space), GC (Golf Course), TC (Tourist Commercial), FP (Floodplain), RL (Low Density Residential), and RM (Medium Density Residential) BACKGROUND: cAmydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd 0()-04 This request will be reviewed by the City Council at its meeting on September 16, 1997. It was determined that the Planning Commission should review the revised portions of the project (i.e. deletion of the maintenance facility in SDP 97-608) and provide a recommendation. SDP 97-608 has been revised with the deletion of the maintenance facility. The existing maintenance facilities will continue to be used in place of a new facility. The employee parking lot location has also been moved to the south and west, between existing golf holes. Attached is the City Council staff report which discuses the current proposal (attachment 1). REQUIRED FINDINGS: Environmental Assessment 97-343 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. The City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the Planning Commission considered all significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. General Plan Amendment 97-054 and Zone Change 97-083 1. This Amendment and Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment and Zone Change only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. c:\mydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd 10000.) 2. This Amendment and Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. 3. The new land use and zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The new land use and zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use and zone designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. Specific Plan Amendment 121 E, Amendment 4 1. The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club parking lots located near residential uses). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. The proposed development will be reviewed c:\mydata\wp4ocs\spl2leccrpt.wpd 100004 under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts. Tentative Tract 28545 The Tentative Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 121 E in that its lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the Map is mostly developed and mitigation measures and conditions will be imposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access to the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. Site Development Permit 97-607 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that units of this type are permitted in the Tourist Commercial designation that exist on part of this property and is proposed for the balance of this property. 2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. cArnydata\wpd=\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd A00079 4. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that it is of architectural design, colors, and materials, and has been recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commissuon. 5. The site design of the project is attractive and well designed and appropriate for the area. Parking has been kept around the perimeter of the site to increase the pedestrian aspect of the project. 6. The landscape design of the project with utilize plants compatible with the existing development. An emphasis on landscaping will reinforce the resort community image and character of the area. 7. The project will not require excessive new signs since it will be a part of the La Quinta Resort and Club. Site Development Permit 97-608 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan because the use is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the Specific Plan area. 2. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended. 4. The architectural design of the project is adequate and compatible materials and colors will be used. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with, the project will be architecturally acceptable. 5. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with the site design will be acceptable. The revision will mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding residences by moving it to the west and south. 6. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping will provide visual screening of the on site facilities. c: \mydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd J1000 6 Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 The Certificate of Appropriateness has been deemed acceptable by the Historic Preservation Commission in that they have determined the proposed 119 resort residential units are architecturally compatible with the historic La Quinta Resort Structures, pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. CONCLUSION : The applications, subject to the conditions as recommended by Staff, are acceptable. The Site Development Permit applications will provide projects compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 97-343; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 97- ,recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 97-054; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Zone Change 97-083; 4. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, subject to conditions; 5. Adopt Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of Tentative Tract 28545, subject to conditions; 6. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-607, allowing construction of 119 residential specific plan units and a health spa, subject to conditions; 7. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-608, allowing construction of an employee parking lot, subject to conditions; c:\tnydata\wpdocs\spl2leccrpt.wpd )f1O0() ; 8. Adopt Resolution 97- , recommending approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003, which ensures that the proposed construction is appropriate for the existing historic structures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Excerpt from City Council report for September 16, 1997. cAmydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: at I ill A I a (J U Christine di lorio, Planning Manager 0008 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT #4, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-054, ZONE CHANGE 97-083, TENTATIVE TRACT 28545, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SPA AND FITNESS CENTER, EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT, AND 119 RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN UNITS WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT CAMPUS LOCATED WEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND 50TH AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 15th day of September, and 8" day of July, 1997, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings as requested by the KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97-607, Site Development Permit 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTION 36 AND 1, TOWNSHIPS 5 SOUTH AND 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution No. 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case, because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Conditions of Approval, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed; and, PALESLIE\pc Res EA 97-343.wpd i 0 0 0 () 9 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Environmental Assessment 97-343 September 15, 1997 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation to the City Council for certification of Environmental Assessment 97-343; 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. The City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the Planning Commission considered all significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the city Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment 97-343 for Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97- 083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97-607, Site Development Permit 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the project entitlement Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September 1997, by the followirTg vote, to wit: P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 97-343."d 1 {110 0 1 0 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Environmental Assessment 97-343 September 15, 1997 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 11ALESLOpc Res EA 97-343.wpd 100011 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 97-343 Case No.:GPA 97-054 Date:August 25, 1997 TTM-285459 SP 121-E, Amend. #4 SDP 97-607, SDP 97-608, CZ 97-083 I. Name of Proponent: KSL Desert ResortInc Address: 54-140 PGA Boulevard La Quinta Phone: 760-564-1088 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): La Quinta Resort Specific Plan CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 I n()0 41-1t 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. X Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Earth Resources Water Air Quality III. DETERMINATION. Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and Human Health Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: X Public Services Utilities X Aesthetics X Cultural Resources Recreation 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 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 "potential significant unless mitigated". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. August 25,1997 For: City. of La Ouinta Community Development Department P:\Env Cklst 97-343 M 100013 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. X Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Earth Resources Water Air Quality III. DETERMINATION. Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and Human Health Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: X Public Services Utilities X Aesthetics X Cultural Resources Recreation 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 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 "potential significant unless mitigated". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. _August 25, 1997 For: City of La Quinta Community Development Department P:\Env Cklst 97-343 ►91 7100014 Potentialh 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? X b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or X policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. X impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local X population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly X or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable X 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 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 X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? X h)Expansive soils? X i)Unique geologic or physical features? X PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -iii- 1000111 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major 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? b)Seismic ground shaking c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e)Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? lr)Expansive soils? i)Unique geologic or physical features? P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -iii- Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X 91 X KI X X X X X X X X X )00Ol� 3.4 3.5 Ml Water. Would the project result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? 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? g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h)Impacts to groundwater quality? AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d)Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -iv- Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X 91 rN X X rN 1/ X X X X X X X '100017 3.4 3.5 3.6 Water. Would the project result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? 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? g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h)Impacts to groundwater quality? AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d)Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -iv- Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact M E.1 X M X X X X X X X X X X 100018 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d)Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? X e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting X alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their X 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 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal X pool)? 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 X inefficient manner? 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of X hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possibie interference with an emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazards? PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -v- 3.7 3.9 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c)lnadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d)Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? X e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting X alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their X 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 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal X pool)? e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of X hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazards? P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -v- 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 Potentially Less Than Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Impact No Impact Mitigated Impact d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable X brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)Increases in existing noise levels? X b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 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 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? X c)L,ocal or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? X e)Storm water drainage X f)Solid waste disposal? X 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 PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -vl- 10002 1 Potentially Less Than Potentially Significant Significant 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 Significant Unless Impact Impact Mitigated d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)Increases in existing noise levels? X b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 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 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? X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? X e)Storm water drainage X f)Solid waste disposal? X 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 P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -vi- No Impact VIA 1000212-1 3.14 RIFF-i 3.16 Potentially Potentiallv Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)Disturb paleontological resources? 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? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b)Affect existing recreational opportunities? 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 further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PAEnv Ck1st 97-343 -vii- Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X KI X X X M 99 3.14 3.15 3.16 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)Disturb paleontological resources? 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? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)lncrease the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b)Affect existing recreational opportunities? 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 further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -vii- Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X 99 X X */ X X X ")11!r)024 EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. 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. P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -viii- EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. 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. PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -viii- 000026 INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 La Quinta Resort Project: Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97-054 Zone Change 97-083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97-607 Site Development Permit 97-608 Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 KSL Recreation Corporation and Assigns 56-140 PGA Blvd. La Quinta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 Leslie Mouriquand Associate Planner August 25, 1997 Page 1 000027 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 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 5 2.3 Operational Characteristics 5 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 6 2.6 Related Projects 6 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 3.1 Land Use and Planning 6 3.2 Population and Housing 10 3.3 Earth Resources 11 3.4 Water 15 3.5 Air Quality 19 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 22 3.7 Biological Resources 26 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 30 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 31 3.10 Noise 32 3.11 Public Services 34 3.12 Utilities 36 3.13 Aesthetics 39 3.14 Cultural Resources 41 3.15 Recreation 42 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 43 5 EARLIER ANALYSES 44 Page 2 100028 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify any potential environmental impacts of the amendment to the Specific Plan which includes development applications, changes in land use designation, Permits and a Tentative Tract map for the construction of new residential units, a spa and fitness center, and an employee parking lot within the La Quinta Resort campus. In order for the Applicant to construct these new structures, the following applications must be approved by the City: Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Tentative Tract Map 28545, Site Development Permits 97-607 and 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97- 003. In addition, this Environmental Assessment prepared for the above applications must be certified by the City Council. The Specific Plan area is located in the City of La Quinta, California. This area includes the La Quinta Resort campus which is primarily west of Eisenhower Drive, in Section 36 of Township 6 East, Range 5 South, and Section 1, of Township 6 East, Range 6 South, as depicted on the La Quinta 7.5' USGS Topographic Quad Map. The proposed employee parking lot will be located south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 an area also within the Specific Plan. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the prinicpal 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 approve the land use designations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff 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 State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the various project applications; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Page 3 . in(1029 To assist 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 applications were deemed complete subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended development and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared by Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner, for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts for some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist (Land use and planning, air quality, transportation/circulation, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources). Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed project in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) which will reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2• PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is 31.18 square miles in area located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. 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 the City of Palm Desert, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The project site is located in approximately the west -central portion of the City, mostly west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. The La Quinta Hotel is located within the project site known as the La Quinta Resort. Page 4 Q0003() 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project site is a portion of a 638 acre combined residential and hotel resort complex nestled in a cove setting below the Santa Rosa Mountains. This cove is a gently sloping alluvial fan with steep hillsides surrounding on three sides. The land included in this project has been inhabited and utilized since prehistoric times. In the early 1920's Walter Morgan purchased the property from the State for the purposes of developing a desert hideaway resort. In 1926, he began construction of the hotel and six cottages called Casitas. Morgan marketed the hotel to the Hollywood celebrities who frequented it for rest and relaxation. Over the years, the resort was expanded with additional casitas, additional golf courses, a landing strip, a stable, swimming pool, and other structures. The 1970's and 80's witnessed considerable expansion with a number of hotel rooms and single family homes constructed in the surrounding area of the Specific Plan. Thus, a majority of the property has been developed. There is no existing development in the hillsides and none is proposed. In 1988 Amendment #2 was approved to construct a maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The third Specific Plan amendment was approved in 1989 for 77 hotel units that were never built. In 1995, another amendment to the Specific Plan was approved to permit the construction of a conference/ballroom facility and rearrange parking facilities. The history of amendments to the Specific Plan includes one approved under Riverside County Jurisdiction, and three approved under City of La Quinta jurisdiction. The proposed amendment subject to this environmental review will be the fourth amendment under City jurisdiction. Today there is a total of 640 guest rooms and suites, with 66,000 square feet of meeting and function space. A retail arcade accommodates visitors and residents and there are three restaurants. There are two 18-hole golf courses and 25 swimming pools, 3 5 hot spas and a tennis club. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Site Development Permits will consist of a new spa building and future fitness building, 119 new single family clustered 1, 2 & 3 bedroom residential units with hotel guest opportunities totaling 210 rooms or "keys", and an employee parking lot with 244 spaces. The proposed buildings will operate as new amenities for the resort complex. It is possible that all or part of the proposed new single family units may be purchased by one entity, leased to the La Quinta Hotel and operated as hotel units, or it is also possible that each unit will be purchased by individual owners. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is to not only to create new amenities for the resort visitors and residents„ but also update the distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the plan, and provide implementation measures in the form of regulations and standards on a plan and in a text. Page 5 000031 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed project will require reviews and recommendations of approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of Environmental Assessment 97-343 Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97-054 Zone Change 97-083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97-607 Site Development 97-608 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS The project does not have any related projects other than those discussed in this addendum. There have been several plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last twelve years. With on -going development activities at the resort it is likely that there will be additional site development permit approvals required in the future. This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts, and compatibility with the proposed design of the spa and residences associated with the land use, subdivision design, architectural design, and historic architectural approval of the proposed development. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds of 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. The topographical relief in the valley ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Page 6 1)00032 Local Environmental getting The Specific Plan is located mostly west of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. A small portion extends to the southeast corner of that intersection. The mountains are steep and rocky, and provide a striking contrast to the relatively flat cove area. Currently there are 640 hotel rooms or suites, two 18-hole golf courses, a commercial arcade, four restaurants, single family homes and custom home lots surrounding the resort campus, a tennis complex, and administrative buildings located on the campus. Only a few small parcels have never been developed within the resort or hillside custom lots and are still vacant. Historically, the resort property has been included agricultural uses, a horse stable, a landing strip, and was the site of a historic lake known as Lake Marshall. The land was also occupied prehistorically, as evidenced by the archaeological sites on the property. The land use and development history for the resort began with the initial approval of Specific Plan 121-E in 1975 by Riverside County Board of Supervisors. This plan allowed the development of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, a 27-hole golf course, and service facilities on 619 acres. In 1982, an amendment to the specific plan was approved to allow for 279 additional condominium units, 146 new hotel units, and the annexation of 19.23 acres into the specific plan area for the development of the La Quinta Tennis Club and Tennis Villas (200 condominiums) in the central portion of the resort property. This amendment was processed under Riverside County jurisdiction as the City of La Quinta did not incorporate until May 9, 1982. In 1988, the first amendment under City jurisdiction was approved to add a new maintenance facility with employee and overflow parking lot located at the southeast corner of the Tennis Villas area. These facilities were constructed on two long pieces of land, the north parcel to have the maintenance facility and employee parking, .while the southerly parcel was developed with 162 parking spaces for the hotel use. In 1989, Specific Plan Amendment #2 was approved to add 77 new hotel units. These units were never built. In 1995, Amendment #3 was approved by the City in conjunction with Plot Plan 95-555 for the construction of a ballroom expansion and elimination of designated parking area and replacement with associated parking. On May 14, 1997, the Applicant made application to the City for Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121-E and related development applications as described in this document. Currently, the La Quinta Resort campus consists of 640 hotel rooms, convention facilities including 60,000 + sq. ft. of exhibit space, restaurants, officelretail space, two 18-hole golf courses, 25 swimming pools, 38 spas and a tennis club. The Specific Plan currently allows for a total number of Page 7 '►o0033 1558 residential units. The gated residential sections of the resort include Santa Rosa Cove - 334 units (6 lots vacant), The Enclave/Mountain Estates - 32 custom units with 59 vacant lots, Los Estados - 40 residential units, Tennis Villas - 48 units built, 200 units approved, and land east of Eisenhower Drive - 110 units potential. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Adjacent land uses and their designations include: Low Density Residential uses to the east, Medium Density Residential.to the south, and Santa Rosa Mountains Open Space with a Hillside Conservation Overlay to the north and west. The Specific Plan area extends to the city boundary on the west. The existing residential, tourist commercial, golf and open space uses of the resort are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The existing General Plan Land Use designations for the residential resort include Low Density Residential (LDR) with a range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, and Medium Density Residential (MDR) with 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Commercial designations include Tourist Commercial. Other land uses include Golf Course, Open Space, and Water Course/Flood Control. The existing land uses are depicted in Exhibit 5 (Page 2.5) of the Specific Plan document submitted for this project. The proposed changes to the land use designations are depicted in Exhibit 6 of the above referenced document. Acreage under MDR will change from 22.5 acres to 5.5, while TC will increase from 43.5 acres to 60.5 acres in Planning Area I. The requested change involves an change of 6.3 acres to the TC (Tourist Commercial) designation, a reduction of the LDR (Low Density Residential) designation from 18.9 acres to 12.6 acres, but no change in the 6 acres of GC (Golf Course) and 3.5 acres of W (Water Course/Floodway) designated areas for that area east of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenue 50 - Planning Area II. The proposed changes in land use designations would serve as mitigation for the proposed development by providing for consistent and compatible land use categories. Existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area include RL - Low Density Residential, GC - Golf Course, WC - Water Course, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area II), and RM - Medium Density Residential, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area 1), TC-Tourist Commercial, GC - Golf Course, OS - Open Space, FP - Flood plain, and HC - Hillside Conservation . The Zoning District boundaries are proposed to be modified in that there would be an increase in the acreage of the TC Zone, a portion of the RL area would be redesignated to TC for the proposed parking lot and residential specific plan area located east of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. The proposed changes are depicted in Exhibit 8 of the Specific Plan document. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designations and would serve as mitigation for the proposed development in those specific areas where the zone change is requested, in that there would be consistency with the General Plan land use designations. The current Specific Plan for the resort provides for a maximum of 1558 residential dwelling units on 638 acres of the resort campus that are planned for residential, golf course, and open space uses. There is a mix of densities from 2 to 8 units per acre, with an overall density of 2.4 dwelling units per Page 8 ­o(1034 acre. The proposed Specific Plan amendment will reduce the overall allowable dwelling unit production to 1367 dwelling units. This number is calculated as follows: 1367 -152 units east of Obregon = 1406. 1406 - 60 units of the allowable 110 on land east of Avenue 50 (assuming 12.6 acres x DU's/ac nets 50 built on the LDR = 1346. 1346 +21 transferred from the Hillside area = 1367 units (Source: Draft Specific Plan Amendment #4).Development standards will determine the actual density for a particular parcel for residential units in the TC-RSP areas. The proposed Specific Plan amendment would create a unique use category specified as Tourist Commercial- Residential Specific Plan (TC-RSP). With the anticipated use of the proposed single family detached residential units as potential hotel rooms that can be rented as "keys", a review of the Tourist Commercial (TC) Zoning District indicates that the purpose and intent of this zone is to provide for the development and regulation of a narrow range of specialized commercial uses oriented to tourist and resort activity. Representative land uses include retail uses, general commercial uses, office uses and health services, dining, drinking, and entertainment uses, recreation uses, public and semi-public uses, residential and lodging uses, accessory uses, and temporary and interim uses. Residential uses in the TC- (RSP) zone include townhome, single family, and multi -family residential uses in accordance with the Specific Plan Residential Overlay. Particular uses requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit include resort maintenance plants and facilities, pool/spa and water park uses, theaters, live or motion picture -indoor or outdoor, and parking garages as an accessory use to residential and lodging uses, and timeshare units. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions over the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta has lead agency jurisdiction over this project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. An EIR was prepared for the original Specific Plan in 1975. Environmental Assessment 95-304 was prepared for a ballroom expansion at the resort which was a part of Amendment #3 of the Specific Plan. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for that EA. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on the project site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey). D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve the demolition of six existing Page 9 rmoo3l condominium buildings, each with 3 units, in order to construct the- new resort residential units. A total of 10,020 square feet will be demolished. Occupancy of the condominium buildings was at resort market -rates which precluded low-income families or individuals. Impact to the physical arrangement of the existing resort will be minimal as the proposed new buildings will allow for the continuing of the existing spatial organization of open spaces and walkways between buildings (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan).The proposed parking lot will be located south of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, which is physically separated from the main resort campus. However, the parking lot parcel was included in the Specific Plan area several years ago. Traffic from this parcel to the main resort campus will be via public streets separating the two Specific Plan areas. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is made up of nine cities in the eastern portion of Riverside County with a total population of more than 250,000 people. The current population of the County is 1.38 million (Source: Dept. Of Finance, 1996). Local Environmental Setting La Quinta incorporated in 1982 with a population of 5,260. Fourteen years later, the City has grown to 3 1. 18 square miles with more than 18,931 permanent residents within its City limits. La Quinta's population ranks it sixth largest of the cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth has been approximately 10% in recent years (e.g., 1,000 people/year). The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000. The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population. The ethnic composition of the City is 70% White, 26% Hispanic, 2% Black, 2% Asian/Other. The 1990 Census indicates that 81% of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21% are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). The total number of housing units in the City is 9,923. Single family housing units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 6,845 detached single family units, 2,260 attached single family units, 571 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.118 (Source: 1997, Dept. of Finance). The number of housing units occupied is 6070, with 38.83% vacant. Median home prices in the City are just below $120,000 (1990 Census) which is consistent with the average for Riverside County but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overviews). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source; Community Development Department, City of La Quinta). A Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Page 10 `,40003S Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential specific plan units will generate additional residents and visitors to La Quinta, however, the anticipated vast majority of occupants of these units will be tourists staying at the hotel. It is not anticipated that a significant number of permanent new residents will result from this project that will cumulatively impact regional or local populations. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living at home. Often they will be seasonal residents, as opposed to permanent residents. The proposed project will provide a unique residential experience geared to tourist and resort uses and not likely to be used as permanent homes. Temporary construction -related jobs will be created as the new units and other buildings proposed for this project are built. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There may be new jobs created for administration, management, attendants, and specialist for the spa and fitness center. It is anticipated that the existing staff will utilize the new parking lot. The proposed residential specific plan units may create some jobs for domestics, gardeners, and hotel staff. The number of new jobs created by this project is not anticipated to exceed 30. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive economic impact. New jobs will have an impact upon employee parking and vehicle trips which will be considered in thelransportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the resort. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings are within an existing developed resort campus. All infrastructure is existing. Connections to existing main lines will be required. No significant impacts are anticipated for this issue. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. It is proposed that six condominium buildings, each with 3 units, will be demolished in order to make room for the new resort residential units. The condos are a part of the hotel room stock and not individually owned or leased for long term occupancy. Thus, there will be no impact upon the City's stock of permanent occupancy housing stock and housing needs. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the steep, rocky mountains to the south and west. The Cove area of La Quinta is located on an alluvial fan. Elevations reach 1,400 feet above msl. and to below sea level in the southeastern portion of the City. Slopes on the valley floor are gently, except in areas of rolling sand dunes and sand shadows. The alluvial soils that make up the Cove area 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 Page 11 _ ,)non3i fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The entire valley is underlain by hundreds of feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local Environmental Setting The area where the project site is located is in a historical part of the City. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that a part of the site was farmed at one time. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 60 to 40 feet above msl (Source: TT 28545, USGS La Quinta Quad). Approximately 207.5 acres are designated as Open Space and are located in the steep rocky mountains at the western, southwestern, and northern boundaries of the property. There are two inferred earthquake faults, one located approximately 2 miles south of the resort property, and the other, approximately 1.5 miles east. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III with Zone 12 being the most hazardous (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan, La Quints MEA). According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1979, there are seven different types of soils present on the resort property. These include Ip - Indio fine sandy loam, Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, GbA - Gilman fine sandy loam, MaB - Myoma fine sand, CcC - Carrizo stony sand, Ru - Rubble land, and GeA - Gilman silt loam. Each of these soil types has distinctive characteristics and land use suitability. The Is (Indio very fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the relatively flat areas where the propsed spa and fitness buildings and new resort residential units are proposed. This soil type belongs to the coarse -silty, mixed (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow, and the risk of wind or water erosion is slight. The best use of this soil type is for agriculture, such as truck crops. For construction purposes the shrink -swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The Ip (Indio fine sandy loam) soil type is found in the vicinity of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. This soil type belong to the same taxonomic class as does the Is soil type. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard from wind or water is slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. This soil type is best suited to agricultural uses. The shrink - swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GbA (Gilmore fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the northern and southern portions of the flatter resort areas on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. This soil type belong to the coarse -loamy, mixed (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class of soils. This soil type is subject to flooding. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. Runoff is slow, erosion hazards are slight, Page 12 _ 110003E however, blowing sand is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is agriculture. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The MaB (Myoma fine sand) is found in areas with 0 to 5 % slope in the northwest corner of the resort property. This soil belongs to the mixed, hyperthermic Typic Torripsamment taxonomic class. Runoff is very slow, erosion is slight. The best use for this soil type is agricultureal uses, however it is suitable for homesites and recretion uses. Blowing sand hazards are high. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low. Cut banks will cave in shallow excavations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CcC (Carrizo stony sand) soil type is found on slopes 2 to 9 percent in grade, on alluvial fans where drainage from the mountain enters the valley. This soil type belongs to the snarly -skeletal, mixed hyperthermic Typic Torriothent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow except in channels. The best land use for this soil type is for watershed and wildlife habitat. The shrink -swell factor is low. Risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is moderate to high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). Rubble land (Ru) soil type is found on slopes with 2 to 15 % grade, on very old alluvial fans. It is composed of 90% cobbles, stones, and boulders, cut by numerous ill-defined intermittent stream channels in a braided pattern. Riverwash is found alongside the main drainageways among the steep slopes. Desert Varnish is found on the exposed surfaces. Vegetation is an extremely sparse cover of brush, creosote bush, barrel cactus, bush sunflower, ocotillo, and an occasional clump of annual grass in the pockets of fine sand. The best land use for this soil type is watershed, wildlife habitat, and recreation (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GeA (Gilman silt loam) soil type is found on slopes with 0 to 2 % grade and has a slit loam surface layer. This soil type belongs to the same taxonomic class as does GbA soil type. Runoff is slow and erosion hazards are slight. The best land use for this soil type is for growing citrus, dates, cotton, and alfalfa hay. The shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CsA (Coachella fine sandy loam) is found in areas with 0 to 2 % slopes. This soil type belongs to the sandy, mixed hyperthermic, Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. It is found on the parcel where the proposed employee parking lot is proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. Runoff is medium, and erosion hazards are slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is for truck crops. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risk for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The site of the proposed spa and fitness buildings, and the residential specific plan units has been graded and compacted in past years in anticipation of construction that did not take place. Over time this same area has been used for soil borrowing and depositing from adjacent construction projects. It is estimated that the project site soil has been disrupted to a depth of about 10 feet. Page 13 '10()039 A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred earthquake fault lines in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the resort. These faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site (Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, City of La Quinta General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new development will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring prople to the site who will be subjected to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone 111. The new structures will be required to meet current seismic design and construction standards to reduce to risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project site is not anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunami. There are no active volcanoes in the local area to create a hazard. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? No Impact. The proposed building sites are several hundred feet from the steep mountains to the west, thus there is no possibility of landslides or mudslides. The existing structures within the Specific Plan are on a gently sloping alluvial fan. Page 14 100040 F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require grading and trenching for the various buildings. Geotechnical reports will be required to be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review prior to issuance of grading permits. The Applicant states that grading will include 3.90 acres for the proposed parking lot, 0.8 acre for the proposed Spa building, and 6.5 acres for the residential specific plan units. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: La Quinta MEA). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the project site Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, and Ip - Indio fine sandy loam. Both soil types are characterized by slow runoff, slight erosion hazards from either wind or water, and no flood hazards associated with them. The shrink -swell capacity is low, indicating that these soil types are stable for construction considerations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Less Than Significant Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located within the project site or near enough to the project to be affected by the proposed spa and fitness buildings, employee parking lot, or the new residential specific plan units. 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. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as wellas a significant supply for the City's Page 15 )00041 nonpotable irrigtion needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via eleven wells in the City operated by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy Ranch, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the City is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use -of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet is considered excellent. 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 as more demands for water are placed on the supply. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private development which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated ground water; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which results in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (TDS) increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process for which the City of La Quinta is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Setting The Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1974 by Harry H. Schmitz & Associates for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club, states that the Lower Coachella Valley receives imported water from the Colorado River and is primarily used for agricultural purposes. This water has little importance to the Upper Valley, with the noted exception of La Quinta. In La Quinta this flow moves into the area from the north and northeast, and no groundwater barriers have been identified in this locality. Groundwater recharge comes from these subsurface inflows enhanced by seepage of applied irrigation water from the Coachella Canal. Page 16 Practically all water used in La Quinta is obtained from wells located within the community. The domestic water system serving the older part of the community was operated by the Santa Carmelita Water Company. The first golf and condominium development was served by the La Quanta Water Company. Now, the entire City is served by the Coachella Valley Water District. There are still a few large private wells used for irrigation and agriculture within the community. The proposed project sites do not have standing water on them. The nearest stands of water consist of several small lakes on the golf courses. Historically, there was a lake at the southern end of the property known as Lake Marshall. The lake dried several decades ago. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed in 1970. Construction of the system was completed in November 1986. The nearest stormwater facility to the project sites is the Oleander Reservoir which is located south of the resort property and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which passes through the southeastern portion of the resort property. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings including the residential units will decrease absorption rates and amounts in that foundations and hardscape will be placed where there was previously none, except for where the condominium buildings that are slated for demolition and the tennis stadium are located. Pavement for the proposed employee parking lot will decrease absorption rates in that area. Drainage patterns are designed to direct runoff to the existing golf course lakes. The new buildings are not anticipated to alter the drainage pattern significantly as they will be located amidst existing buildings with an established drainage pattern. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project sites are within Zone X on the Federal Flood Insurance rate maps. Zone X includes those areas determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain. The area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. Local stormwater drainage requirements for this site are the responsibility of the City (Source: CVWD). C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the proposed new buildings including the residences will be required to be directed into the existing drainage facilities. Water discharging from the Page 17 100043 proposed spa building is anticipated to be proximal to swimming pool or jacuzzi water. Spas are regulated by the Public Health Department and will be monitored by resort staff in accordance with Health Department requirements for appropriate chemical maintenance and sanitation (Source: Application materials). D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no bodies of surface water on the proposed project sites. Existing drainage facilities are located south of the resort property and include the golf course lakes. Runoff water is designed to flow into the lakes and Oleander Reservoir. Flooding occurs rarely so that there is anticipated to be little change in the amount of surface water in the vicinity (Source: Application materials; La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial natural bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural reservoirs are still in use. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man-made stormwater diversion channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. The future development of the project sites will not affect to a significant degree any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survey; Application materials; La Quinta MEA). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Development of the proposed buildings and units does not include any new wells or cuts into the aquifer (Source: Application materials; La Quinta 1VIEA). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells as there is not proposed alteration to the rate or direction of flow of groundwater supply by any aspect of the construction or operation of the spa and fitness buildings, parking lot, or the residential specific plan units (Source: Application materials). H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Several of the proposed buildings will be constructed in an existing resort campus, with six condominium buildings and a tennis stadium, and tennis courts to be demolished in order to make room for the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific Page 18 . 0()044 plan units. Some vacant land will be part of this development as well. The employee parking lot will be constructed on vacant land. The proposed development does not include any cuts into the groundwater supply, nor does it include any operational activities that would impact the quality of the groundwater (Source: Application materials). 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but to a lesser extent than SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes. The AQMD has defined Criteria Pollutants of concern in SCAB and the Coachella Valley. These pollutants consist of lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM 10, sulfate, and visibility. There are national, state, and regional levels for almost all of the pollutants. There are standards for ozone and PM 10 at the Coachella Valley level. For the other pollutants the high level of governmental standards must be referred to as indicated in Table 3-1 - Criteria Pollutants of Concern in SCAB and Coachella Valley, of the Draft A MCEQA Air Qualb Handbook. Local Environmental Setting The City 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. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMP, a plan which described measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the. City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. In addition, the type of development Page 19 )00045 proposed by the amendment to the Specific Plan would be covered by the La Quinta General Plan EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations in that this type of development is needed to further enhance the quality of life sought as essential and beneficial in attracting new residents, business, and visitors to La Quinta and generally promoting increased investment and return on property values. "The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated a "severe-17" ozone nonattainment area because of violations of the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. he 1997 Air Quality Management Plan indicates that attainment of the 1-hour federal ozone standard will be possible by November 15, 2007 (as required by the Federal Clean Air Act) with the proposed control strategy for the South Coast Air Basin and control of locally generated emissions via state and federal regulations. The Coachella Valley was reclassified in February 1993 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "serious" nonattainment area for PM10, which means that he valley had violated federal health -based standards for particulate matter. PM10 monitoring in the Coachella Valley over the last three years indicates that (with the exception of one measured PM10 exceedance due to a high wind natural event) that area has attained the federal PM10 standard and since the EPA recently released a natural events policy which exempts certain high wind events causing PM10 air quality exceedances as being counted as a violation, the Coachella Valley is now eligible for consideration by the EPA as having attained the federal PM10 standard. The proposed project is located south of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments `Blowsand Hazard Zone" (Source: Endo Engineering, 1997). A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. An air quality study was prepared for the proposed project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. The report concludes the following: "1. Daily and quarterly construction -related emissions associated with the proposed project are not projected to exceed the SCAQMD_ significance threshold criteria and therefore should be considered insignificant. 2. Upon completion in 1999, the proposed project would generate approximately: 305.7 pounds of carbon monoxide, 35.5 pounds of reactive organic compounds, 40.0 pounds of Nox 2.5 pounds of and 3.2 pounds of PM10, primarily due to motor vehicle use associated with the project. 3. The proposed project is not considered to have a significant long-term impact on air quality, since it will not exceed any of the SCAQMD operational threshold criteria. 4. CALINE 4 modeling indicates that the one -hour and eight -hour state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide will not be exceeded at the largest intersection carrying a significant amount of project -related traffic in 1999, regardless of whether or not the project is constructed. Page 20 MOW, 5. The proposed project appears to be consistent with the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan and the Coachella Valley PM10 SIP." The Endo report lists 10 mitigation measures for air quality issues that will become conditions of project approval. These conditions are found on Pages 1-2 and 5-2 of the Endo report. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, residences, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individual recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. A radius of 1/4 mile for sensitive receptors is the AQMD standard for consideration of this issue. Within this radius, the land uses surrounding the three buildings include residential, hotel, open space, and tourist commercial, and athletic facilities. The residential and athletic facilities constitute sensitive receptors. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "Sensitive receptors." If sensitive receptors are located adjacent to a major intersection, carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" may occur during times of peak use. High levels of carbon monoxide are also associated with traffic congestion, and with idling or slow -moving vehicles, depending on the background CO concentration. Therefore, projects that could negatively impact levels of service at major intersections with nearby sensitive receptors must quantify and, if necessary, mitigate potential impacts (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Endo Engineering, Aug. 1997). The Air Quality report prepared for the project by Endo Engineering, states that the current and future project -related traffic volumes in Planning Areas I and II are quite small. In addition, the ambient carbon monoxide concentrations in the Coachella Valley are very low. As a result, the likelihood of a CO "hot spot" that could affect pedestrians or local residents is extremely remote." C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the proposed development within the resort. The three proposed building areas are located within an existing resort development that is located within a desert cove at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The distal end of the cove is oriented toward the east and is protected from the prevailing winds from the west. The resort does not have any activities or land uses that would alter the climatic factors in any significant or detectable manner (Source: Application materials; site survey). D. Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed building areas are not anticipated to result in any detectable odors, such as those from restaurants, chemical products, or stockpiling of waste materials (Source: Application materials). Page 21 100 0 4 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Eisenhower Drive, Avenues 50 and 52. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. There is a relatively low incidence of automobile accidents at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The La Quinta MEA states that for the year 1988 to 1989, there were 6 reported accidents at this intersection. For 1995, there were two reported accidents, and in 1996, there were four reported accidents. Thus far, for 1997, there have been three reported accidents for this intersection (Sources: La Quinta MEA; SWITRS; Public Works Department records). Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus lines operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects Eisenhower and Avenue 50 with the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the West. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert (Source: La Quinta MEA). There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project is an update to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area is located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, and at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The resort is accessed at Avenida Fernando, north of Avenue 50, and at the main entrance located at Avenue 50. There are traffic signals at both Avenue 50 and Avenida Fernando, on Eisenhower Drive. Both Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 are designated as Primary Arterial roadways, and has a right-of-way width ranging between 100 and 110 feet. The La Quinta MEA states that as of June 1991 the average daily traffic flow along Eisenhower Drive, north of Avenue 50, was 9,800; and south of Avenue 50, it was 7,900. Along Avenue 50 the average daily traffic count was 3,500. The La Quinta General Plan lists roadway deficiencies within the City. The area in the vicinity of the project site has a lack of road shoulders and sidewalk facilities to support alternative modes such as Page 22 100048 of Avenue 50, was 9,800; and south of Avenue 50, it was 7,900. Along Avenue 50 the average daily traffic count was 3,500. The La Quinta General Plan lists roadway deficiencies within the City. The area in the vicinity of the project site has a lack of road shoulders and sidewalk facilities to support alternative modes such as bicycling and pedestrian movement throughout most of the system. The proposed amendment will permit the consolidation of two existing parking areas for the hotel into a single new parking lot. The proposed new lot will have 244 parking spaces which will replace the fragmented 215 spaces in the two existing parking areas. The two existing parking areas are located in sensitive residential surroundings at the rear of the hotel, west of Avenida Obregon and north of Calle Mazatlan. There is also a neighboring lawn maintenance/storage area that can accommodate 17 vehicles. The hotel employee and landscape maintenance parking lots can only be accessed by driving through the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Fernando and traveling south along Avenida Obregon, passing through the La Quinta Hotel grounds (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). Access for the proposed parking lot would be off of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. Adjacent to the north of the parking lot is a future Residential Specific Plan area and a Low Density Residential area. A detailed discussion of this future residential area is found in the Endo Engineering Traffic Analysis (August 1997) prepared for this project. Vehicular access to the proposed residential specific plan units within the hotel grounds will be via Avenida Obregon, Calle Mazatlan off Eisenhower Drive, or Calle Mazatlan, off of Avenida Fernando. A center portion of Avenida Obregon within the resort area will be vacated to form a cul- de-sac at the residential specific plan units. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or trafiie congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. Eight traffic impacts were identified with the proposed project. (1) The proposed project will replace the 177+/- off-street spaces that currently exist in the hotel employee and landscape maintenance parking lots associated with the La Quinta Resort with approximately 250 spaces in a new parking lot. As a result, construction -related traffic will be generated in the vicinity of the new parking lot, following project approval and continuing until project completion. (2) The traffic analysis prepared for this project concludes that a total of approximately 410 daily trip - ends are projected to be associated with the proposed consolidated parking lot on a typical weekday, with 31 inbound and 3 outbound trips during the morning peak hour and 8 inbound and 29 outbound trips during the evening peak hour of adjacent street traffic. These trips will be permanently re-routed from existing parking areas, a process that will reduce traffic volumes along some existing site access Page 23 . 100049 hour ( 185 inbound and 99 outbound) and 209 trips are projected to occur during the morning peak hour (52 inbound and 157 outbound) (4) The redistribution of project -related traffic will reduce employee traffic volumes on two-lane streets through existing residential neighborhoods and La Quinta Hotel guest accommodation areas but increase employee traffic volumes along Avenue 50 (a master planned four -lane divided primary arterial that is a designated truck route). (5) Construction of additional residential units will increase traffic volumes through the internal streets of the La Quinta Resort including Calle Mazatlan, the La Quinta Hotel main access, Avenida Fernando, and Avenida Obregon. (6) All four of the existing key intersections will provide LOS B or better operation (acceptable levels of service) in 1999 with or without the proposed project. The peak hour levels of service provided at all four existing key intersections will be the same upon project buildout as they are today (LOS A or LOS B).The fifth key intersection (at Eisenhower south of Avenue 50) does not exist today, and will be restricted to right -turn only access. (7) All of the key intersections evaluated currently operate, and will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with or without the project. Although the proposed project would create a minor change in the Year 1999 peak hour intersection delay (up to 1.0 second/vehicle), the change would not be sufficient to change the level of service at any of the key intersections. (8) Following implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the proposed Amendment Number 4 to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, the proposed project will have a less-than-significnt impact on all roads and intersections within the study area. The traffic report recommends mitigation measures to reduce potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed project. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project Conditions of Approval. Following the implementation of the mitigation measures, as stated in the traffic study the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan will have a less - than -significant impact on all roads and intersections within the study area, for the proposed project. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. There are no identified safety hazards with the road design or accesses by the proposed project. No off -site improvements are required to achieve adequate levels of service at the key intersections under year 1999+ project conditions (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Page 24 Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic report prepared for this project does not identify inadequate emergency accesses. A detailed discussion of access issues is provided in the traffic report (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? No Impact. The proposed spa and fitness buildings do not have specific parking spaces provided because the patrons of these two buildings will largely be the hotel guests whose parking will be already provided by general guest parking facilities. However, there will be 76 parking spaces available to share with other hotel users within close proximity. The proposed residential specific plan units will have one parking space per bedroom which will provide adequate parking space for these units. These spaces will be located around the perimeter of the clusters of units. Carriage units will have their parking spaces underneath the units. The proposed employee parking facility will have 244 parking spaces on the 3.90 acre facility. The hotel currently has approximately 200 employees. Additional employees will probably be added to the staff as a result of the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific plan units (maids, gardeners, security, management, etc.).The proposed 244 spaces should provide adequate parking for existing and project -related needs. The traffic report concluded that the proposed employee parking lot on Eisenhower and Avenue 50 will replace the 215+ employee parking spaces that currently exist in two separate parking areas associated with the La Quinta Resort (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact Eisenhower Drive is a designated bikeway corridor. The proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the corridor other than to possibly add additional bike riders as a result of the proposed residential specific plan units or employees. The corridor will be improved. The proposed new buildings within the resort campus may result in some additional bicycle riders. There are no anticipated hazards or barriers proposed that would affect bike riders. There are existing pathways within the resort that accommodate bikeriders (Source: Application materials; site survey). Avenue 50 is designated as a Class II Bike Route, however, no bikeway facilities will be constructed until development along Avenue 50 occurs (Source: La Quinta Bike Route Plan). A concern for pedestrian safety along Avenida Fernando, between Avenida Obregon and Eisenhower Drive, has prompted the recommendation to provide a walkway via striping on the pavement and/or installation of a sidewalk on Avenida Fernando. Such a walkway will become a condition of approval with the design to be approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Department (Source: Endo Engineering, August, 1997). F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 25 00051 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed employee parking lot will provide 244 parking spaces for the resort employees. The Zoning Ordinance requires entities with 100 or more employees to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to mitigate impacts from numerous vehicular trips and congestion. The resort has over 200 employees for which the proposed parking lot will service. The new parking lot will consolidate parking into one facility. Employees will park in the facility and be shuttled to and from their work posts within the resort via a single drop-off point. Bicycle racks will be required to be located within the parking facility for employees to secure their bicycles. The proposed spa and fitness buildings will be required to have bicycle racks provided for both employees and guests. Bicycle racks are required for commercial land uses, and the spa and fitness buildings will be in the Tourist Commercial Zoning District. The proposed residential specific plan units will not be required to have bicycle racks as they will function as a specific plan residential land use within the Tourist Commercial Zoning District. The resort has an on -site bicycle rental facility that rents bicycles to guests of the resort. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne, or air trafTc impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, no air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately six miles north of the project site. The other airport is the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; site survey). 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 La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment. Regionally, there are numerous desert animals that have adapted themselves in many ways to cope with the desert environment. Animal species found and known to exist in the Valley are widely diversified in both population and number of species. These animals include about three dozen mammals. Many of which will utilize several or all of the different habitats found in the region. They include bats, rabbits, rodents, coyotes, foxes, skunks, bobcats, and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The bighorn inhabit the Sant Rosa Range and foothills lying to the southwest of the Coachella Valley. Tracks and occasional sighting of these animals occur in the Indian Wells, Palm Desert, and La Quinta Page 26 . inoo5;' areas. There are numerous amphibians and reptiles in all habitats of the Lower Sonoran ecosystem. They include the toads, tortoises, lizards, and snakes. Countless numbers and species of birds have been frequenting the Coachella Valley during seasonal migrations for centuries. In addition, there are numerous species of permanent resident birds in the desert. The more noticeable one include quail, hawks, doves, roadrunners, hummingbirds, wrens, mockingbirds, warblers, finches, and sparrows. Insects and arthropods typically found in the desert include scorpions, crickets, grasshoppers, spiders, beetles, butterflies, bees and a host of others which have adapted to the environment (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report, July 1974). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land in this environment is rich in biological resources and habitat. This ecosystem is the most typical environment in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water use, go dormant during period of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals and birds. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The Black -tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species found in this area include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal found in this area is the Peninsular Big Horn sheep which is found at the higher elevation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub ecosystem. The resort property is largely developed. lEstorically, horse stables, a landing strip, or agriculture has been present in areas where there are structures or golf course today. Only small parcels within the resort campus have not been disturbed by some sort of land use activity over the 70 years since the resort was first constructed. The southeastern corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive has been previously disturbed by grading and excavation activities connected with the construction of the golf course in that area. A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Less Than Significant Impact. The mountains located along the north, west and southwestern portions of the resort property are within the habitat of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep., and the possible habitat of the Magic Geko. The relatively flat areas of the resort property are within the habitats of the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. The California Ditaxis, a rare plant, has also been reported in the general area (Source: La Quinta MEA). Page 27 _ 100053 Field surveys were conducted during August and September 1973 -for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (July 1974). The summary of field notes indicates that flora species observed include& Ink Weed (Suaeda Torreyana), Mesquite, creosote, salt cedar, Alkali Goldenbush (Happlopappus acradenius), Coyote Melon (Curcurbita Palmeri), Cattle Spinach, Wild Tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Catclaw, Burrobush, Indigo Bush, and Desert Sweet. In addition, the resort property supported a variety of agricultural plants and trees including citrus, dates, and fields of alfalfa. Reptiles observed during the surveys included Barred Collared Lizard, Fringe -footed (sic) Lizard (Uma inornata), Gridiron Lizard (Callissurus d. draconoides), Flat -nosed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos calidarum), Tiger Whip -tail (Cnemidodophorus tigris), Stansbury's Uta (Uta stansburiona), Desert Iguana (Dipsosauzus d. dorsalis), Long-tailed Uta (Uta graciosus), Giant Scaley Lizard (Scalaporus magister). Other lizards not observed, but thought to be present on the property include Meam's Cliff Uta (Pertosaurus mearnsi), Henshaw's Spotted Night Lizard (Xantusia henshawi), Tuberculte Gecko (Phyllodactylus tuberculatus), and Banded Gecko. Snakes not observed, but thought to be present include Desert Mountain Speckled Rattler, Van Denburgh's Night Snake (Trimorphodon vandenburghi), Red Diamond Rattler (Crotalus ruber), Red Racer, and Bull Snake. Avian fauna observed were the California Ground Cuckoo (Geococcyx californianus), Gambel or Desert Quail, House Finch or Linnet, White -winged Dove, Mourning Dove, Mexican Dove, Mockers, Starlings, English, Sparrows, White -tamped Shrike, and Grasshopper Falcon. Others known to frequent the area include swallows, Swifts, Warblers, Thrushes, Flycatchers, Hummingbirds, Orioles, and Texas Night Hawk, Western Tanager. These birds all follow the Coachella Valley Flyway northwestwardly out of the Valley for more northern climes. Mammals observed on the site included coyote, Round -tailed Ground Squirrel, Antelope Ground Squirrel, Pocket Gopher (a variety of Thomomys bottae), Jack Rabbits, and skunks. Nocturnal mammals would include Desert Pack Rat (Neotoma lepida) Canyon Mouse, Cactus Mouse, Spiny Pocket Mouse, Long-tailed Pocket Mouse, and many bats of large and small species. A rare Ring- tailed Cat (Bassariscus astutus) or Cacomistle was observed. The possibility exists that the Desert Bighorn Sheep may visit the ridges of the Santa Rosa foothills west of La Quinta and western limits of the project site (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EIR., July 1974). Insect fauna observed on the property included Wood -borers belonging to the family Buprestidae, genus Hippemelas, Sand Wasp (Epibembix melanoaspis), Coachella Valley Eye Gnats (Hippelates collusor Townsend), Desert Grasshopper (Trimerotropis pallidipennis), Saltbush Grasshopper (Ancona integra), Ateloploides elegans a rare grasshopper, Robber or Assassin Fly (Caratotainiops) (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EIR, July 1974). The Peninsular Bighorn Sheep are listed as rare by the California Fish and Game Commission, s status which corresponded to their federal listing as a threatened species. They are found on the rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains south and west of La Quinta. Some sheep have been observed Page 28 101 feeding in the bajada south of the village of La Quinta and sheep tracks have been observed near the Cove Reservoir. Portions of the State Game Refuge 4-D, established in 1917 by the State Legislature primarily for the protection of native bighorn sheep, lie within La Quinta. Other endangered and threatened wildlife species found in La Quinta is as follows: Coachella Fringe -Toed Lizard Flat -Tailed Horned Lizard Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket Prairie Falcon Golden Eagle Vermillion Flycatcher Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Crissal Thrasher Le Conte's Thrasher Through that past 70 years, the resort property has been impacted by expansion of new buildings and residential units, additional golf courses, and amenities that have resulted in the disappearance of habitat. Of the faunal and flora species discussed in this document, the species of concern are the Coachella Fringe -Toed Lizard, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Black -Tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis. There are no other known biological surveys to have been conducted on the resort property since the 1973 survey. Based upon the information contained in the EIR and the La Quinta MEA, it appears that there is a potential impact to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep whose habitat includes the mountainous areas of the resort property. Any proposed recreational intrusion into those mountains would potentially impact the sheep. The Open Space designation prohibits any type of development, including trails, in the mountains without an approved Conditional Use Permit. If the Applicant should decide to include recreational activities or facilities in the mountainous areas of their resort, a complete biological study would be required to be submitted to the City with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Consultations with California Fish and Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, and other appropriate entities would be consulted as part of the review process. Mitigation for the Fringe -Toed Lizard consists of the payment of a mitigation fee used toward the purchase and maintenance of preserve lands. The resort property is not within the designated fee payment area. Thus there is no required mitigation for this species. The Black -tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis do not currently have any required mitigation measures. In the near future there may be a mitigation requirement in connection with the completion of the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Page 29 _ 100- 055 N No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta_ All significant biological resources'are designated by the California Department of Fish & Came or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). C. Would the project result in impact to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Less Than Significant Impact. There are eight locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. The La Quinta MEA identifies these habitat types which are described in terms of their decreasing elevation and development. These habitats consists of the Rocky Slope Habitat, Rocky Bajada Habitat, Terraces, Alluvial Plain Habitat, Sandy Wash Habitat, Dunes Habitat, Valley Floor Habitat, and Modified and Agricultural Habitat. The La Quinta MEA lists the La Quinta Hotel as being within the Modified and Agricultural Habitat. There is no perceived impact to flora or fauna from the proposed project, and as such, there is no requirement for mitigation. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City (Source: La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area (Source: La Quinta MEA). 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Area (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities on the project site or in the near vicinity. The project site is located within MRZ-3, a designation for areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Section 9.180 of the Zoning Code) in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. The proposed structures Page 30 will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements in their construction. No other mitigation is required for this issue. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this project include, air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, metals, and other resources needed for construction. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District for water management. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMA.N HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure of hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. 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 irrigtion and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no sanctioned hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site is not known to have been used for any type of manufacturing in the past. A. - Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. There is risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance of the proposed buildings. Proper storage and instruction in their use and storage is required. B. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and excavation activities will be confined to the proposed building sites, except for minimal off -site work as will be necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency evacuation of the area. Any work to be done in the road Page 31 . right -of ways will require an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department. This permit will require particular traffic safety measures to protect both the public and workers. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. The only identifiable health hazards associated with the proposed project consist of workers using chemicals during the course of maintenance of the various structures or functions within the resort, such as pool chemicals, pesticides,- fuels, and other similar forms. OSHA and the EPA require instruction and certification for workers using particular chemicals to reduce the incidence of poisonings, etc. Mitigation shall require that all personnel using OSHA and EPA chemicals have the appropriate training and certifications. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. It is assumed that there are a variety of chemicals in use at the resort that may cause health hazards. The proper training and certifications should be obtained for the safety of both workers and resort guests and residents. E. Would the proposed project involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed projects are located within a developed resort property where there is maintained and irrigated landscape and no natural vegetation that would be subject to brush fires. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the Coachella Valley are mostly created by vehicular traffic on roadways. Some noise is made by aircraft. Local 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 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. The City of La Quinta General Plan requires a commercial project to perform a noise study if the project is within a 1,000 feet of a residential use. Recommendations shall be made that help mitigate excessive or annoying noise from the project and ensure that the ambient noise is less than 60 dB CNEL at surrounding residential parcels. Page 32 innn5a The La Quinta General Plan also requires a noise study to be conducted for proposed development adjacent to a collector street where there is the potential for increased traffic. Two such areas have been identified: that segment of Ave. Fernando from Eisenhower Drive to Ave. Obregon; and Ave. Mazatlan from Eisenhower Drive to the western -most intersection of Madrugada. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains Sections 9.100.210 Noise Control for Nonresidential Land Uses, and 9.60.230 Noise Control for Residential uses which both will apply to the Specific Plan. The project site is currently exposed to noise generated by traffic on Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. A noise study was prepared for this project specifically for the employee parking lot, and collector portion of Aves. Mazatlan and Fernando as required by the La Quinta General Plan. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The focused noise studies indicate that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project relative to the City's standards that can not be mitigated to a level less than significant. A Noise Study prepared by J. J. Van Houton, in May 1997, for a previously proposed project including a maintenance facility with the employee parking lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. That report concluded that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project relative to the City's standards. However, the annoyance potential of the previously proposed maintenance facility is considered significant. Mitigation measures were recommended to lessen these impacts. The currently proposed project does not include the maintenance facility, and the employee parking lot was moved to a more southern location, farther away from existing residential uses along Avenue 50. The portion of the noise study that pertains to the proposed parking lot identified one noise source: car parking and door slamming with a maximum noise level of 80 dB(A) at 50 feet away. The average maximum noise level to the existing homes would be at 78 dB(A), and to future homes 76 dB(A). Traffic along Avenue 50 would generate noise at 65 dB and 58 dB from along Eisenhower Drive based on LOS C traffic volumes. The existing ambient noise level at the project site are between 43 and 56 dB(A), and at the existing homes from 50 to 59 dB(A). The proposed project includes only an employee parking lot which has been proposed farther south than the previously proposed parking lot. The proposed new site is farther away from existing residential uses, with proposed residential uses to be developed to the north of the parking lot. It has been determined that the potential adverse impacts associated with the current proposed parking lot location and use will be less than that identified for the previously proposed site. The number of parking spaces has been reduced to 244 with access off of Eisenhower Drive. The segment of roadway along Ave. Fernando between Eisenhower Drive and Obregon functions as a collector road in terms of traffic. The ADT is projected to be 3,350 vehicles per day. The CNEL at fifty feet from centerline is 53.2. Computerized modeling of the projected ultimate noise levels indicates that a significant noise impact will not occur at any sensitive receptors adjacent to Calle Mazatlan (Source: Letter from Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997). Page 33 100059 The noise study indicates that the roadway segment of Calle Mazatlan between Eisenhower Drive and the western -most intersection ofMadrugada will have an ultimate peak season traffic volume of 3,680 ADT. The traffic volume decreases at every intersection until the projected ultimate peak season traffic volumes reach 2,160 ADT, immediately east of Ave. Vista Bonita. Alternate access from the project could increase to 2,390 ADT. The closest residential units are approximately 50 feet away from the roadway centerline. The La Quinta General Plan establishes exterior noise standards of 60 CNEL noise. The projected noise level at the nearest residence is 57.4 CNEL, below the adopted noise standard (Source: Letter from Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997). The need for noise control at the future residential areas to the north should be considered at the time these areas are developed. Mitigation measures such as noise barriers and sound rated windows may be used to minimize annoyance to the future homeowners. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Severe noises are only foreseen as short-term construction noises from heavy machinery capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source. To mitigate the impacts of possible severe noises, the Applicant/developer must comply with Municipal Code construction hours regulations (Source: La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta Municipal Code). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City of La Quinta through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in the City. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve the City. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information). 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 Old Avenue 52, at Ave. Bermudas, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved. The Fire Department has indicated that a need exists for a third fire station in the northern part of the City between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Currently, -there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fine stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid Page 34 100060 staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school and high school within the City. The City is within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village of La Quinta. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements are used to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but over served in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA). Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital, located in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility, located in the 111 La Quinta Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The nearest City fire station to the project is Station #32, located on Francis Hack Lane, approximately one mile southeast of the resort. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be served by the local schools in Desert Sands School District. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of residential specific plan units, a spa and fitness center. Development of the these new structures will require plan review, construction inspection, and fire protection services in a cumulative manner. To help mitigate possible fire hazards, the new structures shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirements (such as sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc) shall be complied with by the Applicant (Source: Fire Department). Page 35 B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. A comment letter from the Sheriff's Department was received for this project. No significant comments were offered in this letter. Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated in relation to police protection (Source: Riverside Sheriffs Department). C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential units are the only component of the project that may generate students. The proposed use for the units is individual ownership with the option available to the owner to place one or more bedrooms into the hotel room pool to accommodate overflow guests to the resort. The maximum number of students that might be generated by the units, if all were owner -occupied would be 59.5 students District -wide average, using the factor of 1/2 student per unit. If the majority of the bedrooms were placed into the hotel room rental pool, then student generation would be minimal. It is anticipated that there will be few owner -occupied units as the units are not designed for full-time permanent residents. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued will be required of this project for the residential units. D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that there will be minimal adverse impact on public roads and facilities. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, a need for new or altered governmental services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Budding, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the proposed project will be partially offset by application, permit, and inspection fees charged to the Applicant and contractors. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City.1ID has four substations in La Quinta with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Page 36 )0006i&12 Exchange (GTE) provides telephone service for the City. Cablevision serves the are for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in La Quinta. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD. which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. 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 There is an existing City storm drainage system that is located in the southern portion of the resort property that protects no only the resort, but properties in the general area. Runoff is also directed to the golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities (natural gas, electricity, water, cable television, sewer) exist at the resort. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Less Than Significant Impact. Power, sewer, and natural gas lines were brought in to the resort many years ago. The proposed new buildings and residential units will need extensions of all utilities from main lines and valves that are located on the resort. All overhead electricity lines are routed around the perimeter of the resort site. Internal distribution lines will be placed underground. No significant impact are anticipated regarding utilities. No mitigation is required beyond utility plan checking and permit issuances. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed structures and units will require service from GTE or other purveyors for telephone communication wiring and systems. It is anticipated that the telephone serve will be an extension of the existing service at the resort. All overhead public utility transmission lines for telephone are routed around the perimeter of the La Quinta resort. All internal lines will be placed underground. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Page 37 000003 Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project will require water service. It is not anticipated that the development will result in an significant adverse impact on local water resources or water infrastructure. A comment letter from CVWD states that they will provide the new structures with water and sewer services. D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed structures will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection to the sewer system. In 1992, the existing demand for sanitary sewage was 252 gallons per dwelling unit per day, with a total existing demand of 1.49 million gallons per day. This standard is based on the sanitary sewer standard divided by 80 percent (Source: La Quinta MEA). The current capacity of the Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant is 4.35 million gallons per day (MGD). This facility serves many communities in the Coachella Valley, including La Quinta. CVWD indicates that this facility can be expanded in the future to accommodate growth, including the La Quinta Resort (Source: Draft The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. Storm water drainage policy requires that storm water flows generated on -site shall not leave the site. On -site retention and percolation applies to all but the most intense storm generated water. The La Quinta Resort may receive substantial runoff flows from the Santa Rosa Mountains that are transmitted to the Oleander Basin located to the south, and channel located to the east. Stormwater has been discussed in the section on water resources in this document. Drainage plans are required for this project and will be reviewed by the CVWD and the City's Public Works Department prior to issuance of project permits. No other mitigation will be required other than that required by CVWD and the Public Works Department. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential specific plan area will be served by extension of the contract refuse collection services currently in place at the resort. Prior to regularly scheduled pick-up and removal, refuse will be contained in a maintained trash bin area. The Applicant is responsible to coordinate the extension of trash pick-up with the current waste hauler. The additional trash generated by the proposed project will cumulatively impact the local and regional landfill. Only one landfill is currently open in the Coachella Valley. On -site recycling programs will be required and are to be coordinated with Waste Management of the Desert or other recycling hauler. Page 38 . 000064 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located mostly within a desert valley cove. There are steep mountains to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on most days throughout from many vantage points in the City. The La Quinta MEA discusses the visual assessment of major and minor ridgelines within the City. This assessment is based on the topographical features of elevation and steep slopes. Major ridgelines have been identified a three locations in the City and are classified as highly sensitive due to their elevation, which ranges from 300 to more than 1,600 feet above sea level. The high sensitivity of these area is also based on the existing moderate to steep slopes of the ridges, which range between 10 and 30 percent. The existing topographical character of the City which was created by ancient Lake Cahuilla, now exhibits low sloped sedimentary deposits throughout the majority of the City, which abruptly transitions to steep sloped terrain along the western and southern regions of the City. The close proximity of the steep mountains with the flat plains increases the sensitivity of the existing visual features of La Quinta. Minor ridgelines include the ridgelines which link the major ridgelines to the toe of the slope, which protrudes away from the mountain range, thereby increasing their visibility. There are 18 minor ridgelines that are classified as moderately sensitive based upon their low to high elevation, ranging from approximately 200 to 1,400 feet above sea level. The existence of steep slopes which range from 10 to 30 percent is also characteristic of minor ridgelines. The assessments of viewsheds within the City is based on the existence of focal points located within La Quinta or immediately outside its jurisdictional boundaries. Viewsheds are categorized as distinctive, attractive or common and are assessed.based upon the provision of major focal points and the proximity of the vantage point. Distinctive viewsheds are identified through their close proximity (within two miles) to elevational high points and exhibit a high visual sensitivity. Attractive viewsheds are determined through their mid -distant proximity (between two and five miles) to elevational high points or close proximity to minor ridgeline formations and exhibit a moderate visual sensitivity. Common viewsheds are identified through their long distance views (over five miles) to primary focal points, major ridgelines and minor ridgelines and produce a low visual sensitivity. A series of five vantage points based on two mile radii were established within La Quinta to classify the viewsheds by type. Details on this methods are contained in the La Quinta MEA. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a largely developed resort complex in the west -central portion of the City. The resort was initiated in 1926 and has a history of continued development since that date. The resort is tucked into an alluvial cove with an east -facing view. The EIR prepared for the resort in 1974 states' that "Development will change the present open desert and agricultural image which presently exists in much of the community. While this change certainly does not blight the environment, whether or not it is a positive or a negative impact is a personal and aesthetic judgment, Page 39 000065 not a technical assessment. Also construction and landscaping may impede views of the mountains. These views, west of the project area, are one of the more important assets of the community. The design and low density profile of the development tend to reduce the severity of this impact" A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing structures at the resort include one, two, and three story buildings. The architectural style of the buildings is mostly Spanish Colonial or similar styles. The existing landscaping includes tall trees of many species including date palms. Thus, the existing viewshed disturbance of the resort includes mostly low profile buildings with dense landscaping. Certain views of the minor ridgelines and toe of slope located to the west and north are blocked by the existing development within the resort campus. The La Quinta MEA designated a Primary and Secondary Viewshed Focal Point near the northeast corner of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive which spans in an eastward direction. The resort is located to the west of this Focal Point. Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant impact to the scenic vista in the City from the proposed project. The proposed structures and landscaping will follow similar architectural styles, including height and siting considerations. Architectural guidelines are proposed in the Draft Specific Plan for this project. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed buildings will be required to comply City with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances under the Site Development Permit. In addition, because of the historic structures within the resort, the Historic Preservation Commission must review the architectural styles of the proposed structures for compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Structures. The proposed design of the new structures can not be radically different than the historic structures nor can it be identical. The new structures incorporate many design elements of the historic buildings, but not identical to them. The historic structures are known as aesthetically pleasing in design, therefore the proposed new buildings, being similar in design, can also be termed as aesthetically pleasing. The relationships of massing and scale between the historic buildings and between the proposed new buildings was determined to be similar by the Historic Preservation Commission. C. Would the project create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact. The anticipated development of the new residential specific plan units, spa and fitness buildings, and parking lot, will include exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the resort complex. The Draft Specific Plan for this project does not address lighting fixture types for the proposed new buildings, therefore, no assessment of the environmental impacts can be made. However, all exterior lighting will be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Dark Sky Ordinance, as well as the Uniform Building Code requirements. Page 40 . 019066 Parking lot safety lighting will be required to have low, shielded fixtures that will comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Assessment Much of the history of the Coachella Valley is known and recorded in various publications and exhibited in local museums, etc. La Quinta fits prominently into the history of the Coachella Valley. A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is found in the Draft Historic Context Statement for the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the MEA. Local Environmental Setting The history of La Quinta area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. The La Quinta Resort would have been near the lake shore and have been utilized for a habitation and resource procurement area as was much of the La Quinta area. The project site is located within the historic La Quinta Hotel complex. The history of the hotel has been documented in a Historic Resources Report prepared by Mellon & Associates. This report concludes that there may be enough historic integrity remaining in the structures and landscaping to justify the designation of a historic district. For a detailed discussion of the historic buildings at the resort please see the Mellon & Associates Report. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. Paleontological deposits are normally found in association with the ancient lake bed which is below 42 feet above msl. There have been no paleontological surveys or investigations conducted within the immediate vicinity of the resort, however, paleontological finds have been made in other areas of the City where there are ancient lake bed deposits. The proposed parking lot location is just outside of the ancient Lake Cahuilla Lakebed Delineation boundary, and as such there will be no required mitigation for this issue. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The resort campus has never had a complete archaeological survey conducted. The only archaeological survey conducted was in 1975, by S. McWilliams, for a specific expansion project at the resort. No archaeological resources were observed during that survey. However, it is known, from various publications, that the area including the resort Page 41 . 00006'7 property was actively used during the prehistoric period for habitation and resource procurement Numerous recorded archaeological sites have been found within a one mile radius of the resort property, and even more within a two mile radius (Source: City of La Quinta Confidential Archaeological Site Map). Thus, the archaeological sensitivity of the project area is high. For the proposed spa and fitness center buildings and the resort residential units, archaeological monitoring shall be required by a qualified archaeologist for all grading and trenching below ten feet in depth. A report of the monitoring activites shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and acceptance. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Mellon & Associates Historic Resources Report for the La Quinta Hotel concludes that there are locally significant historic structures and features on the resort campus. Some of these structures may also be eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places. Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 is included in the Specific Plan Amendment #4 for this project, which required the review of the historically -related architecture proposed for the new structures. On June 19, 1997, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Mellon & Associates report and issues involved for the Certificate of Appropriateness. The Commission forwarded two recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council: 1) Acceptance of the Historic Resources Report for the La Quinta Hotel with the condition that the comments listed in the HPC Staff Report be addressed and the report resubmitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review, and 2) That the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 be subject to the condition that only one story structures be constructed next to historic structures, and that a qualified archaeological monitor observe the grading and trenching for the project for those area below ten feet in depth. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses on the proposed project site that would be impacted by the new structures. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the exiting resources s and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres Page 42 . 000068 of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla park is not included in this count. There are also bike, hiking, and equestrian pathways and trails within the Cite Local Environmental getting The project site is within an existing resort campus that contains golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, bicycle rentals, and other recreational amenities. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project will include the demolition of an existing tennis stadium and six tennis courts within the Tennis Club. The Spa and Fitness Buildings will be added to the existing recreational amenities for the resort. No new public recreational amenities are being proposed. The project is within a private, gated resort with many recreational amenities. The proposed residential specific plan units will be required to pay the parks fee in lieu of dedication of parkland. The improvements along Eisenhower Drive will include a bike lane to be constructed according to the La Quinta General Plan designation. B. Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact Existing public recreational facilities will not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is within a private, gated resort property. The proposed project will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in this checklist. Some of the issue areas could have a potential significant impact if appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented. 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: The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned development in the immediate vicinity. Page 43 . 900069 • The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. A. Earlier Analyses Used. Other analyses and special studies used for the preparation of this document were: 1. La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report, July 1974, Harry H. Schmitz & Associates. 2. The La Quinta Resort Draft Specific Plan - amendment #4 3. La Quinta General Plan 1992 - Master Environmental Assessment. 4. La Quinta General Plan 1992. 5. Specific Plan 121-E. 6. Specific Plan 121-E Revised. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 8. Application materials for General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97-607, Site Development 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003. 9. La Quinta Hotel Historic Resources Report. May 1997. Mellon & Associates. 10. Resort Hotel SP Amendment - Traffic Analysis Data. August 1997, Endo Engineering. 11. Noise Assessment for the La Quinta Resort Maintenance Facility. May 1997. J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc. 12. Environmental Assessment 95-304 prepared for Specific Plan 121-E, Revised - Amendment #3. 13. Air Quality Analysis: The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment #4. August 18, 1997. Endo Engineering. Page 44 000070 14. Letter regarding response to noise comments. Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential environmental impacts/issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed in this environmental assessment and technical studies submitted for the project. Certification of this EA by the La Quinta City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan containing these measures will be included as part of the Environmental Assessment and project conditions of approval. Page 45 . 000071 W V 0 rn Q J .a co = O d V � Q Q Z LIJ V O d 1= Z Q OW W OQ Q a W Q C c� oc 0 H Q > Z w -1 aC O U)a Q Q C CD O Q 00WLLI Q 0 ^ r- �+ r 0) N C 0. L- CD M IL NocL E N 0 U rn U N c 0 �- Ln Ln E cc N ttj 0 v H OD N CY) CD o n F�F-- nQ. aa) r� ® O z Z Q 2 U W W J G (, W Q Q 0 O O z cc O O Z O_ F�- CD i LU ' g F- to Z W cn LLl ul cc a O J O LL Lit W ;Q G W } U � Q C J W abd �v OW V co tU c c W cl fl -j O v w o c 'c - o U N o Q, c M 0 � Z � U P a� 0 W tca a`. 0)� c m m 0 Da z o J Z m NO > a O W c E u n s = E s- v o n m Q 0 0 0 lu m cm 3 c 0.- top 0 I.- C7 rn a >' c C.) C.)0)p c cap z L' cca CMoci N c c 3 _ W Z U)�- E-O i+ to U) U) 0) m 0 a) m >oc `oa y a W o U)U c° C a LL cr. W of � 0 U) td Z uj v"' cN+m' v, '� ®- c c 0 m 0 a E Cl) a CO ��Om Lii d >-�c CD o.�',� t1 a z W �. � r rn `. ac 0 ° *0 .- a •o r %5 � m vt .. oC a N ;, c U W a� c o 0 �'W c� Q 0, c Q �0 m 0 m ...t W r, c m .. O W . 2 to co m M a O tZ UN r-trQN m cm G 0000'72 W Q vm Qw W O= U U Q Ec W H ' Q U U m 0 O Z m U a+ C O H ,n1 a O O d 0 FW C p) C E m z Q. a C CDd > 0 NO z z Oam '� >' c 0&CO) m W oc O U E '- O at�0 LL ui 44 C m Z (� � E E en °' m E � y w v, ° E C W Z O n '� W H m ` N �_ 'm co O CD 'O Q m D a w co H m U M N a E W cn m a ca W Q CD H'fl JSZ O w C Q mm M E— 000073 W a 0 �m Q W J �L a c� W O= vL) Q W F- V m O CD Z c «� ca F- .y a c o cc IL rn c c EE LLU � a Z _o m m p a) 0 d y H O E Jx c CL w� O - m ��E cC U E a. U C] m O o +y+ o a > = Luo N V H C C) c M O W L7 V he0 H C N C O �`'v� �E a�UE F- C U >_ CD W N Q Q O O r a V N co _ cc., tM U C m .. W ♦+ to C W —) a _ CD O Q m in �_ C M t�J 0 O -i W Z m O O O i- o W C O O y Q o m 000074 W Q vm aW J iL a c� W 0 UV Q W H V 2 U. Z J E m0 0 cQc N G W cc Z O F- �? W b F- Q O w O W Lu 0 N W W Q W MI O UV aw W Q LU 0 m Q W a V W O= VV m rn to c , Q w W oc v o 4 a c aW Q a Cl) O U 0 V O t O Cl) a a-, O m m m E m rn .0 C 'O cm V U CD m ` CN O a o a U E � c 0U. 0 d Z_ m J r -� to Fn M- 0 _0 Z Z ? oo U c W cr 0 U CL U Q L C C O C p ;; td +• 0 a+ L � m E � C ma :. N �:E Q a c E ® CO) E a :: tdEo f= Cc C CD t cr W (: E . O U -- LL' W C U CO �� H _O O NJ cC Q C H 'x td �►- W C O C D) (] m y L c0 a ., CD c 0 c > m U ¢ ; w — 'm w ld �, CD�j ,, 0) M CCD E W U r- ere J U Z O cx ~ vi Fes— U (0J a = a ca A W W Q W } m Z Q W IL W O= c c � J �• C ) 0 C Y I a_?+ ^ # O a. a)cc V �yrnc .-vi t)Er'ao p? .- UJ p w = C tbJ .- �0-+ U fl �_ QQQLu QQCJcnQ u C r O O O � Z �- �2 O ~ U tm y �O m C tm•^ O U O O c O Y W 2 O Q m aO a d LUcc O Cf m Q® 0 M Vj U M ` •N Z U O O ? C N Q N N C m Q �N c E C 0) a)— E� H Q = r M w _ C O W O t0 (] 2 N O .0 d -W O v h 00 �- W �. U C W Q� c? m _ M v, y �Q cn �; � � p -0 W P c E m D cn E. a� g r F-- w C 7- y n O C G 'a5 m Q C cd 01 c81 'a+ r C d Q +0,+ N .. � C {!) ci r to d J ® c0 r COL W M W Q U G. 000077 W Q C � V m Q W aU E W O= C� V N C w cm m N C Q C l0 C �� C cm, 0) N d Y C r W C W E- W CO O C m n w DCD ..- M l0 �•- N W U O U_ ~ O co w UCDn.0 uUF—u LU vi m cn O Z co t �2 _O w jC O N N C W U o c c CD E E LO Z c`fl o J ci N m m O 0 a) 00 Y c y� E LU oc U E E N a d U CD 0 CDO N 3 CD Z Q O W N «% U m ` C U O a)c •n .. OU _mc `° •o>„ s +; O vm c_�wE ai c ai �_Cca - W ® � O fl N 0) °' tU) M +>,, CC W Q- C C U-to C' 0 F-• > W 3 T N .0 a� c O c Cl)LL to W o w >'> o ao �V. 0 �� >- m C > c a° a CO) 0 c s F- ~ W «° U U 0 U) o as '= m a o c m ,v_) N W _ ' C Q C) w n u- M a F— rn J O co Q O M c Q W Q C W eri G. U Z +t nnnnri K 11I1IAIJ W Q vm Q W av Ft W OIL VV N r- o EC Q m c c d O o .+ C C O ca Gi O C m LL �>, aUi m a E U C7 to ui Q C� CD vl 0 0 c o 0 m z .. E N co U _ O W O a .` C ►. d c. ii a w c � m o O o LU z m cc zz O N2 C °' co 0 E b E d w O d 'u.. U U c O N o a ea o m cn m 0 W N U CO U� v CD co 4' m (� N tM o d 0 vi co ~ o> m o N W (7 M E o .O c •p l0 O y0 O ~ Co t0 COO_ N 4' d U oiS W " U U 4 N t~A N >O C m C .L -�0+ W N WVO M) oN W C d a��OtWd iC odco CD�Co 'N` U cm o O Q to CD m DC .. ..aOC O JO m.o D C -o �_ N v=i '.`0-°�' r f Q V >�� wco E m'gv,omUE m O C O N E W. '7 w 0 O 0 O to w Q U N\ 'o N� c0 C d O O— d N- L t0 ++ E r + CL N CD O z m 0 a N 0 N fl W N M O OWN m O U ._ N, C.2 . O> m O- dD Q �U O M 000079 w Q C 0 vm a W .J bL CL Ft W O= C) V io a � W H O V O •: m U n v aD c.= Z c ~ -" c .0 U V c a co U, E: c c m E O U. O a o J r m O to H O N p Q0 Z > c c c d ~ N ed N co S E cm E ELU '*-,' C E�a�a o a� m U p m O m C m a U d Z O w >c N o cca F- �m -j a E c c a y LU Z c U o W v :% N o�, CD mW �W U C co C,� > !- > c c o m CA 3 0 3 Z L f . > — _ �' U �' d) W CC h- WLu m `�° CO) a of a m J O G`. E .� U cc U t�4 Q G uj u Q W J Y IL W X. OLLI U U Q ac co M- tt/l � O U � m LL C m to (7 U Z C cc ,0 0 f- CD ,v _) to ea U a ►, 'r�'�,, O U a. U O to C t m H O CDa c`o L Y Z O m0 m CD N LL Z Z > .: aO — w E W E E a O m U 0 C± N '- 'n Z w m E 'fl '� a)oLu O a Na Cv H= c m co �� N W U O to '0 Q W CL C C C� C_1 c o LL co C LL. g N W ih W ` C �' C O '3 ® C3 > ,o > a co m U v� U) Q LU F- a m a; C F— W C n cn t ._ n ►- � E rn 0 a W U o U f'7 O C -i Z a- m O '2 O L m U CD W a c W >- o0 Z gW av W O= C� V —i m 0)c_ c ` . W fl cci U d ^ C O C) W O = U ^ o p� 1 O O N O C to t Z> Q U Z Q w c 0 .w L) O Z c cm 0 O CD F- U O N a)C O d U cn O L a a a O a c ¢ O o a 0 O O ac .(1) > m O ro ► co m Cl) 0 Z , M I C CD u, ¢ tm E c E E a 0 CD m u 0 M a� ►- m � a)N O V _ Q W 0 0 W C E •a N •- C .. 0) •fl O a °' `�° G P oa CD of m N 0 a E o> U° E o c — o v> o N E m C 0) CD Q a�i t O j vi n o " F_ Q «+ C y C O U m CM N a m U y rn O D �Vi 0 w O Lo •C w o x C W� � t�.y «+w v.+i�! �= Q � U L vl �.O O O O O C W �% W E >, Y U O ® P c oc coo�daoE�a+ ate' N Z L ~ Sm N �Ea.o`d�E�E�Eo� O ® h W �' U G W U O E C U w U O O O y O m C W M t0 Vl W u U U ► C to o '5 2 0 M ' N M et W F- Q 0 W i. m Z Q W J bL IL U E W O= UU c0 m C t0 _ d LU .0 U N 0 U m N d U. E w n w d a. O � m C ~ c o m v c m co 0 oc' U)U cD U) oc a O O 0 uj Z_ m O 0o H oLU rn 0) m ,>, L m v U m m N nZ «� 0 V 0 OL C Q NCD a Q m E o W W .r ;; a u- o a co w r _ CC to � � a o 0 c c N ih W C C E V > > 0 W n CD CD �• N CO) LU V a_ca r eo H W C •+ m b> Q W Q 'd eri J p O 0 F- cn Q U C G� ev W Q 0 i vm Q W aV W O= G� V co Q o -� iWto U cr v � c C d O O O 2 t3' c C l0 O ~ CM U O ` O C '.: O IL V C 00 d z m W .J FE J m 0 .�- N H O Z Z - 00 U CO) W U � m ? L =' U _ o t.° c O m m o O U coCO N U �_ G CO) U U W O C `� 3 Q W Q N W C m O W �= m a a W O m d n� vs f:. U) W E E v, t6 C a -� cCa u vi cmi c 'fl Q cao '� a E to O H W cn V °; N L o m 0' d a :0 W v 'Q eh IDL O !0 t° 3 ►° 4 W Q vm Q W J Y a c� W O= �v � N N 0) w : r 0) W C , •.. C r U o w v C 5� N '=>CCD 0i ►- �' > cu ccE a 07 m a .. n. cn ui Q cn S w a c 0 U � N C Z O V 1= oZS m vi C_ d 'fl N !0 07 c� a h 0 0) a CD 0 C a� E Z W .J N > CD n W > O a N O 0 D a 0 a C ? c c IM c N �E S E -W E c E a Im U 0 U 0 w t+� a C Q CD m s,0 E N ON Z 0 V N H W 0) N V 0j M C P Q7 N 0) 0i ._ Q E .0 = U m C C +m+ N QS to a E C m m 0 O co L c N c E a :.: .. rn U 0) o 0 F- OWC .. c *4 w 0 "= �o ? 0 m0 a m cn U N E +. o +- >. 00) Q Q W _U C _U C C 0S y►- +0+ co"'cn rn +L' 0 Q2 a a W CD E. fn Q f- «+ «� Lu V CD? c t Q- to Q +� U CDch Vcn to+m+ CDcc ++ ' �o or .9 = 3 E W � Lj •3 cci o 0 c�►i a° a0 O FO- c°� 900085 Q C vm Q W ]C cJ G O= V V .O X N C Q C O d l0 t0 V U U O t0 W a a - CD c ~ Qot3)o°a E O o O U o .`dc CD c w CDU U N r•- N D !0 >cm N ` C a Y O d .. O U d tm > a n U c c c E E CD E 0 O� z o 0 0 LU m 0 O vs �- O a) 0 Zz 00 ?.. ��, c c �.. +, c L� ,, EE EE EE m E a E a w E a a) U 0 V O V Q m U oa t a c N ` O -0 O O U W C m O U N N a°+ d of ~ U �..' N N = cp•- �,�' o :L OVC a a ►. ''muo 'O a 00 C7 W C N a w, n, M = °' F- �� CD to ''' N C c O N O m N a= c om., 0 d° E N m c �. Q 0 m 0 m e os -0 w W o � y vj W Q Q Q •ro-. C Cf c0 O a= U O a �0 "0 ? _O C m 0 L O ca ` ca U d N ♦+ C 0� tJJ to a aii E ° •� O !_' c = w U)i O V m ° +, �+ J c U > m m m vi Lu c '0 a -C > ai voi U C c0 _ � a U U �- =.a U p� E N m_ � ccccoCQ °=O c°� v a N c E W �' o m o O Q ch _5 a° Z O F° :c F°- m Q m Li 900086 W Q 0 Um a yuj .J yC IL v gW O= r V a W U V A O Z d _ U acN+ l0 E a f- v a o c by a`. m c cc 00 E c m U. a� 2 J O N E cc O > t�0 a) a a N H 2 Z m � 0 00 � C C `� m o ca c E «r E a cL E a U o w m u O a` m Y U a ma Q' .� a P Q a a c c�W E �m Nc'> N Z O V :►. O H c�c Q C ao me N 7 td mmp w �n ui a +-r m , c W U C N w CC M 1- V w m U N .- ca m l0 d ui P� N N m a m W J O ac Q a .° 900087 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97- 054 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE' NO: GPA 97-054 KSL LAND CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of September, and on the 8' day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the revised request of KSL Land Corporation and its Assigns for a General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential, 4-8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from LDR (Low Density Residential, 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres generally located 220 feet south of 50" Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: Portions of the S 1 /2 of SW 1 /4 Sec. 36, T.5 S., R.6 E., and Portions of the N 1 /2 Sec. 1, T.6 S., R. 6 E., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and determined that the General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said General plan Amendment: 1. This Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. 2. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning pAss\peresrevgpa97-054 p pp 90000 Resolution No. Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. 3. The new land use designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of revised General Plan Amendment 97-054 from MDR to TC (RSP) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Cal[e Mazatlan, south of Avenida Fernando, and from LDR to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres generally located 220 feet south of 50t' Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: p Ass\peresrevgpa97-054 Resolution No. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Rich Butler, Chairman City of L.a Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California OOr)r190 p:resoperevgpa97-054 RESOLUTION CASE No. I 'r A. CASE MAP GPA 97-054 "EXHIBIT A" ;,Llwmw n OR°TH SCALE: 909091 NTS sheet 1 of 2 RESOLUTION wEXHIBIT An CASE No. CASE MAP GPA 97-054 sheet 2 of 2 TG (�f Plan Resort t4 per. ra b—wma ��y SCALE: 000092 NITS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 97-083 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO.: ZC 97-083 KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on did on the 15th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RM (Medium Density Residential) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from RL to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres located generally 220 feet south of 50' Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 81h day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RL (Low Density Residential 2-4 Dwellings per acre) to ML (Medium Density Residential), or other appropriate zone(s) at the vacant northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana and at the southeast corner of 501h Avenue and Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: APN: 631-700-076 through 81, 773-020-021, 026, 029, and 031 WHEREAS, said Zone Change request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial study (EA 97-343) and determined that the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment and Zone Change only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. pAss\pereszc97083 000093 Planning Commission Resolution 97- 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. 3. The zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing zone designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 97-083; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER; Chairman City -of La Quinta, California 000094 p:\ss\pereszc97083 Planning Commission Resolution 97- ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 90009.5 RESOLUTION CASE W. 91• wo CASE MAP ZC 97-083 sheet I of 2 "EXHIBIT A" L :Y1GYUttDp n (�Q.-_ !-?.i . 't ORTH SCALE a 000M NTS RESOLUTION "EXHIBIT A" CASE Nm CASE L ZC 97-083 TG (P-15p) 4 BC Pan ,ta Resort k%iw. 1. VA ®RTH SCALE: sheet 2 of 2 1 NTS �nnn� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #4) KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 151 day of September, and 8" day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new employee parking lot facility, whose location is more particularly described as follows: Portions of Sections 1 and 36, T6S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121-E/EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the Hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27-hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121-E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85-24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the Master Plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of L_a Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) , in 1989 (Amendment 2), and in 1995 (Amendment 4), permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all PAss\peres9/1 5/97sp 121 a#4 1900098 Planning Commission Resolution 97- testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the specific plan amendment: The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club parking lots located near residential uses). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. The proposed development will be reviewed under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97-343, indicating that the proposed Specific -Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be certified. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: 909099 PAss\peres9/1 5/97sp 121 a#4 Planning Commission Resolution 97- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 000100 PAss\peres9/15/97sp121 a#4 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SP 121 E, AMENDMENT #4 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL 1. Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The Specific Plan text shall be revised pursuant to all required revisions, with a minimum of five final texts submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. The total number of single family residential units allowed in the specific plan area shall be revised to 1367 subject to approval of a Site Development Permit and/or Tentative Tract Map. 4. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 5. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97-343. 6. Check made out to County of Riverside in the amount of $1328. For the project ,Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24 hours after approval by the City Council. 7. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall provide an easement to be recorded for all hillside areas to remain undeveloped open space, except for the areas presently developed. Easement to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 8. Submit to Public Works Department a revised hydrology study to account for P:/stan\Conapp-pccsp 121 e,a4 000101 RESOLUTION. 97- SP 121 E, AMENDMENT #4 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 the proposed increase in impermeable surfaces within the specific plan area prior to issuance of a building permit for any construction authorized by this Specific Plan for the applicant. 9. Make changes to specific items in the specific plan as follows. Page Item 3.5 Garage/Carport Setback 3.6 Garage/Carport Setback 3.11 Garage/Carport Setback 3.20 Paragraph 3.3.16 3.21 Paragraphs C-2 and C-3 P: /stan\Conapp-p ccsp 121 e,a4 Comment 5 ft. or 20-foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path/walk if garage/carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20-foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path/walk if garage/carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20-foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path/walk if garage/carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. Add "roads" to items for which plans are required. Add the requirement that plans be approved by the City Engineer. Plans for and revisions to on -site parking and circulation facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. 000101 I RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28545 TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW A 134-LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 62.2 ACRES CASE NO.: TTM 28545 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORT, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 151h day of September and 8t' day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL DESERT RESORT, INC. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 134 lots on 62.2 acres, in the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club , generally located west of Eisenhower Drive, and south of Avenida Fernando, more particularly described as: A portion of Section 36, T6E, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Ruies to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 97-343 for this project which states the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on conditions and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environment should be certified; 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 28545: 1. The proposed map and its design is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that its lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the Map is mostly developed and mitigation measures and conditions will be imposed. C: PCRES-TT28545 900103 Resolution 97- 3. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the 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 in that none presently exist and access to the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. 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 of Tentative Tract Map 28545 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C: PCRES-TT28545 000104 Resolution 97- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:PCRES-TT28545 000105 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28545 KSL RESORTS, INCORPORATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map 28545 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal (requirements to be determined during plan check) • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 16,1997, on file in Community Development Department) • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. =onappc=28545 900106 OO1O6 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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 parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties unless the owners specifically agree to the proposed diminishment of access rights. 8. The applicant shall dedicate private street, parking and utility easements or rights of way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and as required by the City Engineer except as approved in a revised specific plan for the project area. 9. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 10. 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 monappc=28545 10 010 1 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 11. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 12. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "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. 13. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant c:conappc=28545 900108 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEIMBER 15, 1997 may acquire standard pUan and/or detail sheets from the City. 14. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 15. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 16. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, 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. 17. 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 c:conappc=28545 900109 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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. 18. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, site development permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 22. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 23. 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. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate c:conappcctt28545 000110 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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. 17M11110U"A The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: 25. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development or in adjacent golf course areas unless otherwise approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 26. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 27. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 28. 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. 29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 30. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater to off -site locations, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly c:conappcctt28545 900111 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28W SEPTEMIBER 15, 1997 or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant and, subsequently, the applicant and the applicant's successors and assigns shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention programs and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. UTILITIES 31. 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 32. 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. 33. The applicant shall be responsible for any off -site traffic improvements shown warranted by the revised traffic study to be submitted with the revised specific plan. 34. All private street, parking and pedestrian improvements shall comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and current policies except as may be approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. c:conappcctt28545 900112 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 36. 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. 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 38. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. QUALITY ASSURANCE 000113 monappcott28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 39. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 40. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are compllete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 41. 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. 42. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 43. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, Uandscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 44. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 45. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. .09114 c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 46. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97-343. 47. This map shall be subject to all requirements of SP 121 E, Amendment #4, and SDP 97-607 and shall be revised as necessary prior to recordation. 48. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. cxonappc=28545 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW 119 RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN UNITS AND A HEALTH SPA IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-97-607 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 151h day of September and 81h day of July, 1997, hold duly- noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated, for approval of 119 residential specific plan units and a 14,600 square foot health spa in the RM Zone (zone change to TC (RSP) proposed), located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Club, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be recommended for certification; 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 a recommendation for approval of Site Development Permit 97-607: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that units of this type are permitted in the Tourist Commercial designation that exist on part of this property and is proposed for the balance of this property. 2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. 900116 P: \ss\reso perevsd p607 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- 4. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that it is of architectural design, colors, and materials, and has been recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. 5. The site design of the project is attractive and well designed and appropriate for the area. Parking has been kept around the perimeter of the site to increase the pedestrian aspect of the project. 6. The landscape design of the project with utilize plants compatible with the existing development. An emphasis on landscaping will reinforce the resort community image and character of the area. 7. The project will not require excessive new signs since it will be a part of the La Quinta Resort and Club. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 97-607 because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4; 3. That the Environmental Impacts identified under EA 96-343 are binding for this case. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 151h day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\ss\resoperevsdp607 900117 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97 RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\ss\resoperevsdp607 ' 0 011 S RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607 KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED .SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits . contained in Site Development Permit 97-607, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing),, during demolition. Construction, and upon site development/operation. A) prior to issuance of a demolition/building permit, the applicant shall provide proof 'to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction/demolition debris. Q) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. c:/conappccsdp97-607 900119 Resolution 97- Site Development 97-607 September 15, 1997 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies; as needed: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. The project may be phased if a phasing plan is submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. A six foot high, solid grouted decorative block wall shall be constructed, if not already existing, adjacent to or across the street from all non -hotel related uses (Tennis Villas, Santa Rosa Cove residences, and any private residences). Wall to c:/conappccsdp97-607 000120 Resolution 97- Site Development 97-607 September 15, 1997 be constructed prior to any demolition, grading, site disturbance, or construction on subject property. 9. All new head -in parking spaces shown on east side of Avenida Obregon shall be provided at the time of demolition of the adjacent 82 space parking lot. 10. The windows on the Spa building shall be revised to provide variety in shape and orientation. 11. Existing trees shall be retained or relocated whenever possible. Final landscaping plans, in compliance with all applicable City requirements shall be approved prior to issuance of first building permit authorized by this approval. 12. Site and other applicable plans shall be revised pursuant to requirements of the Historic Preservation Commission prior to issuance of first building permit for "residential specific plan" units. 13. All applicable conditions of Specific.Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, and Tentative Tract 28545 shall be met. 14. Exterior walkway lighting shall be provided. Lighting to be low profile and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. FIRE MARSHAL 15. Fire apparatus roads shall be provided for every building when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This requirement shall be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. Other requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be determined during the plan check process. Conapppcsdp97-607 900121 Resolution 97- Site Development 97-607 September 15, 1997 MISCELLANEOUS 17. Prior to issuance of any building permit for structures approved by Site Development Permit 97-607, the developer shall complete the golf maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96-024, or any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto. Conapppcsdp97-607 900122 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT FACILITY IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 151h day of September, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of an employee parking lot on 2.4 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50" Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of a golf course/hotel maintenance facility with employee parking in the RL Zone (zone change to TC proposed), located on the south side of 50" Avenue, approximately 210 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be recommended for certification; 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 the recommendation for approval of Site Development Permit 97-608: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan because the use is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the Specific Plan area. P: \ss\resoperevsdp608 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97 2. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended. 4. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with the site design will be acceptable. The revision approved will mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding residences by moving it to the west and south. 5. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping will provide visual screening of the on site facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 97-608 because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4; 3. That the Environmental Impacts identified under EA 96-343 are binding for this case. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 151h day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 000124 P: \ss\resoperevsdp608 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 900125 P:\ss\resoperevsdp608 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL 1. The use of this site for an employee parking lot shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97-608, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition, construction, and upon site development/operation. A) prior to issuance of a demolition/building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction/demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. 5. 'The applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies; as.needed: - Fire Marshal P:\STAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 000126 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall be met. 8. Exterior lighting shall to be low profile, down shining, and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Top of lights shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. Light shields may be required by the City within first six months after beginning of operation. 9. 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 property to which they apply. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. All easements, rights of way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 100127 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be acquired or granted, as appropriate, or the process of said acquisition or granting shall be ensured, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Grants shall include additional right of way widths as necessary for dedicated right turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc., included on approved plans. 11. The applicant shall grant public street right of way along Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - sufficient for a 50-foot half right of way plus additional area as needed for right- or left -turn lanes or other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 13. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and satisfy obligations required of this site development permit. Security provided shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. 15. '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. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. 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." Plans for site improvements may be combined on a single plan provided excess clutter doesn't affect readability. All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City PASTAWCOA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "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. 17. 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. GRADING 18. 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. 19. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 21. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the P:\STAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 9,00129 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 22. 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. 23. 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 24. The applicant shall. comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development or in impounded areas on the adjacent golf course unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 25. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-6O8.wpd 900130 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 27. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development (or off of the golf course areas) through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 28. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 29. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater water to off -site locations other than impounded areas on the adjacent golf course, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention program and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from the such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. UTILITIES 30. 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. 31. 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 32. The applicant shall complete primary arterial street improvements on the east PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 9n0131_ RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 side of Eisenhower Drive from the L.Q. Evacuation Channel bridge to the existing improvements at Eisenhower Drive including a full -width landscape median in the northerly half. The City will allow a left -in pocket at the project entry if the applicant provides sufficient right of way width fpr a median configuration which blocks right turns out. The applicant shall install a bus turnout and covered shelter in a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. 33. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to a left- & right-in/right-out driveway on Eisenhower Drive centered in this parcel's frontage. If the entry is gated, the applicant shall provide sufficient stacking room for entering vehicles and a turn -around for rejected vehicles. 34. 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. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by .professiona[ engineer(s) registered to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standards and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum structural sections shall be as follows: P:\STAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 900132 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5,5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 38. Prior to opening the parking lot for use by employees, the applicant shall install a[[ on- and offsite street and sidewalk improvements and traffic control devices on Eisenhower Drive. LANDSCAPING 39. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the Eisenhower Drive perimeter setback. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 40. 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. PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 900133 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 41. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 42. 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. 43. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment. 44. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 45. 75% of all trees shall be a minimum of 48" box size and 25% a minimum of 36" box size, or its equivalent along Eisenhower drive. 46. Parking lot shade trees shall be provided every four parking spaces with trees a minimum 24" box size. QUALITY ASSURANCE 47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 48. 'The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 49. 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. 50. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all off -site plans which were signed by the City PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 900I34 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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 51. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. 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. FIRE MARSHAL 53. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 54. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. 55. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if any, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 000135 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be 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". 57. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 58. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 59. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the USC/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 60. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground/aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 61. Install portable fire extinguishers in structures, if any, per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1013C in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 62. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. MISCELLANEOUS 63. Prior to issuance of any building permits for structures or fences approved by Site Development Permit 97-608, the developer shall complete the golf maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96-024, or any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto. PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd 900136 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003 KSL RECREATION CORP. SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 1. A current site plan is needed in the report that identifies all structures within the resort campus; as well as their dates of construction. In addition a historic site plan is needed showing the original buildings and those demolished. Was there an original Master Plan for the hotel property? 2. Page 9: (Paragraph 3) The 100's series should be noted on a location map. 3. Page 1:; The term "Eclectic" is not a commonly used classification for the style of the buildings. Perhaps the term "Spanish Revival" should be used as it would be the traditional classification nomenclature for this style. 4. Huntsman Trout may have been the landscape architect for the La Quinta Hotel which lends additional support that there may have been a Master Plan for the Hotel development. A clearer discussion of the landscape plans is needed, especially the Quad concept. 5. Page 5: A discussion on how the La Quinta Hotel compares with other resort properties of the time and region is needed. Sanitariums? College campuses? Are there any similarities with other places of time and region, or is the La Quinta Hotel unique? 6. Page 10: (Last paragraph) The original function and location for La Casa needs to be discussed. 7. Page 14: a discussion regarding which criteria (National Register or local) is being used to assess the property needs to be clearly stated in the beginning of the report. 8. In addition, the comments by staff contained in the June 17, 1997, memorandum to Pam O'Connor (on file in the Community Development Department) need to be addressed in the report. 9. A qualified archaeologist shall be required to monitor the project if the grading pAstan\pccoa ksl coapp97-003.wpd 900139 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2. The Certificate of Appropriateness has been deemed acceptable by the Historic Preservation Commission in that they have determined the proposed 119 Residential Specific Plan units are architecturally compatible with the historic La Quinta Structures, pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the finds of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above described Certificate of Appropriateness for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meet of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the this 151h day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:1pc Res COApp 97-003 900138 00138 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO, WEST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE. CASE NO.: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003 KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15" day of September, and 8t' day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club located south of Avenida Fernando, West of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission did on the 19th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and did recommend approval, as requested by KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to allow the construction of 119 new Residential Specific Plan units within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Villa and Tennis Club, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 1 AND 36, T6S, R6E, SBB&M WHEREAS, on the 19th day of June, 1997, the Historic Preservation Commission did adopt Minute Motions 97-011 and 97-012 recommending to the Planning Commission and the City Council, approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Certificate of Appropriateness; and, 1. The proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club is consistent with the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for new construction. pApc Res COApp 97-003 900137 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 KSL Recreation Corp. September 15, 1997 and trenching goes below ten feet in depth. 10. A final Archaeological Report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Miscellaneous: 11. Only one story structures shall be constructed. next to historic structures to provide a transition between old and new. 12. That the building complex known as "San Vicente", located on the east side of Avenida Obregon, be documented. This house may have been a caretaker's house and is located on the Hotel grounds. p:\stan\pccoa ksl coapp97-003.wpd ()nn14n ATTACHMENTS 000141. p i 1 AChiMEN 4 Q" COUNCIL WA MEETING DATE: September 16, 1997 Approval of Environmental Assessment 97-343, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97- 083, Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permits 97-607 and 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 Applicant: KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns (and various subsidiaries) RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Adopt City Council Resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-343; 2. Adopt City Council Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 97-054; 3. Move to take up Ordinance No._ by title and number only and waive further reading for Change of Zone 97-083. Move to introduce Ordinance No. — on first reading for Zone Change 97-083; 4. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, subject to conditions; 5. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Tentative Tract 28545, subject to conditions; 6. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97-607, allowing construction of 119 residential specific plan units and a health spa, subject to conditions; 7. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97-608, allowing construction of an employee parking lot, subject to conditions; 8. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003, which ensures that the proposed construction is appropriate for the existing historic structures, subject to conditions; . " p:\ks171597.wpd 9 0 0 14 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The City Council reviewed this request at its meetings of July 15, and August 5, 1997. The City Council continued the request to this ' meeting and instructed the applicant to restudy the proposal to address the concerns raised by the surrounding neighbors. For the August 5, 1997, City Council meeting, the applicant revised the proposal for Site Development Permit 97-608 pertaining to the golf course/hotel maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The maintenance facility was deleted from the proposal. A smaller employee parking lot reduced from 292 to 244 spaces was proposed on the south side of 50' Avenue, east of Eisenhower Drive. At the meeting the applicant presented a further revision by moving the parking lot to the west and south, in the center of the golf course, with access only to Eisenhower Drive. The site of the prior .parking lot is now shown as low density residential (2-4 dwellings per acre), along with the adjacent areas. Minor changes have been made to the spa and 119 unit residential specific plan units as follows: 1. The spa has been reversed in a north -south direction and moved slightly further to the north. 2. The Avenida Obregon cul-de-sac turnaround that has access from Avenida Fernando, in front of the spa has been modified to provide a drop off area for the spa and better access to the southernmost residential specific plan unit parking lot. 3. One residential specific plan unit cluster and half cluster have been reversed in a east -west direction. pAks17I 597.wpd 000143 9 - • As a result of the August 5, 1997, meeting, the applicant has submitted the following: 1. A revised traffic study adding an analysis of vehicle stacking at the Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando entry gates, with mitigation measures including recommended changes in gate operating procedures. The traffic engineer has submitted a clarification to the study stating that for the 119 unit residential specific plan project, no vehicular traffic is proposed to utilize the south leg of Avenida Obregon, which is gated for "emergency -only" and pedestrian use (Attachment 1). 2. An air quality analysis for the proposed construction with mitigation measures. 3. Supplemental noise assessments for 1) Calle Mazatlan, immediately west of the entry gate at Eisenhower Drive and, 2) Avenida Fernando, between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Obregon that analyzes projected peak season daily traffic volumes on those street sections. 4. An updated Specific Plan text to reflect the currently proposed project, including the reduction of Tourist Commercial (Residential Specific Plan) uses along 501 Avenue. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the revised plans (employee parking lot, revised General Plan and Zone Change) at a special meeting scheduled for September 15, 1997. Staff will provide to the City Council, a verbal presentation of the Planning Commissions action. The specific request of the applicant is as follows: 1. Approval of Environmental Assessment 97-343, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (see EA Resolution for Environmental information). 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential p:\ks171 597.wpd 900144 4-8 du. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from LDR (Low Density Residential 24 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50t" Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 3. Approval of a Change of Zone from RM (Medium Density Residential 4-8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property Located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from RL ( Low Density Residential 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50, Avenue and 240 feet south of Eisenhower Drive. 4. Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121 E to update the plan and allow new development and uses for the area comprising the Le Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts, and the southeast corner of 50t" Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map to divide approximately 62.5 acres into 134 lots for the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. 6. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-607 to allow removal of seven tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, and maintenance facilities and replace with 119 "residential specific plan" units and a health spa of approximately 14,600 square feet in the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east side of Avenida Obregon, across from the two existing sunken tennis courts. 7. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-608 to allow construction of a 244 space employee parking lot on approximately 2.4 acres, located approximately 220 feet south of 501 Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. B. Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure architectural compatibility between historic structures and proposed construction, pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. This case was readvertised in the Desert Sun on August 24, 1997. All property owners within the project area and within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice for this meeting. A number of letters p:\ks171597.wpd 900145 have been received regarding this request since the August 5, 1997, meeting. All correspondence received has previously been given to the City Council and is on file in the City Clerk and Community Development Departments. 1-91UTA110m, u The La Quinta Community Development Department has completed a new Environmental Assessment 97-343 for this request pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is recommended for certification. Specific Plan 121 E. Amendment 4 Planning Area V, the hillside areas to the north and west, is conditioned to be preserved as undevelopable open space. As allowed in the Hillside Regulations of the Zoning Code, the applicant will be allowed to transfer 21 dwelling units (1 unit per 10 acres) for construction elsewhere. The Planning Commission is recommending the applicant provide an easement for all the existing hillside areas to remain undevelopable open space. With the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Low and Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial (RSP), an accompanying decrease in the allowable residential units should occur. Rather than 1,558 units, a maximum of 1,367 dwelling units will be allowed as noted in the Specific Plan text. The existing Specific Plan allows a maximum of 200 Tennis Villas, of which 48 were constructed within the hotel compound. Within the vacant Villas area for the remaining 152 units, 85 of the proposed 119 "residential specific plan" units are planned. Therefore, the current proposal will create a less dense environment than the original Tennis Villas would if constructed. Intensity of the residential specific plan unit development is determined by compliance with development standards, including lot size, setbacks, and parking requirements (one space per bedroom). The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis contained in the Specific Plan Amendment Appendices states a portion of traffic (for residents of one "cluster" out of six p:\ks171597.wpd ���146 "clusters") to this 119 unit residential specific plan project will take vehicular access from the south leg of Avenida Obregon which is being terminated or cut off from the north leg which connects to Avenida Fernando. Presently, there is an "emergency -only and pedestrian gate across Avenida Obregon, approximately 1,900 feet south of the southern project boundary. The applicant does not have access control of this gate, and since it is for emergency and pedestrians only, vehicles will need to access this area through Calle Mazatlan. Access to the parking areas on Calle Mazatlan will require vehicles to enter through secured guard gates at either Avenida Fernando or Calle Mazatlan (501h Avenue). The Traffic Impact Analysis documents how hotel guests currently use the secured guard gates at Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando. With a pass from the hotel, they enter the left entry lane and give the guard their name, hotel reservation number, and vehicle license number. According to the analysis, the majority of the hotel guests who use the gates enter at Calle Mazatlan, with Avenida Fernando gate users being approximately 90% residents, according to the report. The majority of the Calle Mazatlan gate users are hotel or golf course patrons. According to the report, the current and future entry stacking backup can be eliminated by initiating the following operational change: 1. The hotel should always include a reservation number on the guest passes to allow the hotel guests to utilize the right entry lane (members/residents gate) at the guard gates. This mitigation would in and of itself effectively eliminate all project -related traffic at the guard gates. Other mitigation strategies that would reduce current and future vehicular queuing impacts include the following: 1. A second guard should always be available during peak traffic hours to process vehicles in the left entry lane. 2. Hotel guests that arrive before their room is ready and visit the golf clubhouse should be given gate passes and instructed to use the right entry lane to minimize delays at the guard gate. 3. A map should be provided with each hotel guest pass, and gate instructions should be printed on the back of the guest pass that direct hotel guests to use the right entry lane at the gated entries and prominently display guest passes in vehicles. 4. Signs should be provided at the gated entries indicating that residents and hotel guests with passes should use the right entry lane. pAks171597.wpd 900147 5. If the procedural changes identified above are implemented but the queue of vehicles in the left entry lane continues to extend longer than three vehicles, the guard gate at Calle Mazatlan should be relocated westerly to provide as much stacking distance for vehicles as possible and minimize the potential for queues of vehicles extending out onto Eisenhower Drive. These mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of approval. The new employee parking lot with access to Eisenhower Drive will eliminate the negative aspects of the existing facilities in the resort. On -site noise and traffic impacts from employees private vehicles west of Eisenhower Drive will be reduced, while possibly increasing peak resort related employee traffic on 501 Avenue. Except for some key hotel personnel, maintenance employees who work out of and park at the Avenida Carranza maintenance facility, and the Dunes Clubhouse employees (who will park at the adjacent clubhouse parking lot), hotel employees and maintenance personnel will utilize the new parking lot. The parking lot in the middle of the golf course area is proposed to be surrounded by a six foot high living chain link fence (chain link fence with vines or other vertical plants on it). Parking lot landscaping will be provided per City requirements. There is more than adequate sight distance for north bound traffic cresting the hill on the bridge south of the parking lot entrance and vehicles exiting the lot, to see each other, and respectively, operate their vehicles in a safe manner. The sight distance in this segment of Eisenhower Drive is suitable for vehicle speeds up to 70 miles per hour (mph). However, vehicle speeds that high are rarely encountered because the speed limit is 45 mph. The access driveway to the parking lot will accommodate right-in/right-out turning movements at Eisenhower drive. If adequate space permits within the right-of-way, a left turn lane may be constructed to accommodate left turns into the parking lot access driveway provided the median island and south bound travel way are widened enough to construct a positive barrier to prohibit left turn -out movements. Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached resolutions. p:\ks171597.wpd 109148 Alternatives available to the City Council are: 1. Approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission and amended by the applicant, by adoption of the attached resolutions; or 2. Continue the request to allow further review and study; 3. Deny the request. JE . ERMA , Community Development Director At air iments: 1. A Letter from Endo Engineering, dated September 8, 1997 2. Revised Specific Plan text and Technical Appendices (large document for City Council only) p:\ks171597.vvpd 000149 1 A Nip Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments September 8, 1997 Mr. Steve Speer Senior Engineer City of La Quinta 73-495 Calle Tampico L.a Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Response to Traffic Study Comments Dear Mr. -Speer: Endo Engineering has reviewed the City of La Quinta comments on the La Quinta resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Traffic Study dated August 25, 1997. Based upon our understanding of the project and our recent discussions with you, we are modifying the traffic study as described below. Comment 1: On page IV-3 of the traffic study the access to the residential area in Planning Area I includes a discussion of access to the south along Avenida Obregon. Did the traffic study assume access in this direction? Response 1: The analysis in the traffic study assumed that the southern extension of Avenida Obregon was closed to project traffic, and assumed that the traffic was assigned to Calle Mazatlan. The text in the traffic study (attached) will be revised to state that "The other five clusters will have access to Calle Mazatlan." We hope that the responses above and the revisions to the traffic study will meet your approval. If you have any concerns regarding our approach in responding to the comments. or have concerns other than those addressed above, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. Sincerely, ENDO ENGNTIRNG GregoPrincipal Attachment 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1330 !714) 362-0020 FAX: (714) 362-0015 000150 Parking Area Traffic Distribution The project -related traffic distribution associated with the hotel employees destined to and from the existing parking areas was determined by interviewing the workers on April 29, 1997 as they entered the parking area. The primary routes currently utilized to access the employee parking area are Avenue• 52 and Avenue 50. Secondary access routes include Highway 111 to Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive. The directional distribution of current trips to the existing hotel employee parking lot is shown in Figure IV-1. After the proposed employee parking lot is constructed, access on Eisenhower Drive will be restricted to right -turns. The employees will approach the parking lot from the south along Eisenhower Drive, as shown in Figure IV-2. The shuttle buses (included in Figure IV-2) that will transport the workers from the parking lot to their work areas will need to make a U-turn at Calle Tampico to approach the parking lot along Eisenhower Drive. Residentia0pa Trark Distribution The traffic distribution for the residential area (including the spa relocation) is shown in Figure IV-3. The access for two residential clusters in Site #1 will be to the north along Avenida Obregon. The other five clusters will have access to the west onto Calle Mazatlan. The five clusters with access to Calle Mazatlan will ingress through the Avenida Fernando gate, but will egress through both the Avenida Fernando gate and the Calle Mazatlan gate. The existing 18 hotel units as well as the future spa relocation have access to the north along Avenida Obregon. Figure IV-4 presents project -related morning and evening peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area with the hotel employee parking area at its existing location. Figure IV-5 depicts the project -related peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area and incorporates the proposed residential uses, parking lot relocation and expansion, spa relocation, and adjustments for the removal of the existing hotel units. IV. B THROUGH TRAFFIC The estimated through traffic or non -site traffic for the year 1999 is shown in Figure IV-6. These traffic volumes were developed by applying a 10 percent annual growth rate for two years to adjust existing volumes to the project build -out year. Construction is anticipated to be completed by the end of 1999. IV. C TOTAL TRAFFIC Figure IV-7 shows the total traffic volumes within the study area upon project completion. The total peak hour volumes shown in Figure IV-7 were developed by first subtracting the existing on -site parking traffic (shown in Figure IV-4) from the 1999 Non -Site traffic volumes (depicted in Figure IV-6) and then adding the project -related traffic (shown in Figure IV-5). The regional growth factor applied to daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity were not applied to the streets west of Eisenhower Drive. Since the potential for future development in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan is limited, the total daily traffic volume shown for Avenida Fernando, the main La Quinta Hotel entry, Avenida Obregon, and Calle Mazatlan reflect the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure III-4 rather than Figure IV-6 which includes a growth rate. The daily traffic volumes associated with complete development of The Enclave is discussed in Section VI. IV-3 900151 B 1 #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 15, 1997 CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 97-035 REQUEST: DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH PROPOSED VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AT THE LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES, UNIT NUMBER 1. LOCATION: THE EASTERLY FIVE (5) FEET OF LOT 19 AND THE WESTERLY FIVE (5) FEET OF LOT 14, OF THE LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES, UNIT NUMBER 1. APPLICANT: CHUCK KNOX BACKGROUND: Pursuant to State law', prior to public easements or rights -of -way being vacated by the City Council, the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the Planning Commission. The proposed area of vacation is the five -foot -wide public utility easements across the rear of Lots 14 and 19 of the La Quinta Golf Estates, Unit Number 1, (See Attachment 1). These two lots abut one another, and have been merged into one lot pursuant to Parcel Merger 96-316, which was approved by the Community Development Department on April 22, 1997. As a result, the existing two (2), five -foot -wide public utility easements which run along the rear of each lot now create a ten -foot -wide public utility easement which runs through the middle of the newly merged lot. 'Government Code Section 65402 F:\PWDE'T\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\97-035\97-035.WPD Page 1 of 3 This ten -foot -wide public utility easement creates an unbuildable area, limiting the property owner's ability to improve and build on the property. The property owner's current plans include building a 5,600 square feet residence and guest house, pending approval under Minor Use Permit 97-008. However, these plans have been placed on hold, and issuance of a building permit is pending until the two (2), five -foot -wide public utility easements which run through the middle of the property are properly vacated and abandoned. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC: AGENCY COMMENTS: On August 19, 1997, staff mailed notices to all public agencies, informing them of the proposed vacation. The Coachella Valley Water District, the Gas Company, and GTE have indicated that they have no facilities within the subject area and have no objection to the proposed vacation area, and do not require any easement reservations. However, the Imperial Irrigation District and Media One have indicated that they have facilities within the subject area which will require relocation and will require easement reservations, (see Attachment 2). FINDINGS: 1. The proposed vacation of public utility easements will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly; and secondly, the act of vacating the public utility easements will have no physical environmental effect. 2. With relocation of existing underground electric and cable television facilities, and an alternative public utility easement reserved for the public utility companies prior to recordation of the Resolution of Vacation, the vacation of these public utility easements will not impact public utility companies. 3. The public utility easements proposed for vacation are not used as a means of access, and are not identified as a component of the La Quinta General Plan, its Circulation Element, or any adopted specific plan. F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\97-035\97-035.WPD Page 2 of 3 RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion adopt the findings that the vacation of the public utility easements are in compliance with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Prepared by: MARCUS L. FULLER, Assistant Engineer I Submitted by: 9 � CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager MF/mf Attachments: #E1 -- Street Vacation Case No. 97-035 - General Vicinity Map #2 -- Public Utility Agency Responses F:\PWDEIIT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\97-035\97-035.WPD Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMEN' Vicinity Map c 0 rn c :c ca I La Quinta o Golf Estates Unit No. 1 See Detail Area a� w Avenue 50 Avenue 48 .Z CO w E ILI ATTACHMENT ,Abandonment ,Area 17 18 Detail Area 16 1 15 2 14 3 13 21 12 5 foot p.u.e. 5 foot p.u.e. N ATTACHMEN IMP R1 I I R R 1 11 N COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81-600 AVENUE 58 • P. 0. BOX 1080 • LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253-1080 TELEPHONE (760) 398-5854 • FAX (760) 391-5999 IIDPD-DDC August 21, 1997 Mr. Marcus L. Fuller, Assistant Engineer I City of La Quinta Public Works P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Fuller: Re: Street Vacation No. 97-035, Rear Easement Between Lots #19 and #14 in La Quinta Golf Estates No. 1, Between San Pedro and San Vicente Streets CIV pF LA A�6 2 61997 pjjDLx(;'W0F.f'S There are: existing electrical facilities owned, operated, and maintained by the Imperial Irrigation District (District) within the street vacation mentioned above. At the present time, contractors for the District have installed new replacement underground facilities along the western side of lot #19, fronting on San Pedro Street. A, P.U.E. needs to be dedicated along this portion of lot #19. Additional cable work needs to be performed in the area to the west of San Pedro Street prior to the de- energization and removal of the existing facilities in the street vacation mentioned above. It is anticipated that this cable work will be completed by the end of September. The facilities in the street vacation mentioned above should be removed by the mid -October time frame If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 3 98-5 818 or John Salas at 398-5834. Sincerely, r //' lC THOMAS F. LYONS, JR., P.E. Senior Engineer cc: Juan Salas, III) Enrique DeLeon, IID The Gas Company ATTACHMEN August 25, 1997 City of LaQuinta 78-495 Calle Tampico Lai Quinta, California 92253 ATTENTION: Marcus L. Fuller CITY ®F LA AUG 2 7 1997 P(JBLjc IVORKS RE.: Street Vacation No. 97-035 Southern California Gas Company has no facilities in the proposed vacation area and therefore does not require an easement reservation. Should you need further information, I may be reached at (909)335-7733. Since ly Geri Lee Planning Aide Southern Califor Gas Company /4.V 1.gCunIa.: Rrd(and,. f'.1 Ilar(ru,� .9ddrrs, Box i 00 i Redlands. CA 92 M- (130h August 27, 1997 City of La Quinta Public, Works Department Attn: Marcus L. Fuller P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Vacation No. 97-035 - La Quinta GTE ATTACHMEN %1' 0 44, AU �<7 GTE Califomia Incorporated 4s, Right of Way Department 11 South 4th Street, Second Floor Redlands, CA 92373 FAX (909) 335-8958 In Reply Refer To La Quinta Golf Estates, Unit No 1 Please be advised that GTE California has no objection to the proposed Vacation of the above -referenced subject We would appreciate a copy of the vacation to be sent to this office upon its final recording with the County Recorder. Please call me at 909-307-2656 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, TIM AVILA Right of Way Administrator Train, planes... and a SunBus to the beach? I 1 I 1 1 Enjoy a hassle free ride to San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point 1 and the San Clemente Pier via SunBus and Metrolink's Beach Train! 1 1 I j Saturday • September 20 1 1 1 and 1 1 Sunday • October 19 (Seafest'97) 1 1 1 1 1 $30 per person 1 1 1 1 7:30 AM SunBus Departs From Thousand Palms 1 9:00 AM Beach Train Departs From Riverside 1 10:34 AM Beach Train Arrives San Clemente Pier * 1 1 1 I 1 4:45 PM Beach Train Departs San Clemente Pier ** 1 6:20 PM Beach 'Train Arrives Riverside 1 7:30 PM SunBus Arrives Back Home RESERVATION & PAYMENT DEADLINE September 12 (for 9/20 trip) October 6 (for 10/19 trip) ASS Space is limited * Arrives San Juan Capistrano 10:17 AM; Dana Point 10:29 AM 1 * * Departs Dana Point 4:50 PM; San Juan Capistrano 5:03 PM 1 1 Free bus shuttle service is provided between all three beach cities. Children under the age of 18 years must be accompanied by an adult. COME AND ENJOY THE RIDE!----------------------- 1 ". 1 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 CASE NOS.: Environmental Assessment 97-343, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permits 97-607 and 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 APPLICANTS: KSL Recreation Corp. And its Assigns (SP 121 E, Amend. #4, Zone Change 97-083, SDP 97-608, and Cert. Of Appropriateness 97-003); KSL Land Corp. And its Assigns (GPA 97-054); and KSL Desert Resorts, Inc. (TT 28545 and SDP 97-607). REQUEST AND LOCATIONS: 1. Approval of Environmental Assessment 97-343, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (see EA Resolution for Environmental information). 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential 4-8 du. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from LDR (Low Density Residential 24 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50th Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 3. Approval of a Change of Zone from RM (Medium Density Residential 4-8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from RL ( Low Density Residential 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50th Avenue and 240 feet south of Eisenhower Drive. 4. Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121 E to update the plan and allow new development and uses for the area comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa cAmydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts, and the southeast corner of 50" Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map to divide approximately 62.5 acres into 134 lots for the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. 6. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-607 to allow removal of seven tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, and maintenance facilities and replace with 119 "residential specific plan" units and a health spa of approximately 20,200 square feet in the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and CaVle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east side of Avenida Obregon, across from the two existing sunken tennis courts. 7. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-608 to allow construction of a 244 space employee parking lot on approximately 2.4 acres, located approximately 220 feet south of 50t' Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 8. Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure architectural compatibility between historic structures and proposed construction, pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 97-343 for this request pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is recommended for certification. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Open Space, Golf Course Open Space, Tourist Commercial, Watercourse/Flood Control, Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), and Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). ZONING: OS (Open Space), GC (Golf Course), TC (Tourist Commercial), FP (Floodplain), RL (Low Density Residential), and RM (Medium Density Residential) BACKGROUND: cAmydata\wpdoes\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd This request will be reviewed by the City Council at its meeting on September 16, 1997. It was determined that the Planning Commission should review the revised portions of the project (i.e. deletion of the maintenance facility in SDP 97-608) and provide a recommendation. SDP 97-608 has been revised with the deletion of the maintenance facility. The existing maintenance facilities will continue to be used in place of a new facility. The employee parking lot location has also been moved to the south and west, between existing golf holes. Attached is the City Council staff report which discuses the current proposal (attachment 1). REQUIRED FINDINGS: Environmental Assessment 97-343 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. The City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the Planning Commission considered all significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. General Plan Amendment 97-054 and Zone Change 97-083 1. This Amendment and Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment and Zone Change only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. c:\mydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd 2. This Amendment and Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. 3. The new land use and zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The new land use and zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use and zone designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. Specific Plan Amendment 121 E, Amendment 4 1. The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club parking lots located near residential uses). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. The proposed development will be reviewed c:\rnydala\wpdocs\spl2leccrpt.wpd under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts. Tentative Tract 28545 1. The Tentative Map and its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 121E in that its lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the Map is mostly developed and mitigation measures and conditions will be imposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access to the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. Site Development Permit 97-607 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that units of this type are permitted in the Tourist Commercial designation that exist on part of this property and is proposed for the balance of this property. 2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. cAmydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd 4. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that it is of architectural design, colors, and materials, and has been recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. 5. The site design of the project is attractive and well designed and appropriate for the area. Parking has been kept around the perimeter of the site to increase the pedestrian aspect of the project. 6. The landscape design of the project with utilize plants compatible with the existing development. An emphasis on landscaping will reinforce the resort community image and character of the area. 7. The project will not require excessive new signs since it will be a part of the La Quinta Resort and Club. Site Development Permit 97-608 The project is consistent with the General Plan because the use is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the Specific Plan area. 2. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended. 4. The architectural design of the project is adequate and compatible materials and colors will be used. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with, the project will be architecturally acceptable. 5. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with the site design will be acceptable. The revision will mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding residences by moving it to the west and south. 6. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping will provide visual screening of the on site facilities. c:\mydatEL\wpdocs\spl2leccrpt.wpd Certifica a of Appropriateness 97-003 The Certificate of Appropriateness has been deemed acceptable by the Historic Preservation Commission in that they have determined the proposed 119 resort residential units are architecturally compatible with the historic La Quinta Resort Structures, pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. CONCLU Imo: The applications, subject to the conditions as recommended by Staff, are acceptable. The Site Development Permit applications will provide projects compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 97-343; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 97- ,recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 97-054; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Zone Change 97-083; 4. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, subject to conditions; 5. Adopt Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of Tentative Tract 28545, subject to conditions; 6. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-607, allowing construction of 119 residential specific plan units and a health spa, subject to conditions; 7. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-608, allowing construction of an employee parking lot, subject to conditions; c:\mydaLa\wpdocs\spl2leecrpt.wpd 8. Adopt Resolution 97- , recommending approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003, which ensures that the proposed construction is appropriate for the existing historic structures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Excerpt from City Council report for September 16, 1997. Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner SVbmitted by: Christine di lorio, ,Planning Manager cAmydata\wpdocs\sp 121 eccrpt.wpd RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT #4, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-054, ZONE CHANGE 97-083, TENTATIVE TRACT 28545, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SPA AND FITNESS CENTER, EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT, AND 119 RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN UNITS WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT CAMPUS LOCATED WEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND 50TH AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 15th day of September, and 8tn day of July, 1997, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings as requested by the KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97-607, Site Development Permit 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTION 36 AND 1, TOWNSHIPS 5 SOUTH AND 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution No. 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case, because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Conditions of Approval, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed; and, PALESLIE\pc Res EA 97-343.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 97- Environmental Assessment 97-343 September 15, 1997 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation to the City Council for certification of Environmental Assessment 97-343; 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. The City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the Planning Commission considered all significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the city Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment 97-343 for Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97- 083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97-607, Site Development Permit 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the project entitlement Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September 1997, by the following vote, to wit: PALESLIMpe Res EA 97-343.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 97- Environmental Assessment 97-343 September 15, 1997 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PALESLIE\pc Res EA 97-343.wpd ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 97-343 Case No.:GPA 97-054 Date:August 25, 1997 TTM-28545, SP 121-E, Amend. #4 SDP 97-607, SDP 97-6089 CZ 97-083 I. Name of Proponent: KSL Desert Resort, Inc. Address: `4-140 PGA Boulevard, La Q_uinta Phone: 7 60-564-1088 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): La Quinta Resort Specific Plan CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 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. X Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation X Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics Water Risk of Upset and Human health N Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance III. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fired 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 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 "potential significant unless mitigated". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. _Aug_ust 25. 1997 For: City of La Quinta. Community Development Department P:\En- Ckls•:97-343 -ii- ►0 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. X Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Earth. Resources Water Air Quality III. DETERMINATION. Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and Human Health Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: X Public Services Utilities X Aesthetics X Cultural Resources Recreation I fired that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fired that although the proposed project could have 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 "potential significant unless mitigated". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature. Printed Ni'afne and Title For: Qty of La Quinta Community Development Department P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -11- _Au ut st 25. 1997 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? X b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or X policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. X impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local X population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly X or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable X 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 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 X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? X lr)Expansive soils? X i)Unique geologic or physical features? X P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -iii- 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? X b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or X policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. X impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d.)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or rainority community)? 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local X population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly X or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable X 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 shaking X c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X (,.)Landslides or mudflows? X oErosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? X kr)Expansive soils? X i)Unique geologic or physical features? X PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -iii- 3.4 3.5 3.6 VVater. Would the project result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? 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? g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h)Impacts to groundwater quality? AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c:)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (I)Create objectionable odors? 'CRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact M X X M X RI X X X X X X PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -1v- 3.4 NVater. Would the project result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? 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? g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? li)Impacts to groundwater quality? 3.5 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (I)Create objectionable odors? 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -iv- Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 91 X M X X X 1:/ X X X X X X X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c:Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d')Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? X e'iHazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting X alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a ►Endangered, threatened or rare species or their X 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 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal X pool)? 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 X inefficient manner? 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of X hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazards? P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -V- Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d)Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? X e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X ficonflicts with adopted policies supporting X alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their X 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 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal X pool)? 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 X inefficient manner? 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of X hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazards? PAEnv Cklst 97-343 _v_ Potentially Less Than Potentially Significant Significant 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 Significant Unless Impact Impact Mitigated d'iExposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a')Increases in existing noise levels? X b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effiect 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 UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need fc)r new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a)Power or natural gas? X b)Communications systems? X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? X e)Storm water drainage X f)Solid waste disposal? X 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 PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -vi- No Impact M Potentially Less Than Potentially Significant Significant 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 Significant Unless Impact Impact Mitigated d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? Officreased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)Increases in existing noise levels? X b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 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 UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need f br new systems, or substantial alterations to the fallowing utilities: a)Power or natural gas? X b)Communications systems? X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? X e)Storm water drainage X f)Solid waste disposal? X 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 PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -vi- No Impact X 3.14 3.15 3.16 Potentiallv Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 X which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within X the potential impact area? RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional X parks or other recreational facilities? b)Affect existing recreational opportunities? X MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the Potential to degrade the X 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 X short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c'Does the project have impacts that are individually X 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 further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P:\Env Cklst 97-343 -vii- 3.14 3.15 3.16 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 X which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within X the potential impact area? RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional X parks or other recreational facilities? b ►Affect existing recreational opportunities? X MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ajDoes the project have the Potential to degrade the X 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 X short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c)Does the project have impacts that are individually X 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 further projects). d.)Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -vii- EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. 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. PAEnv Cklst 97-343 -viii- EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a )Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. 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. PAEnv Cklst.97-343 -viii- I ITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 La Quinta Resort Project: Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97-054 Zone Change 97-083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97-607 Site Development Permit 97-608 Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 Applicant: KSL Recreation Corporation and Assigns 56-140 PGA Blvd. La Quinta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 Leslie Mouriquand Associate Planner August 25, 1997 Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 L l Project Overview 3 L2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 5 2.3 Operational Characteristics 5 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 6 2.6 Related Projects 6 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 3.1 Land Use and Planning 6 3.2 Population and Housing 10 3.3 Earth Resources 11 3.4 Water 15 3.5 Air Quality 19 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 22 3.7 Biological Resources 26 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 30 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 31 3.10 Noise 32 3.11 Public Services 34 3.12 Utilities 36 3.13 Aesthetics 39 3.14 Cultural Resources 41 3.15 Recreation 42 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 43 5 EARLIER ANALYSES 44 Page 2 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify any potential environmental impacts of the amendment to the Specific Plan which includes development applications, changes in land use designation, Permits and a Tentative Tract map for the construction of new residential units, a spa and fitness center, and an employee parking lot within the La Quinta Resort campus. In order for the Applicant to construct these new structures, the following applications must be approved by the City: Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Tentative Tract Map 28545, Site Development Permits 97-607 and 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97- 003. In addition, this Environmental Assessment prepared for the above applications must be certified by the City Council. The Specific Plan area is located in the City of La Quinta, California. This area includes the La Quinta Resort campus which is primarily west of Eisenhower Drive, in Section 36 of Township 6 East, Range 5 South, and Section 1, of Township 6 East, Range 6 South, as depicted on the La Quinta 7.5' USGS Topographic Quad Map. The proposed employee parking lot will be located south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 an area also within the Specific Plan. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the priniicpal 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 approve the land use designations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff 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 State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the various project applications; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Page 3 To assist 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 applications were deemed complete subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended development and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared by Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner, for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initiall Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts for some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist (Land use and planning, air quality, transportation/circulation, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources). Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed project in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) which will reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2: P 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is 31.18 square miles in area located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. 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 the City of Palm Desert, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The project site is located in approximately the west -central portion of the City, mostly west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. The La Quinta Hotel is located within the project site known as the La Quinta Resort. Page 4 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project site is a portion of a 638 acre combined residential and hotel resort complex nestled in a cove setting below the Santa Rosa Mountains. This cove is a gently sloping alluvial fan with steep hillsides surrounding on three sides. The land included in this project has been inhabited and utilized since prehistoric times. In the early 1920's Walter Morgan purchased the property from the State for the purposes of developing a desert hideaway resort. In 1926, he began construction of the hotel and six cottages called Casitas. Morgan marketed the hotel to the Hollywood celebrities who frequented it for rest and relaxation. Over the years, the resort was expanded with additional casitas, additional golf courses, a landing strip, a stable, swimming pool, and other structures. The 1970's and 80's witnessed considerable expansion with a number of hotel rooms and single family homes constructed in the surrounding area of the Specific Plan. Thus, a majority of the property has been developed. There is no existing development in the hillsides and none is proposed. In 19138 Amendment #2 was approved to construct a maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The third Specific Plan amendment was approved in 1989 for 77 hotel units that were never built. In 1995., another amendment to the Specific Plan was approved to permit the construction of a conference/ballroom facility and rearrange parking facilities. The history of amendments to the Specific Plan includes one approved under Riverside County Jurisdiction, and three approved under City of La Quinta jurisdiction. The proposed amendment subject to this environmental review will be the fourth amendment under City jurisdiction. Today there is a total of 640 guest rooms and suites, with 66,000 square feet of meeting and function space. A retail arcade accommodates visitors and residents and there are three restaurants. There are two h.8-hole golf courses and 25 swimming pools, 35 hot spas and a tennis club. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Site Development Permits will consist of a new spa building and future fitness building, 119 new single family clustered 1, 2 & 3 bedroom residential units with hotel guest opportunities totaling 210 rooms or "keys", and an employee parking lot with 244 spaces. The proposed buildings will operate as new amenities for the resort complex. It is possible that all or part of the proposed new single family units may be purchased by one entity, leased to the La Quinta Hotel and operated as hotel units, or it is also possible that each unit will be purchased by individual owners. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is to not only to create new amenities for the resort visitors and residents„ but also update the distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the plan, and provide implementation measures in the form of regulations and standards on a plan and in a text. Page 5 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment 1n deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed project will require reviews and recommendations of approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of Environmental Assessment 97-343 Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97-054 Zone Change 97-083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97-607 Site Development 97-608 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS The project does not have any related projects other than those discussed in this addendum. There have been several plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last twelve years. With on -going development activities at the resort it is likely that there will be additional site development permit approvals required in the future. SECTION 3• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts, and compatibility with the proposed design of the spa and residences associated with the land use, subdivision design, architectural design, and historic architectural approval of the proposed development. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds of 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. The topographical relief in the valley ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Page 6 Local Environmental Vetting The Specific Plan is located mostly west of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. A small portion extends to the southeast corner of that intersection. The mountains are steep and rocky, and provide a striking contrast to the relatively flat cove area. Currently there are 640 hotel rooms or suites, two 18-hole golf courses, a commercial arcade, four restaurants, single family homes and custom home lots surrounding the resort campus, a tennis complex, and administrative buildings located on the campus. Only a few small parcels have never been developed within the resort or hillside custom lots and are still vacant. Historically, the resort property has been included agricultural uses, a horse stable, a landing strip, and was the site of a historic lake known as Lake Marshall. The land was also occupied prehistorically, as evidenced by the archaeological sites on the property. The ]and use and development history for the resort began with the initial approval of Specific Plan 121-:E in 1975 by Riverside County Board of Supervisors. This plan allowed the development of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, a 27-hole golf course, and service facilities on 619 acres. In 1982, an amendment to the specific plan was approved to allow for 279 additional condominium units, 146 new hotel units, and the annexation of 19.23 acres into the specific plan area for the development of the La Quinta Tennis Club and Tennis Villas (200 condominiums) in the central portion of the resort property. This amendment was processed under Riverside County jurisdiction as the City of La Quinta did not incorporate until May 9, 1982. In 1988, the first amendment under City jurisdiction was approved to add a new maintenance facility with employee and overflow parking lot located at the southeast corner of the Tennis Villas area. These facilities were constructed on two long pieces of land, the north parcel to have the maintenance facility and employee parking, .while the southerly parcel was developed with 162 parking spaces for the hotel use. In 1989, Specific Plan Amendment #2 was approved to add 77 new hotel units. These units were never built. In 1995, Amendment #3 was approved by the City in conjunction with Plot Plan 95-555 for the construction of a ballroom expansion and elimination of designated parking area and replacement with associated parking. On May 14, 1997, the Applicant made application to the City for Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121--E and related development applications as described in this document. Currently, the La Quinta Resort campus consists of 640 hotel rooms, convention facilities including 60,000 •+ sq. ft. of exhibit space, restaurants, office/retail space, two 18-hole golf courses, 25 swirnming pools, 38 spas and a tennis club. The Specific Plan currently allows for a total number of Page 7 1558 residential units. The gated residential sections of the resort include Santa Rosa Cove - 334 units (6 lots vacant), The Enclave/Mountain Estates - 32 custom units with 59 vacant lots, Los Estad.os - 40 residential units, Tennis Villas - 48 units built, 200 units approved, and land east of Eisenhower Drive - 110 units potential. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Adjacent land uses and their designations include: Low Density Residential uses to the east, Medium Density Residential.to the south, and Santa Rosa Mountains Open Space with a Hillside Conservation Overlay to the north and west. The Specific Plan area extends to the city boundary on the west. The existing residential, tourist commercial, golf and open space uses of the resort are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The existing General Plan Land Use designations for the residential resort include Low Density Residential (LDR) with a range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, and Medium Density Residential (MDIt) with 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Commercial designations include Tourist Commercial. Other- land uses include Golf Course, Open Space, and Water Course/Flood Control. The existing land 'uses are depicted in Exhibit 5 (Page 2.5) of the Specific Plan document submitted for this project. The proposed changes to the land use designations are depicted in Exhibit 6 of the above referenced document. Acreage under MDR will change from 22.5 acres to 5.5, while TC will increase from 43.5 acres to 60.5 acres in Planning Area I. The requested change involves an change of 6.3 acres to the TC (Tourist Commercial) designation, a reduction of the LDR (Low Density Residential) designation from 18.9 acres to 12.6 acres, but no change in the 6 acres of GC (Golf Course) and 3.5 acres of W (Water Course/Floodway) designated areas for that area east of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenue 50 - Planning Area II. The proposed changes in land use designations would serve as mitigation for the proposed development by providing for consistent and compatible land use categories. Existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area include RL - Low Density Residential, GC - Golf Course, WC - Water Course, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area II), and RM - Medium Density Residential, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area I), TC-Tourist Commercial, GC - Golf Course, OS - Open Space, FP - Flood plain, and HC - Hillside Conservation . The: Zoning District boundaries are proposed to be modified in that there would be an increase in the acreage of the TC Zone, a portion of the RL area would be redesignated to TC for the proposed parking lot and residential specific plan area located east of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. The proposed changes are depicted in Exhibit 8 of the Specific Plan document. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designations and would serve as mitigation for the proposed development in those specific areas where the zone change is requested, in that there would be consistency with the General Plan land use designations. The current Specific Plan for the resort provides for a maximum of 1558 residential dwelling units on 638 acres of the resort campus that are planned for residential, golf course, and open space uses. There is a. mix of densities from 2 to 8 units per acre, with an overall density of 2.4 dwelling units per Page 8 acre. 'The proposed Specific Plan amendment will reduce the overall allowable dwelling unit production to 1367 dwelling units. This number is calculated as follows: 1367 -152 units east of Obregon == 1406. 1406 - 60 units of the allowable 110 on land east of Avenue 50 (assuming 12.6 acres x: DU's/ac nets 50 built on the LDR = 1346. 1346 +21 transferred from the Hillside area = 1367 units (Source: Draft Specific Plan Amendment #4).Development standards will determine the actual density for a particular parcel for residential units in the TC-RSP areas. The proposed Specific Plan amendment would create a unique use category specified as Tourist Commercial- Residential Specific Plan (TC-RSP). With the anticipated use of the proposed single family detached residential units as potential hotel rooms that can be rented as "keys", a review of the Tourist Commercial (TC) Zoning District indicates that the purpose and intent of this zone is to provide for the development and regulation of a narrow range of specialized commercial uses oriented to tourist and resort activity. Representative land uses include retail uses, general commercial uses, office uses and health services, dining, drinking, and entertainment uses, recreation uses, public and semi-public uses, residential and lodging uses, accessory uses, and temporary and interim uses. Residential uses in the TC- (RSP) zone include townhome, single family, and multi -family residential uses in accordance with the Specific Plan Residential Overlay. Particular uses requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit include resort maintenance plants and facilities, pool/spa and water park uses, theaters, live or motion picture -indoor or outdoor, and parking garages as an accessory use to residential and lodging uses, and timeshare units. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions over the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta has lead agency jurisdiction over this project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. An EIR was prepared for the original Specific Plan in 1975. Environmental Assessment 95-304 was prepared for a ballroom expansion at the resort which was a part of Amendment #3 of the Specific Plan. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for that EA. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on the project site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey). D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve the demolition of six existing Page 9 condominium buildings, each with 3 units, in order to construct the new resort residential units. A total of 10,020 square feet will be demolished. Occupancy of the condominium buildings was at resort market -rates which precluded low-income families or individuals. Impact to the physical arrangement of the existing resort will be minimal as the proposed new buildings will allow for the continuing of the existing spatial organization of open spaces and walkways between buildings (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan).The proposed parking lot will be located south of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, which is physically separated from the main resort campus. However, the parking lot parcel was included in the Specific Plan area several years ago. Traffic from this parcel to the main resort campus will be via public streets separating the two Specific Plan areas. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is made up of nine cities in the eastern portion of Riverside County with a total population of more than 250,000 people. The current population of the County is 1.38 million (Source: Dept. Of Finance, 1996). Local Environmental Setting La Quinta incorporated in 1982 with a population of 5,260. Fourteen years later, the City has grown to 31.18 square miles with more than 18,931 permanent residents within its City limits. La Quinta's population ranks it sixth largest of the cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth has been approximately 10% in recent years (e.g., 1,000 people/year). The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000. The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population. The ethnic composition of the City is 70% White, 26% Hispanic, 2% Black, 2% Asian/Other. The 1990 Census indicates that 81% of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 2 1 % are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). The total number of housing units in the City is 9,923. Single family housing units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 6,845 detached single family units, 2,260 attached single family units, 571 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.118 (Source: 1997, Dept. of Finance). The number of housing units occupied is 6070, with 38.83% vacant. Median home prices in the City are just below $120,000 (1990 Census) which is consistent with the average for Riverside County but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overviews). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source; Community Development Department, City of La Quinta). A Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Page 10 - Less Than Significant Impact, The proposed residential specific plan units will generate additional residents and visitors to La Quinta, however, the anticipated vast majority of occupants of these units will be tourists staying at the hotel. It is not anticipated that a significant number of permanent new residents will result from this project that will cumulatively impact regional or local populations. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living at home. Often they will be seasonal residents, as opposed to permanent residents. The proposed project will provide a unique residential experience geared to tourist and resort uses and not likely to be used as permanent homes. Temporary construction -related jobs will be created as the new units and other buildings proposed for this project are built. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There; may be new jobs created for administration, management, attendants, and specialist for the spa and fitness center. It is anticipated that the existing staff will utilize the new parking lot. The proposed residential specific plan units may create some jobs for domestics, gardeners, and hotel staff. The number of new jobs created by this project is not anticipated to exceed 30. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive economic impact. New jobs will have an impact upon employee parking and vehicle trips which will be considered in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the resort. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings are within an existing developed resort campus. All infrastructure is existing. Connections to existing main lines will be required. No significant impacts are anticipated for this issue. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. It is proposed that six condominium buildings, each with 3 units, will be demolished in order to make room for the new resort residential units. The condos are a part of the hotel room stock and not individually owned or leased for long term occupancy. Thus, there will be no impact upon the City's stock of permanent occupancy housing stock and housing needs. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the steep, rocky mountains to the south and west. The Cove area of La Quinta is located on an alluvial fan. Elevations reach 1,400 feet above msl. and to below sea level in the southeastern portion of the City. Slopes on the valley floor are gently, except in areas of rolling sand dunes and sand shadows. The alluvial soils that make up the Cove area 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 Page 11 fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The entire valley is underlain by hundreds of feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local Environmental Setting The area where the project site is located is in a historical part of the City. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that a part of the site was farmed at one time. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 60 to 40 feet above msl (Source: TT 28545, USGS La Quinta Quad). Approximately 207.5 acres are designated as Open Space and are located in the steep rocky mountains at the western, southwestern, and northern boundaries of the property. There are two inferred earthquake faults, one located approximately 2 miles south of the resort property, and the other, approximately 1.5 miles east. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III with Zone 12 being the most hazardous (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1979, there are seven different types of soils present on the resort property. These include Ip - Indio fine sandy loam, Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, GbA - Gilman fine sandy loam, MaB - Myoma fine sand, CcC - Carrizo stony sand, Ru - Rubble land, and GeA - Gilman silt loam. Each of these soil types has distinctive characteristics and land use suitability. The Is (Indio very fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the relatively flat areas where the propsed spa and fitness buildings and new resort residential units are proposed. This soil type belongs to the coarse -silty, mixed (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow, and the risk of wind or water erosion is slight. The best use of this soil type is for agriculture, such as truck crops. For construction purposes the shrink -swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The Ip (Indio fine sandy loam) soil type is found in the vicinity of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. This soil type belong to the same taxonomic class as does the Is soil type. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard from wind or water is slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. This soil type is best suited to agricultural uses. The shrink - swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GbA (Gilmore fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the northern and southern portions of the flatter resort areas on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. This soil type belong to the coarse -loamy, mixed (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class of soils. This soil type is subject to flooding. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. Runoff is slow, erosion hazards are slight, Page 12 however, blowing sand is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is agriculture. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The N1aB (Myoma fine sand) is found in areas with 0 to 5 % slope in the northwest corner of the resort property. This soil belongs to the mixed, hyperthermic Typic Torripsamment taxonomic class. Runof"is very slow, erosion is slight. The best use for this soil type is agricultureal uses, however it is suitable for homesites and recretion uses. Blowing sand hazards are high. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low. Cut banks will cave in shallow excavations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CcC (Carrizo stony sand) soil type is found on slopes 2 to 9 percent in grade, on alluvial fans where drainage from the mountain enters the valley. This soil type belongs to the snndy-skeletal, mixed hyperthermic Typic Torriothent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow except in channels. The best land use for this soil type is for watershed and wildlife habitat. The shrink -swell factor is low. Risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is moderate to high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). Rubble land (Ru) soil type is found on slopes with 2 to 15 % grade, on very old alluvial fans. It is composed of 90% cobbles, stones, and boulders, cut by numerous ill-defined intermittent stream channels in a braided pattern. Riverwash is found alongside the main drainageways among the steep slopes. Desert Varnish is found on the exposed surfaces. Vegetation is an extremely sparse cover of brush, creosote bush, barrel cactus, bush sunflower, ocotillo, and an occasional clump of annual grass in the pockets of fine sand. The best land use for this soil type is watershed, wildlife habitat, and recreation (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GeA {Gilman silt loam) soil type is found on slopes with 0 to 2 % grade and has a slit loam surface layer. This soil type belongs to the same taxonomic class as does GbA soil type. Runoff is slow and erosion hazards are slight. The best land use for this soil type is for growing citrus, dates, cotton, and alfalfa hay. The shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CsA (Coachella fine sandy loam) is found in areas with 0 to 2 % slopes. This soil type belongs to the sandy, mixed hyperthermic, Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. It is found on the parcel where the proposed employee parking lot is proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. Runoff is medium, and erosion hazards are slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is for truck crops. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risk for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The site of the proposed spa and fitness buildings, and the residential specific plan units has been graded and, compacted in past years in anticipation of construction that did not take place. Over time this same area has been used for soil borrowing and depositing from adjacent construction projects. It is estimated that the project site soil has been disrupted to a depth of about 10 feet. Page 13 A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred earthquake fault lines in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the resort. These faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist-Pfiolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site (Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, City of La Quinta General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new development will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring prople to the site who will be subjected to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone III. The new structures will be required to meet current seismic design and construction standards to reduce to risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less 'Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunami. There are no active volcanoes in the local area to create a hazard. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? No Impact. The proposed building sites are several hundred feet from the steep mountains to the west, thus there is no possibility of landslides or mudslides. The existing structures within the Specific Plan are on a gently sloping alluvial fan. Page 14 F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require grading and trenching for the various buildings. Geotechnical reports will be required to be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review prior to issuance of grading permits. The Applicant states that grading will include 3.90 acres for the proposed parking lot, 0.8 acre for the proposed Spa building, and 6.5 acres for the residential specific plan units. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: La Quinta MEA). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the project site Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, and Ip - Indio fine sandy loam. Both soil types are characterized by slow runoff , slight erosion hazards from either wind or water, and no flood hazards associated with them. The shrink -swell capacity is low, indicating that these soil types are stable for construction considerations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Less Than Significant Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located within the project site or near enough to the project to be affected by the proposed spa and fitness buildings, employee parking lot, or the new residential specific plan units. 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. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as wellas a significant supply for the City's Page 15 nonpotabl.e irrigtion needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via eleven wells in the City operated by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy Ranch, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the City is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet is considered excellent. 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 as more demands for water are placed on the supply. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private development which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated ground water; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which results in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (TDS) increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoll The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process for which the City of La Quinta is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Vetting The ]Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1974 by Harry H. Schmitz & Associates for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club, states that the Lower Coachella Valley receives imported water from the Colorado River and is primarily used for agricultural purposes. This water has little importance to the Upper Valley, with the noted exception of La Quinta. In La Quinta this flow moves into the area from the north and northeast, and no groundwater barriers have been identified in this locality. Groundwater recharge comes from these subsurface inflows enhanced by seepage of applied irrigation water from the Coachella Canal. Page 16 Practically all water used in La Quinta is obtained from wells located within the community. The domestic water system serving the older part of the community was operated by the Santa Carmelita Water Company. The first golf and condominium development was served by the La Quinta Water Company. Now, the entire City is served by the Coachella Valley Water District. There are still a few large private wells used for irrigation and agriculture within the community. The proposed project sites do not have standing water on them. The nearest stands of water consist of several small lakes on the golf courses. Historically, there was a lake at the southern end of the property known as Lake Marshall. The lake dried several decades ago. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed in 1970. Construction of the system was completed in November 1986. The nearest stormwater facility to the project sites is the Oleander Reservoir which is located south of the resort property and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which passes through the southeastern portion of the resort property. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings including the residential units will decrease absorption rates and amounts in that foundations and hardscape will be placed where there was previously none, except for where the condominium buildings that are slated for demolition and the tennis stadium are located. Pavement for the proposed employee parking lot will decrease absorption rates in that area. Drainage patterns are designed to direct runoff to the existing golf course lakes. The new buildings are not anticipated to alter the drainage pattern significantly as they will be located amidst existing buildings with an established drainage pattern. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project sites are within Zone X on the Federal Flood Insurance rate ,maps. Zone X includes those areas determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain. The area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. Local stormwater drainage requirements for this site are the responsibility of the City (Source: CVWD). C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less; Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the proposed new buildings including the residences will be required to be directed into the existing drainage facilities. Water discharging from the Page 17 proposed spa building is anticipated to be proximal to swimming pool or jacuzzi water. Spas are regulated by the Public Health Department and will be monitored by resort staff in accordance with Health Department requirements for appropriate chemical maintenance and sanitation (Source: Application materials). D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no bodies of surface water on the proposed project sites. Existing drainage facilities are located south of the resort property and include the golf course lakes. Runoff water is designed to flow into the lakes and Oleander Reservoir. Flooding occurs rarely so that there is anticipated to be little change in the amount of surface water in the vicinity (Source: Application materials; La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial natural bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural reservoirs are still in use. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man-made stormwater diversion channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. The future development of the project sites will not affect to a significant degree any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survey; Application materials; La Quinta MEA). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Development of the proposed buildings and units does not include any new wells or cuts into the aquifer (Source: Application materials; La Quinta MEA). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells as there is not proposed alteration to the rate or direction of flow of groundwater supply by any aspect of the construction or operation of the spa and fitness buildings, parking lot, or the residential specific plan units (Source: Application materials). H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Several of the proposed buildings will be constructed in an existing resort campus, with six condominium buildings and a tennis stadium, and tennis courts to be demolished in order to make room for the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific Page 18 plan wets. Some vacant land will be part of this development as well. The employee parking lot will be constructed on vacant land. The proposed development does not include any cuts into the groundwater supply, nor does it include any operational activities that would impact the quality of the groundwater (Source: Application materials). 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQM)), and in particular the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but to a lesser extent than SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes. The AQMD has defined Criteria Pollutants of concern in SCAB and the Coachella Valley. These pollutants consist of lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM 10, sulfate, and visibility. There are national, state, and regional levels for almost all of the pollutants. There are standards for ozone and PM 10 at the Coachella Valley level. For the other pollutants the high level of governmental standards must be referred to as indicated in Table 3-1 - Criteria Pollutants of Concern in SCAB and Coachella Valley, of the Draft SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Local Environmental Setting The City 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. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMP, a plan which described measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. In addition, the type of development Page 19 proposed by the amendment to the Specific Plan would be covered by the La Quinta General Plan EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations in that this type of development is needed to further enhance the quality of life sought as essential and beneficial in attracting new residents, business, and visitors to La Quinta and generally promoting increased investment and return on property values. "The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated a "severe-17" ozone nonattainment area because of violations of the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. he 1997 Air Quality Management Plan indicates that attainment of the 1-hour federal ozone standard will be possible by November 15, 2007 (as required by the Federal Clean Air Act) with the proposed control strategy for the South Coast Air Basin and control of locally generated emissions via state and federal regulations. The Coachella Valley was reclassified in February 1993 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "serious" nonattainment area for PM10, which means that he valley had violated federal health -based standards for particulate matter. PM10 monitoring in the Coachella Valley over the last three years indicates that (with the exception of one measured PM10 exceedance due to a high wind natural event) that area has attained the federal PM 10 standard and since the EPA recently released a natural events policy which exempts certain high wind events causing PM 10 air quality exceedances as being counted as a violation, the Coachella Valley is now eligible for consideration by the; EPA as having attained the federal PM10 standard. The proposed project is located south of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments "Blowsand Hazard Zone" (Source: Endo Engineering, 1997). A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less 'Than Significant Impact. An air quality study was prepared for the proposed project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. The report concludes the following: 1. Daily and quarterly construction -related emissions associated with the proposed project are not projected to exceed the SCAQMD_ significance threshold criteria and therefore should be considered insignificant. 2. Upon completion in 1999, the proposed project would generate approximately: 305.7 pounds of carbon monoxide, 35.5 pounds of reactive organic compounds, 40.0 pounds of Nox 2.5 pounds of and 3�.2 pounds of PM10, primarily due to motor vehicle use associated with the project. 3. The proposed project is not considered to have a significant long-term impact on air quality, since it will not exceed any of the SCAQMD operational threshold criteria. 4. C:ALINE 4 modeling indicates that the one -hour and eight -hour state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide will not be exceeded at the largest intersection carrying a significant amount of project -related traffic in 1999, regardless of whether or not the project is constructed. Page 20 5. The proposed project appears to be consistent with the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan and the Coachella Valley PM10 SIP." The Endo report lists 10 mitigation measures for air quality issues that will become conditions of project approval. These conditions are found on Pages 1-2 and 5-2 of the Endo report. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less 'Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, residences, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individual recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. A radius of 1/4 mile for sensitive receptors is the AQMD standard for consideration of this issue. Within this radius, the land uses surrounding the three buildings include residential, hotel, open space, and tourist commercial, and athletic facilities. The residential and athletic facilities constitute sensitive receptors. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "Sensitive receptors." If sensitive receptors are located adjacent to a major intersection, carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" may occur during times of peak use. High levels of carbon monoxide are also associated with traffic congestion, and with idling or slow -moving vehicles, depending on the background CO concentration. Therefore, projects that could negatively impact levels of service at major intersections with nearby sensitive receptors must quantify and, if necessary, mitigate potential impacts (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Endo Engineering, Aug. 1997). The Air Quality report prepared for the project by Endo Engineering, states that the current and future; project -related traffic volumes in Planning Areas I and II are quite small. In addition, the ambient carbon monoxide concentrations in the Coachella Valley are very low. As a result, the likelihood of a CO "hot spot" that could affect pedestrians or local residents is extremely remote." C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the proposed development within the resort. The three proposed building areas are located within an existing resort development that is located within a desert cove at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The distal end of the cove is oriented toward the east and is protected from the prevailing winds from the west. The resort does not have any activities or land uses that would alter the climatic factors in any significant or detectable manner (Source: Application materials; site survey). D. Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed building areas are not anticipated to result in any detectable odors, such as those from restaurants, chemical products, or stockpiling of waste materials (Source: Application materials), Page 21 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Eisenhower Drive, Avenues 50 and 52. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. There is a relatively low incidence of automobile accidents at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The La Quinta MEA states that for the year 1988 to 1989, there were 6 reported accidents at this intersection. For 1995, there were two reported accidents, and in 1996, there were four reported accidents. Thus far, for 1997, there have been three reported accidents for this intersection (Sources: La Quinta MEA; SWITRS; Public Works Department records). Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus lines operated by Sunl rie Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects Eisenhower and Avenue 50 with the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the West. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert (Source: La Quinta MEA). There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these; systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project is an update to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area is located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, and at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The resort is accessed at Avenida Fernando, north of Avenue 50, and at the main entrance located at Avenue 50. There are traffic signals at both Avenue 50 and Avenida Fernando, on Eisenhower Drive. Both Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 are designated as Primary Arterial roadways, and has a right-of-way width ranging between 100 and 110 feet. The La Quinta MEA states that as of June 1991 the average daily traffic flow along Eisenhower Drive, north of Avenue 50, was 9,800; and south of Avenue 50, it was 7,900. Along Avenue 50 the average daily traffic count was 3,500. The La Quinta General Plan lists roadway deficiencies within the City. The area in the vicinity of the project site has a lack of road shoulders and sidewalk facilities to support alternative modes such as Page 22 of Avenue 50, was 9,800, and south of Avenue 50, it was 7,900. Along Avenue 50 the average daily traffic; count was 3,500. The La Quinta General Plan lists roadway deficiencies within the City. The area in the vicinity of the project site has a lack of road shoulders and sidewalk facilities to support alternative modes such as bicycling and pedestrian movement throughout most of the system. The proposed amendment will permit the consolidation of two existing parking areas for the hotel into a. single new parking lot. The proposed new lot will have 244 parking spaces which will replace the fragmented 215 spaces in the two existing parking areas. The two existing parking areas are located in sensitive residential surroundings at the rear of the hotel, west of Avenida Obregon and north of Calle Mazatlan. There is also a neighboring lawn maintenance/storage area that can accommodate 17 vehicles. The hotel employee and landscape maintenance parking lots can only be accessed by driving through the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Fernando and traveling south along Avenida Obregon, passing through the La Quinta Hotel grounds (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). Access for the proposed parking lot would be off of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. Adjacent to the; north of the parking lot is a future Residential Specific Plan area and a Low Density Residential area. A detailed discussion of this future residential area is found in the Endo Engineering Traffic Analysis (August 1997) prepared for this project. Vehicular access to the proposed residential specific plan units within the hotel grounds will be via Avenida Obregon, Calle Mazatlan off Eisenhower Drive, or Calle Mazatlan, off of Avenida Fernando. A center portion of Avenida Obregon within the resort area will be vacated to form a cul- de-sac at the residential specific plan units. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. Eight traffic impacts were identified with the proposed project. (1) The proposed project will replace the 177+/- off-street spaces that currently exist in the hotel employee and landscape maintenance parking lots associated with the La Quinta Resort with approximately 250 spaces in a new parking lot. As a result, construction -related traffic will be generated in the vicinity of the new parking lot, following project approval and continuing until project completion. (2) The traffic analysis prepared for this project concludes that a total of approximately 410 daily trip - ends are projected to be associated with the proposed consolidated parking lot on a typical weekday, with 31 inbound and 3 outbound trips during the morning peak hour and 8 inbound and 29 outbound trips during the evening peak hour of adjacent street traffic. These trips will be permanently re-routed from existing parking areas, a process that will reduce traffic volumes along some existing site access Page 23 hour (185 inbound and 99 outbound) and 209 trips are projected to occur during the morning peak hour (52 inbound and 157 outbound) (4) The redistribution of project -related traffic will reduce employee traffic volumes on two-lane streets through existing residential neighborhoods and La Quinta Hotel guest accommodation areas but increase employee traffic volumes along Avenue 50 (a master planned four -lane divided primary arterial that is a designated truck route). (5) Construction of additional residential units will increase traffic volumes through the internal streets of the La Quinta Resort including Calle Mazatlan, the La Quinta Hotel main access, Avenida Fernando, and Avenida Obregon. (6) All four of the existing key intersections will provide LOS B or better operation (acceptable levels of service) in 1999 with or without the proposed project. The peak hour levels of service provided at all four existing key intersections will be the same upon project buildout as they are today (LOS A or LOS B).The fifth key intersection (at Eisenhower south of Avenue 50) does not exist today, and will be restricted to right -turn only access. (7) All of the key intersections evaluated currently operate, and will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with or without the project. Although the proposed project would create a minor change in the Year 1999 peak hour intersection delay (up to 1.0 second/vehicle), the change would not be sufficient to change the level of service at any of the key intersections. (8) Following implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the proposed Amendment Number 4 to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, the proposed project will have a less-than-significnt impact on all roads and intersections within the study area. The traffic report recommends mitigation measures to reduce potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed project. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project Conditions of Approval. Following the implementation of the mitigation measures, as stated in the traffic study the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan will have a less - than -significant impact on all roads and intersections within the study area, for the proposed project. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. There are no identified safety hazards with the road design or accesses by the proposed project. No off -site improvements are required to achieve adequate levels of service at the key intersections under year 1999+ project conditions (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Page 24 Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic report prepared for this project does not identify inadequate emergency accesses. A detailed discussion of access issues is provided in the traffic report (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? No Impact. The proposed spa and fitness buildings do not have specific parking spaces provided because the patrons of these two buildings will largely be the hotel guests whose parking will be already provided by general guest parking facilities. However, there will be 76 parking spaces available to share with other hotel users within close proximity. The proposed residential specific plan units will have one parking space per bedroom which will provide adequate parking space for these units. These spaces will be located around the perimeter of the clusters of units. Carriage units will have their parking spaces underneath the units. The proposed employee parking facility will have 244 parking spaces on the 3.90 acre facility. The hotel currently has approximately 200 employees. Additional employees will probably be added to the stailas a result of the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific plan units (maids, gardeners, security, management, etc.).The proposed 244 spaces should provide adequate parking for existing and project -related needs. The traffic report concluded that the proposed employee parking lot on Eisenhower and Avenue 50 will replace the 215+ employee parking spaces that currently exist in two separate parking areas associated with the La Quinta Resort (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. Eisenhower Drive is a designated bikeway corridor. The proposed project: is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the corridor other than to possibly add additional bike riders as a result of the proposed residential specific plan units or employees. The corridor will be improved. The proposed new buildings within the resort campus may result in some additional bicycle riders. There are no anticipated hazards or barriers proposed that would affect bike riders. There are existing pathways within the resort that accommodate bikeriders (Source: Application materials; site survey). Avenue 50 is designated as a Class H Bike Route, however, no bikeway facilities will be constructed until development along Avenue 50 occurs (Source: La Quinta Bike Route Plan). A concern for pedestrian safety along Avenida Fernando, between Avenida Obregon and Eisenhower Drive, has prompted the recommendation to provide a walkway via striping on the pavement and/or installation of a sidewalk on Avenida Fernando. Such a walkway will become a condition of approval with the design to be approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Department (Source: Endo Engineering, August, 1997). F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 25 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed employee parking lot will provide 244 parking spaces for the resort employees. The Zoning Ordinance requires entities with 100 or more employees, to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to mitigate impacts from numerous vehicular trips and congestion. The resort has over 200 employees for which the proposed parking lot will service. The new parking lot will consolidate parking into one facility. Employees will park in the facility and be shuttled to and from their work posts within the resort via a single drop-off point. Bicycle racks will be required to be located within the parking facility for employees to secure their bicycles. The proposed spa and fitness buildings will be required to have bicycle racks provided for both employees and guests. Bicycle racks are required for commercial land uses, and the spa and fitness buildings will be in the Tourist Commercial Zoning District. The proposed residential specific plan units will not be required to have bicycle racks as they will function as a specific plan residential land use within the Tourist Commercial Zoning District. The resort has an on -site bicycle rental facility that rents bicycles to guests of the resort. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, no air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately six miles north of the project site. The other airport is the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; site survey). 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 La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment. Regionally, there are numerous desert animals that have adapted themselves in many ways to cope with the desert environment. Animal species found and known to exist in the Valley are widely diversified in both population and number of species. These animals include about three dozen marnmals. Many of which will utilize several or all of the different habitats found in the region. They include bats, rabbits, rodents, coyotes, foxes, skunks, bobcats, and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The bighorn inhabit the Sant Rosa Range and foothills lying to the southwest of the Coachella Valley. Tracks and occasional sighting of these animals occur in the Indian Wells, Palm Desert, and La Quinta Page 26 areas. There are numerous amphibians and reptiles in all habitats of the Lower Sonoran ecosystem. They include the toads, tortoises, lizards, and snakes. Countless numbers and species of birds have been ;frequenting the Coachella Valley during seasonal migrations for centuries. In addition, there are numerous species of permanent resident birds in the desert. The more noticeable one include quail, hawks, doves, roadrunners, hummingbirds, wrens, mockingbirds, warblers, finches, and sparrows. Insems and arthropods typically found in the desert include scorpions, crickets, grasshoppers, spiders, beetles, butterflies, bees and a host of others which have adapted to the environment (Source: La Quint:a Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report, July 1974). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land in this environment is rich in biological resources and habitat. This ecosystem is the most typical environment in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water use, go dormant during period of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals and birds. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The Black -tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species found in this area include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal found in this area is the Peninsular Big Horn sheep which is found at the higher elevation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub ecosystem. The resort property is largely developed. Historically, horse stables, a landing strip, or agriculture has been present in areas where there are structures or golf course today. Only small parcels within the resort: campus have not been disturbed by some sort of land use activity over the 70 years since the resort was first constructed. The southeastern corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive has been previously disturbed by grading and excavation activities connected with the construction of the golf course in that area. A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Less Than Significant Impact. The mountains located along the north, west and southwestern portions of the resort property are within the habitat of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep., and the possible habitat of the Magic Geko. The relatively flat areas of the resort property are within the habitats of the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. The California Ditaxis, a rare plant, has also been reported in the general area (Source: La Quinta MEA). Page 27 Field surveys were conducted during August and September 1973 for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Terms Chub Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (July 1974). The summary of field notes indicates that flora species observed included Ink Weed (Suaeda Torreyana), Mesquite, creosote, salt cedar, Alkali Goldenbush (Happlopappus acradenius), Coyote Melon (Curcurbita Palmeri), Cattle Spinach, Wild Tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Catclaw, Burrobush, Indigo Bush, and Desert Sweet. In addition, the resort property supported a variety of agricultural plants and trees including citrus, dates, and fields of alfalfa. Reptiles observed during the surveys included Barred Collared Lizard, Fringe -footed (sic) Lizard (Uma inornata), Gridiron Lizard (Callissurus d. draconoides), Flat -nosed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos calidarum), Tiger Whip -tail (Cnemidodophorus tigris), Stansbury's Uta (Uta stansburiona), Desert Iguana (Dipsosaurus d. dorsalis), Long-tailed Uta (Uta graciosus), Giant Scaley Lizard (Scalaporus magister). Other lizards not observed, but thought to be present on the property include Mearn's Cliff Uta (Pertosaurus meamsi), Henshaw's Spotted Night Lizard (Xantusia henshawi), Tuberculte Gecko (Phyllodactylus tuberculatus), and Banded Gecko. Snakes not observed, but thought to be present include Desert Mountain Speckled Rattler, Van Denburgh's Night Snake (Trimorphodon vandenburghi), Red Diamond Rattler (Crotalus ruber), Red Racer, and Bull Snake. Avian fauna observed were the California Ground Cuckoo (Geococcyx californianus), Gambel or Desert Quail, House Finch or Linnet, White -winged Dove, Mourning Dove, Mexican Dove, Mockers, Starlings, English, Sparrows, White-rumped Shrike, and Grasshopper Falcon. Others known to frequent the area include swallows, Swifts, Warblers, Thrushes, Flycatchers, Hummingbirds, Orioles, and Texas Night Hawk, Western Tanager. These birds all follow the Coachella Valley Flyway northwestwardly out of the Valley for more northern climes. Mammals observed on the site included coyote, Round -tailed Ground Squirrel, Antelope Ground Squirrel, Pocket Gopher (a variety of Thomomys bottae), Jack Rabbits, and skunks. Nocturnal mammals would include Desert Pack Rat (Neotoma lepida) Canyon Mouse, Cactus Mouse, Spiny Pocket Mouse, Long-tailed Pocket Mouse, and many bats of large and small species. A rare Ring- tailed Cat: (Bassariscus astutus) or Cacomistle was observed. The possibility exists that the Desert Bighorn Sheep may visit the ridges of the Santa Rosa foothills west of La Quinta and western limits of the project site (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EIR, July 1974). Insect fauna observed on the property included Wood -borers belonging to the family Buprestidae, genus Hippemelas, Sand Wasp (Epibembix melanoaspis), Coachella Valley Eye Gnats (Hippelates colhusor Townsend), Desert Grasshopper (Trimerotropis pallidipennis), Saltbush Grasshopper (Ancona integra), Ateloploides elegans a rare grasshopper, Robber or Assassin Fly (Caratotainiops) (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EK July 1974). The :Peninsular Bighorn Sheep are listed as rare by the California Fish and Game Commission, s status which corresponded to their federal listing as a threatened species. They are found on the rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains south and west of La Quinta. Some sheep have been observed Page 28 feeding in the bajada south of the village of La Quinta and sheep tracks have been observed near the Cove; Reservoir. Portions of the State Game Refuge 4-D, established in 1917 by the State Legislature primarily for the protection of native bighorn sheep, lie within La Quinta. Other endangered and threatened wildlife species found in La Quinta is as follows: Coachella Fringe -Toed Lizard Flat -Tailed Horned Lizard Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket Prairie Falcon Golden Eagle Vermillion Flycatcher Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Crissal Thrasher Le Conte's Thrasher Through that past 70 years, the resort property has been impacted by expansion of new buildings and residential units, additional golf courses, and amenities that have resulted in the disappearance of habitat. Of the faunal and flora species discussed in this document, the species of concern are the Coachella. Fringe -Toed Lizard, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Black -Tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis. There are no other known biological surveys to have been conducted on the resort property since the 1973 survey. Based upon the information contained in the EIR and the La Quinta NIEA, it appears that there is a potential impact to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep whose habitat includes the mountainous areas of the resort property. Any proposed recreational intrusion into those mountains would potentially impact the sheep. The Open Space designation prohibits any type of development, including trails, in the mountains without an approved Conditional Use Permit. If the; Applicant should decide to include recreational activities or facilities in the mountainous areas of their resort, a complete biological study would be required to be submitted to the City with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Consultations with California Fish and Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, and other appropriate entities would be consulted as part of the review process. Mitigation for the Fringe -Toed Lizard consists of the payment of a mitigation fee used toward the purchase and maintenance of preserve lands. The resort property is not within the designated fee payment area. Thus there is no required mitigation for this species. The Black -tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis do not currently have any required mitigation measures. In the near future there may be a mitigation requirement in connection with the completion of the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Page 29 No Lmpact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta_ All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). C. Would the project result in impact to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Less Than Significant Impact. There are eight locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. The La Quinta MEA identifies these habitat types which are described in terms of their decreasing elevation and development. These habitats consists of the Rocky Slope Habitat, Rocky Bajada Habitat, Terraces, Alluvial Plain Habitat, Sandy Wash Habitat, Dunes Habitat, Valley Floor Habitat, and Modified and Agricultural Habitat. The La Quinta MEA lists the La Quinta Hotel as being within the Modified and Agricultural Habitat. There is no perceived impact to flora or fauna from the proposed project, and as such, there is no requirement for mitigation. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Lmpact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City (Source: La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area (Source: La Quinta MEA). 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Area (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities on the project site or in the near vicinity. The project site is located within MRZ-3, a designation for areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Section 9.180 of the Zoning Code) in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. The proposed structures Page 30 will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements in their construction. No other mitigation is required fbr this issue. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this project include, air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, metals, and other resources needed for construction. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District for water management. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure of hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. 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 irrigtion and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no sanctioned hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site is not known to have been used for any type of manufacturing in the past. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. There is risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance of the proposed buildings. Proper storage and instruction in their use and storage is required. B. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and excavation activities will be confined to the proposed building sites, except for minimal off -site work as will be necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency evacuation of the area. Any work to be done in the road Page 31 right -of ways will require an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department. This permit will require particular traffic safety measures to protect both the public and workers. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. The only identifiable health hazards associated with the proposed project consist of workers using chemicals during the course of maintenance of the various structures or functions within the resort, such as pool chemicals, pesticides,- fuels, and other similar forms. OSHA and the EPA require instruction and certification for workers using particular chemicals to reduce the incidence of poisonings, etc. Mitigation shall require that all personnel using OSHA and EPA chemicals have the appropriate training and certifications. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. It is assumed that there are a variety of chemicals in use at the resort that may cause health hazards. The proper training and certifications should be obtained for the safety of both workers and resort guests and residents. E. Would the proposed project involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed projects are located within a developed resort property where there is maintained and irrigated landscape and no natural vegetation that would be subject to brush fires. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the Coachella Valley are mostly created by vehicular traffic on roadways. Some noise is made by aircraft. Local 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 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. The City of La Qu;inta General Plan requires a commercial project to perform a noise study if the project is withii a 1,000 feet of a residential use. Recommendations shall be made that help mitigate excessive or annoying noise from the project and ensure that the ambient noise is less than 60 dB CNEL at surrounding residential parcels. Page 32 The La Quinta General Plan also requires a noise study to be conducted for proposed development adjacent to a collector street where there is the potential for increased traffic. Two such areas have been identified: that segment of Ave. Fernando from Eisenhower Drive to Ave. Obregon; and Ave. Mazatlan from Eisenhower Drive to the western -most intersection of Madrugada. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains Sections 9.100.210 Noise Control for Nonresidential Land Uses, and 9.60.230 Noise Control for Residential uses which both will apply to the Specific Plan. The project site is currently exposed to noise generated by traffic on Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. A noise study was prepared for this project specifically for the employee parking lot, and collector portion of Aves. Mazatlan and Fernando as required by the La Quinta General Plan. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The focused noise studies indicate that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project relative to the City's standards that can not be mitigated to a level less than significant. A Noise Study prepared by J. J. Van Houton, in May 1997, for a previously proposed project including a maintenance facility with the employee parking lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. That report concluded that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project relative to the City's standards. However, the annoyance potential of the previously proposed maintenance facility is considered significant. Mitigation measures were recommended to lessen these impacts. The currently proposed project does not include the maintenance facility, and the employee parking lot was moved to a more southern location, farther away from existing residential uses along Avenue 50. The portion of the noise study that pertains to the proposed parking lot identified one noise source: car parking and door slamming with a maximum noise level of 80 dB(A) at 50 feet away. The average maximum noise level to the existing homes would be at 78 dB(A), and to future homes 76 dB(A). Traffic along Avenue 50 would generate noise at 65 dB and 58 dB from along Eisenhower Drive based on LOS C traffic volumes. The existing ambient noise level at the project site are between 43 and 56 dB(A), and at the existing homes from 50 to 59 dB(A). The proposed project includes only an employee parking lot which has been proposed farther south than the previously proposed parking lot. The proposed new site is farther away from existing residential uses, with proposed residential uses to be developed to the north of the parking lot. It has been determined that the potential adverse impacts associated with the current proposed parking lot location and use will be less than that identified for the previously proposed site. The number of parking spaces has been reduced to 244 with access off of Eisenhower Drive. The segment of roadway along Ave. Fernando between Eisenhower Drive and Obregon functions as a collector road in terms of traffic. The ADT is projected to be 3,350 vehicles per day. The CNEL at fifty feet from centerline is 53.2. Computerized modeling of the projected ultimate noise levels indicates that a significant noise impact will not occur at any sensitive receptors adjacent to Calle Mazatlan (Source: Letter from Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997). Page 33 The noise study indicates that the roadway segment of Calle Mazatlan between Eisenhower Drive and the western -most intersection of Madrugada will have an ultimate peak season traffic volume of 3,680 ADT. The traffic volume decreases at every intersection until the projected ultimate peak season traffic; volumes reach 2,160 ADT, immediately east of Ave. Vista Bonita. Alternate access from the project could increase to 2,390 ADT. The closest residential units are approximately 50 feet away from the roadway centerline. The La Quinta General Plan establishes exterior noise standards of 60 CNEL noise. The projected noise level at the nearest residence is 57.4 CNEL, below the adopted noise standard (Source: Letter from Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997). The need for noise control at the future residential areas to the north should be considered at the time these areas are developed. Mitigation measures such as noise barriers and sound rated windows may be used to minimize annoyance to the future homeowners. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Severe noises are only foreseen as short-term construction noises from heavy machinery capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source. To mitigate the impacts of possible severe noises, the ApplicanU'developer must comply with Municipal Code construction hours regulations (Source: La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta Municipal Code). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City of La Quinta through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriff's Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in the City. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve the City. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information). 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 Old Avenue 52, at Ave. Bermudas, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved. The Fire Department has indicated that a need exists for a third fire station in the northern part of the City between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Currently, -there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid Page 34 staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school and high school within the City. The City is within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the; Village of La Quinta. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements are used to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but over served in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA). Health cage services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital, located in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility, located in the 111 La Quinta Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Vetting The nearest City fire station to the project is Station #32, located on Francis Hack Lane, approximately one mule southeast of the resort. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be served by the local schools in Desert Sands School District. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of residential specific plan units, a spa and fitness center. Development of the these new structures will require plan review, construction inspection, and fire protection services in a cumulative manner. To help mitigate possible fire hazards, the new structures shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirements (such as sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc) shall be complied with by the Applicant (Source: Fire Department). Page 35 B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. A comment letter from the Sheriff's Department was received for this project. No significant comments were offered in this letter. Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated in relation to police protection (Source: Riverside Sheriffs Department). C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential units are the only component of the project that may generate students. The proposed use for the units is individual ownership with the option available to the owner to place one or more bedrooms into the hotel room pool to accommodate overflow guests to the resort. The maximum number of students that might be generated by the units, if all, were owner -occupied would be 59.5 students District -wide average, using the factor of 1/2 student per unit. If the majority of the bedrooms were placed into the hotel room rental pool, then student generation would be minimal. It is anticipated that there will be few owner -occupied units as the units are not designed for full-time permanent residents. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued will be required of this project for the residential units. D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that there will be minimal adverse impact on public roads and facilities. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, a need for new or altered governmental services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the proposed project will be partially offset by application, permit, and inspection fees charged to the Applicant and contractors. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (1ID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. 1 D has four substations in La Quinta with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Page 36 Exchange (GTE) provides telephone service for the City. Cablevision serves the are for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 1500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in La Quinta. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. 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 There; is an existing City storm drainage system that is located in the southern portion of the resort property that protects no only the resort, but properties in the general area. Runoff is also directed to the: golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities (natural gas, electricity, water, cable television., sewer) exist at the resort. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Less Than Significant Impact. Power, sewer, and natural gas lines were brought in to the resort many yews ago. The proposed new buildings and residential units will need extensions of all utilities from main lines and valves that are located on the resort. All overhead electricity lines are routed around the perimeter of the resort site. Internal distribution lines will be placed underground. No significant impact are anticipated regarding utilities. No mitigation is required beyond utility plan checking and permit issuances. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed structures and units will require service from GTE or other purveyors for telephone communication wiring and systems. It is anticipated that the telephone serve will be an extension of the existing service at the resort. All overhead public utility transmission lines for telephone are routed around the perimeter of the La Quinta resort. All internal lines will be placed underground. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Page 37 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water service. It is not anticipated that the development will result in an significant adverse impact on local water resources or water infrastructure. A comment letter from CVWD states that they will provide the new structures with water and sewer services. D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed structures will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection to the sewer system. In 1992, the existing demand for sanitary sewage was 252 gallons per dwelling unit per day, with a total existing demand of 1.49 million gallons per day. This standard is based on the sanitary sewer standard divided by 80 percent (Source: La Quinta MEA). The current capacity of the Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant is 4.35 million gallons per day (MGD). This facility serves many communities in the Coachella Valley, including La Quinta. CVWD indicates that this facility can be expanded in the future to accommodate growth, including the La Quinta Resort (Source: Draft The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. Storm water drainage policy requires that storm water flows generated on -site shall not leave the site. On -site retention and percolation applies to all but the most intense storm generated water. The La Quinta Resort may receive substantial runoff flows from the Santa Rosa Mountains that are transmitted to the Oleander Basin located to the south, and channel located to the east. Stormwater has been discussed in the section on water resources in this document:. Drainage plans are required for this project and will be reviewed by the CVWD and the City's Public Works Department prior to issuance of project permits. No other mitigation will be required other than that required by CVWD and the Public Works Department. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential specific plan area will be served by extension of the contract refuse collection services currently in place at the resort. Prior to regularly scheduled pick-up and removal, refuse will be contained in a maintained trash bin area. The Applicant is responsible to coordinate the extension of trash pick-up with the current waste hauler. The additional trash generated by the proposed project will cumulatively impact the local and regional landfill. Only one landfill is currently open in the Coachella Valley. On -site recycling programs will be required and are to be coordinated with Waste Management of the Desert or other recycling hauler. Page 3 8 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located mostly within a desert valley cove. There are steep mountains to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on most days throughout from many vantage points in the City. The La Quinta MEA discusses the visual assessment of major and minor ridgelines within the City. This assessment is based on the topographical features of elevation and steep slopes. Major ridgelines have been identified a three locations in the City and are classified as highly sensitive due to their elevation, which ranges from 300 to more than 1,600 feet above sea level. The high sensitivity of these area is also based on the existing moderate to steep slopes of the ridges, which range between 10 and 30 percent. The existing topographical character of the City which was created by ancient Lake Cahuilla, now exhibits low sloped sedimentary deposits throughout the majority of the City, which abruptly transitions to steep sloped terrain along the western and southern regions of the City. The close proximity of the steep mountains with the flat plains increases the sensitivity of the existing visual features of La Quinta. Minor ridgelines include the ridgelines which link the major ridgelines to the toe of the slope, which protrudes away from the mountain range, thereby increasing their visibility. There are 18 minor ridgelines that are classified as moderately sensitive based upon their low to high elevation, ranging from approximately 200 to 1,400 feet above sea level. The existence of steep slopes which range from 10 to 30 percent is also characteristic of minor ridgelines. The assessments of viewsheds within the City is based on the existence of focal points located within La Quinta or immediately outside its jurisdictional boundaries. Viewsheds are categorized as distinctive, attractive or common and are assessed.based upon the provision of major focal points and the proxin;uty of the vantage point. Distinctive viewsheds are identified through their close proximity (within two miles) to elevational high points and exhibit a high visual sensitivity. Attractive viewsheds are determined through their mid -distant proximity (between two and five miles) to elevational high points or close proximity to minor ridgeline formations and exhibit a moderate visual sensitivity. Common viewsheds are identified through their long distance views (over five miles) to primary focal points, major ridgelines and minor ridgelines and produce a low visual sensitivity. A series of five vantage points based on two mile radii were established within La Quinta to classify the viewsheds by type. Details on this methods are contained in the La Quinta MEA. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a largely developed resort complex in the west -central portion of the City. The resort was initiated in 1926 and has a history of continued development since that date. The resort is tucked into an alluvial cove with an east -facing view. The IEIR prepared for the resort in 1974 states that "Development will change the present open desert and agricultural image which presently exists in much of the community. While this change certainly does not blight the environment, whether or not it is a positive or a negative impact is a personal and aesthetic judgment, Page 39 not a technical assessment. Also construction and landscaping may impede views of the mountains. These views, west of the project area, are one of the more important assets of the community. The design and low density profile of the development tend to reduce the severity of this impact". A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less 'Than Significant Impact. The existing structures at the resort include one, two, and three story buildings. The architectural style of the buildings is mostly Spanish Colonial or similar styles. The existing landscaping includes tall trees of many species including date palms. Thus, the existing viewshed disturbance of the resort includes mostly low profile buildings with dense landscaping. Certain views of the minor ridgelines and toe of slope located to the west and north are blocked by the existing development within the resort campus. The La Quinta MEA designated a Primary and Secondary Viewshed Focal Point near the northeast corner of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive which spans in an eastward direction. The resort is located to the west of this Focal Point. Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant impact to the scenic vista in the City from the proposed project. The proposed structures and landscaping will follow similar architectural styles, including height and siting considerations. Architectural guidelines are proposed in the Draft Specific Plan for this project. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed buildings will be required to comply City with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances under the Site Development Permit. In addition, because of the historic structures within the resort, the Historic Preservation Commission must review the architectural styles of the proposed structures for compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Structures. The proposed design of the new structures can not be radically different than the historic structures nor can it be identical. The new structures incorporate many design elements of the historic buildings, but not identical to them. The historic structures are known .as aesthetically pleasing in design, therefore the proposed new buildings, being similar in design, can also be termed as aesthetically pleasing. The relationships of massing and scale between the historic buildings and between the proposed new buildings was determined to be similar by the Historic Preservation Commission. C. Would the project create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact. The anticipated development of the new residential specific plan units, spa and fitness buildings, and parking lot, will include exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the resort complex. The Draft Specific :Plan for this project does not address lighting fixture types for the proposed new buildings, therefore, no assessment of the environmental impacts can be made. However, all exterior lighting will be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Dark Sky Ordinance, as well as the Uniform Building Code requirements. Page 40 . Parking lot safety lighting will be required to have low, shielded fixtures that will comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Assessment Much of the history of the Coachella Valley is known and recorded in various publications and exhibited in local museums, etc. La Quinta fits prominently into the history of the Coachella Valley. A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is found in the Draft Historic Context Statement for the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the MEA. Local Environmental Setting The history of La Quinta area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. The La Quinta Resort would have been near the lake shore and have been utilized for a habitation and resource procurement area as was much of the La Quinta area. The project site is located within the historic La Quinta Hotel complex. The history of the hotel has been documented in a ]Historic Resources Report prepared by Mellon & Associates. This report concludes that there may be enough historic integrity remaining in the structures and landscaping to justify the designation of a historic district. For a detailed discussion of the historic buildings at the resort please see the Mellon & Associates Report. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant ]impact. Paleontological deposits are normally found in association with the ancient lake bed which is below 42 feet above msl. There have been no paleontological surveys or investigations conducted within the immediate vicinity of the resort, however, paleontological finds have been made in other areas of the City where there are ancient lake bed deposits. The proposed parking lot location is just outside of the ancient Lake Cahuilla Lakebed Delineation boundary, and as such there will be no required mitigation for this issue. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The resort campus has never had a complete archaeological survey conducted. The only archaeological survey conducted was in 1975, by S. McWilliams, for a specific expansion project at the resort. No archaeological resources were observed during that survey. However, it is known, from various publications, that the area including the resort Page 41 property was actively used during the prehistoric period for habitation and resource procurement. Numerous recorded archaeological sites have been found within a one mile radius of the resort property, and even more within a two mile radius (Source: City of La Quinta Confidential Archaeological Site Map). Thus, the archaeological sensitivity of the project area is high. For the proposed spa and fitness center buildings and the resort residential units, archaeological monitoring shall be required by a qualified archaeologist for all grading and trenching below ten feet in depth. A report of the monitoring activites shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and acceptance. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Mellon & Associates Historic Resources Report for the La. Quinta Hotel concludes that there are locally significant historic structures and features on the resort campus. Some of these structures may also be eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places. Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 is included in the Specific Plan Amendment #4 for this project, which required the review of the historically -related architecture proposed for the new structures. On June 19, 1997, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Mellon & Associates report and issues involved for the Certificate of Appropriateness. The Commission forwarded two recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council: 1) Acceptance of the Historic Resources Report for the La Quinta Hotel with the condition that the comments listed in the HPC Staff Report be addressed and the report resubmitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review; and 2) That the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 be subject to the condition that only one story structures be constructed next to historic structures, and that a qualified archaeological monitor observe the grading and trenching for the project for those area below ten feet in depth. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? No :Impact. The proposed project will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses on the proposed project site that would be impacted by the new structures. 3.15 ]RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the exiting resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres Page 42 of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla park is not included in this count. There are also bike, hiking, and equestrian pathways and trails within the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is within an existing resort campus that contains golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, bicycle rentals, and other recreational amenities. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the demolition of an existing tennis stadium and six tennis courts within the Tennis Club. The Spa and Fitness Buildings will be added to the existing recreational amenities for the resort. Into new public recreational amenities are being proposed. The project is within a private, gated resort with many recreational amenities. The proposed residential. specific plan units will be required to pay the parks fee in lieu of dedication of parkland. The improvements along Eisenhower Drive will include a bike lane to be constructed according to the La Quinta General Plan designation. B. Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing public recreational facilities will not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is within a private, gated resort property. SECTION 4• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in this checklist. Some of the issue areas could have a potential significant impact if appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented. 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: The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned development in the immediate vicinity. Page 43 • The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. SECIPIO r15• EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. Other analyses and special studies used for the preparation of this document were: La. Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report, July 1974, Harry H. Schmitz & Associates. 2. The La Quinta Resort Draft Specific Plan - amendment #4 3. La Quinta General Plan 1992 - Master Environmental Assessment. 4. La Quinta General Plan 1992. 5. Specific Plan 121-E. 6. Specific Plan 121-E Revised. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 8. Application materials for General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97-083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97-607, Site Development 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003. 9. La Quinta Hotel Historic Resources Report. May 1997. Mellon & Associates. 10. Resort Hotel SP Amendment - Traffic Analysis Data. August 1997, Endo Engineering. 11. Noise Assessment for the La Quinta Resort Maintenance Facility. May 1997. J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc. 12. Environmental Assessment 95-304 prepared for Specific Plan 121-E, Revised - Amendment #3. 13. Air Quality Analysis: The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment #4. August 18, 1.997. Endo Engineering. Page 44 14. Letter regarding response to noise comments. Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential environmental impacts/issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed in this environmental assessment and technical studies submitted for the project. Certification of this EA by the La Quinta City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed project. A Miti€ration Monitoring Plan containing these measures will be included as part of the Environmental Assessment and project conditions of approval. Page 45 W H H Q ui W W >- Z Z m Q W W av Q �? O = !— V CU W = a0• U F� C 2 Q CO c F- uj M v �O 2 m O V '~ 0) O c F' t o uj V 0 C.) UN a z 0 dU O a O d Z C CO .J Q Gd J Z O Z 0 v ® 2 ccH a > o •p CC Q Z LL iL cc ° aci ago CL N 0 o� a uj W a a N cc N O c F}- O Ua' VU) > O O�0 W O WZ o Z N 0 0 IL Q m p a it O U) Q 1 O a Q a Q w �, c s P H o z o _ O CD Z O Q M W w E Eca 00 >-m m �. E a Cu �0w� Q L) Ri r'rnN c V- O M a. n =W E.. cn m p N0cL n N N NU Q *' o 0 a) r' L) C r ,� N p +, Z W W> Z 1 m N " co O M N Lc;, d'000 a) W O O O °_� C C a) N U C7W '= p) t0 C c cn CN4Oa) a) W W X _ Z N N �.c vi Oa coo m N) n. Q> M J /n f ~ J a) N C U a CD 0 CD co O >• Q U. W oi! o U)0)s FU- Ci m C bZ Q G W y U Q +' tUd � N C N a)'O Q _ O U 0 C 0 to 0 n 0 Q J O OLL W > a co p) Q) W J U+� o m U to ® Z H Q O Z @ i- N.. a •0 _ tj N LLi W w V W� V) X < '' �, () = C coN Oco) Q p C Q Coa) N EO a"'. 1 i 0 m p W 2 ►- Cr- Q N w 0) m m o) G� C� W Q 0 M a O pG U N r W Q W > I Um Q W J be W M O= U U Q W C.� U m D 0 a� U C Z m E n a O co o � n. m C O C cr. N E 00 co O N .WJ C� O O Z Z OO yr,E U E co � O O � U 0 U: m C � Z Q L a)O Z +' N +�. +' 0 O ' u) M m a ►O > to Q W 3. cn U O c �_ �— r-. O E y Q 9 U'•@ Q m L i d L L E 'a tl.l ="D D > U t� CL m O -r m a E- a) U v CL O c +- y •- LL w m W m C 23 O �h .J = Z CO O O 0 M- 0 Q U m rp W F- Q C m v Q W a c) W O= tU V Q W H cc V U m D 0 a� Z_ ca � N m F. a o CM o a. rn 4- �. E aE O0 La. WZ co0 aZ m p y H N 00 0-- CD N 3: 5 E W °C U E `- :o E t°a U 0 W Z E 0 O03 C) U 0 C n CD co (1) o co CD E c c v=i Q Ci Co LL! 9 N 'F U CD N W C7 `' W ` w j �0 0 vh of a ui 0 — 0 0 Q U > N y N V E 0 cm m cn LU _co w o cr co _� r, Q W F- cc U 0 Z_ H cr 0 Z J m m 0 00 N � W cc Z 0 Lu F— OC 0 N 0 CC w C7 Q � odi tii > W cc N F$o- CC ' Q .M v W Cl) Q W C ch �� m 0 LAJ W Q G W >. U o0 Q W .j X IL t.) n W O= VV n oc W V a Z t "- 0) N m U_ O c U C m �_ m a C Q c +� U O L E C� U O U a) m �p O a o a U m E a> v ! c s c 41 t0 a) 3 c O m m E N O C cn � 'E a c c a� 0 m , c E oCD c �' a`) c° E o m .5 C�a m E a+ O C coLL U a)N C U N O a) ( O y= LU m c M Q N m m ` O O a) J 4) IW N +' a) a) W > c t�0 3 m 0co to U CD N CD CD Q +� a w � � ' c•o- ."a m CDU F— U U = a cn M Z 0 F— cn v� LU Q U CC Z Q W J Y C. a O= v� • � rn c v .0 J W ►.. 4t `- CD C +- N d C �, ++ = x f co0 0) F_- y m co m o U a� U N O M CD fl Q Q C� to Q W Q Q Q Q W .O C a- O O N N CD C w O L '+ C7 ns aCD 2 ` O O F- U 0) O C �+ � O C O O C .. U o a to ` :c O O Z O J CC m O U Z :3 C N� E W Ca a CD Q � O N vi U m a) N Z O m L) 'a ° N CO c cn F- N rn a CDE c aa) c 0, � Q CO) E v o� w c +' F. ccC t0 O C p ai CD co m 0 U a-T+ v; _ O � Q a+ U 1 U ►:3 O ` Q -J C m Q) Cr n ai + + C N O C Q O Q cn j o.� w U a' E d ci c C: — ,C cc - U E w r- � In CC Q p a7 f- V LU a+ C N Q a O a) t0 m. -0 C CA N 0 CD CD O CD n > m imLu c°�a vi a - I W Q G ul U m Z Q W av W O= U U N c m rn Q 7 N d m`" 7 C 00 >. (:I m .: W m a O a) m D CA c c Q C H J E J. " M w O U r" W ►4-... .C6 41 O a A > p > c o a ;; �� m CO m'o +� m m c!=Gl-C c U(DCL aH Uw vi � m c N to t0 z c a o m F- c 0 4' i m N U O c c cC E E a LL W 2 co cl CD m ® N O Q z c >00 N a U E m n O m U Ll N o OCi m U N +� > •5 •� N Z Q O d � CO V CD c v O N N �,; U m p U m . O p C p U p m Q c a E C m m ++ > m c m w Fact O O p n- � vOi�� �M C co C U m 2U ami.N aZ a o__ �_ N C p `°'°� m s Q o 41 �- >, m W C C U +' m .o C@ n- a O �" C) IL � LL m iA 0 ,��_ LU CO rn 3. N � ia O C m > Q ccn _j Z 5 ? .6 c > }' o cWc a> 0 co aai 0 a� U c Cl N Q CC a) 41N r Q V m E Q n`_ - CD m e oC G m U m.cm 4- Nw E +� c w O a a U m n W LL ++ ►� N JU Z m O �+� 2 Q oar. Q m Q.cw M a0 W C uj m u Z Q W W rt O= VV N CD c E C c Co m + 0 W a p d oif H' J (.i O LL >, C d t d a U E m Q U 0 (n uw a� 0 0 c 0 0 O � z ° 0 E n o 0 aoi a 3 �O co �O O O O .Q. C • a a. LL a. m c w a E o LLO a LU Z O N m O CD d O 0 NE (Cj E LU � E - oZi a L o a) U 0 u-• a� T U a O U O. co m (n M C N > O _ N A O a+ 0 V N U V O °' Cl O N c� V� "' `*.. a) 4 d o E Q ami m o �j >, m o m o C7 om/) M ,-- f- tLU c c m ai c m.EoiS (/) U_ U_ +� m to > W Q C C W O` L m '- m O U U .. U N It O cm m Q V rn rn p a O 'a " v c m c a; c, a c m rn O o N �. O E c o c C7 N Q Cl) Lii C m .o p o m o o o ro o ,. a� n o ,o p co > ai ° o`�'c, a; c �n :o c 0 a) n -o 'm vNi mFL- a v ami E c N ° E° CD q c o (On ,�°-_ U E E o rn Q N o c`v a o �' o —0 '� E O O o I 0 0 W N CO O N O 0 0 Qa 0 0 O Q U M a. J Z O a. v 0WN 00 L2 m v Q W av W O= U U m a� C d J F LC U "' O m U .2 a� O � Z_ to Y U) c O L L) U c a `o c c 0 E O aU.O o W Z N m A a) to to -' > c a % O p N CD cco ai E rn E cc E c . v E o U C] m m 'p tao Z O cvo tm CO c }' cc W Z C U t c N U v vi O a) '� CD a� co +• > i- Q U a) DCC Ili C 00 +Lr CD aL+ Oc O cco am `- _ U >. V)z H F. CL °D � co w y a� M Q E co E U U J O n` E I W Q W >• U m Q W a V �w O= U U ' Q W 'L � U a� LL O > C a) � O Z Co F- tip C CD O U Q D p U =3 U ►- n..UO v 4' c s cr. N E OO COcl o � z CD LUr co �•u. 0 0 c °' U) E LU °C E a O a) U Ll U Y > Ca •y cu -p O a w 0) �= o t= Q• E c _ s ro n. ( m Cal ° _ ~ � � 'n N m as F= W m cca U ro coQ • C N W 0. 'U C '�-' C +-+ N a) L u co c Q g = W (n 11I (n Q N 'D W `- C L" 00 CD O 'E c + > > Q m W 3 U > N W L a V 4- N +, � Q CD '� CD N 0 � c COM LU E o• a) E U�� J L) Z �� W Q W >- U m Z Q W J Y Cl. E W O= U U co c . C N d � r CD (n N OC U o .m w w (D= U n O O O N >O �-0 C voi 0) Z> Q, U Z Q w c 0 U O C9 O o Z U m .Y C Cl) F.. U O C d - O cn U O � O L a a a +.; 4- c cC a a� p E W Z O m O N E.. O O U 00 a •C aT+ C co •� a� M 7 W cc E a m U 0 +r N ` O U 0)N_ O O c o c E E CD c ° cn a)•C C v . a) -0 a O .O E U Un U N N > to CD `O CC Oa W E N ma� Q c o> 0 M y a m �- C c0 CD � C w w> -0 C to r- X O '+' a ` Lo 'N m O = t/i U C U C N O * _ N C C 0 v� '+' C' c C m O L C i*, 0 O 0�� Wec Q C C m 'M 0 0 0 0 0 �= O_ C N. U N j N rt+ G U T c > C di C� O O O a(D -E O a+ a N s�Ea��UE°;E�Eovn ,� N W C m o o O C W tUC N cU0 U U U C O to W m w 0)® Cl)�- N M et M W Q O U aka gw U IL E W O= VV a) co c Q rCD a) d LLJ O V a) L N O N a) +�+ a) Lj- +J CD v� n. C7 p) co co L c z c CL O - F- U o m m Z - O C N O a) r•- o En U m �- CD Jr W Q z J cn N C m O �.- z Z m U aO cn °� a W ca cm a) Jr D `r ii. m U U CD E m N „ Q. O - a) ca `' a �N E Q a E U LL co .Q N Lu H () C C +L� L w vi a) Q ccU w= U cn O _O CC cWc Q G W - C C �_ O C] CDC C U O a) O N uj E I9 C C E U F- E E IL O U) LL. L a) F- C W � m U � N >. c� U Q W •� r N LL1 a) U) '7 m ` .>. W .� Q o�S D r' CV) 0 C] CL 0 p F- of Q °) U O co N W Q AD U CLU Z O Q W � Y IL W O= U U ro Q O cc >- H U C Ud .D N c m ro N ro n. Z C v c ro p U O ` +' +1 cn O c '._. O a_ U ro c a 0 � d LL W z ro . i cc —� m O w ra f- O a 0 U �� LU a a� > m co � ro U ►.. Q U U � C C ro O .G C O c N m ai �_ ro p ro D.N ] O O` V' CO) E C O O N w U N > p OWC .• a O y CO coU N U CO)C Q U U U Q 41 3 C V c W Q G W c �41 a a c CD fl - N cn _ ro cn C m u. > 0 0 b cc m— a °cc' LU N C CD LU CD r- M N -j U m 0 p N O ro p U F- F- F- w W O 0 CD Q a w M PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97- 054 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO: GPA 97-054 KSL LAND CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of September, and on the 81h day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public; Hearings to consider the revised request of KSL Land Corporation and its Assigns for a General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential, 4-8 d.u. iper acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from LDR (Low Density Residential, 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres generally located 220 feet south of 50" Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: Portions of the S 1 /2 of SW 1 /4 Sec. 36, T.5 S., R.6 E., and Portions of the N 1/2 Sec. 1, T.6 S., R. 6 E., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and determined that the General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said General plan Amendment: 1. This Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. 2. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning p Ass\p,.-resrevgpa97-054 Resolution No. Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. 3. The new land use designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of revised General Plan Amendment 97-054 from MDR to TC (RSP) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of Avenida Fernando, and from LDR to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres generally located 220 feet south of 50th Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to 'wit: AYES: NOES: p: \ss\peresrevgpa97-054 Resolution No. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Rich Butler, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERR'Y HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:resoperevgpa97-054 ia" ; .11sidwidliSS1125111 Mt RESOLUTION CASE No. CASE MAP "EXHIBIT A" TG ( R5P; Plan z Resort I.. s& #w7 ORTH GPA 97-054 SCALE: sheet 2 of 2 1 NTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 97-083 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO.: ZC 97-083 KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on did on the 15th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RM (Medium Density Residential) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from RL to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres located generally 220 feet south of 50th Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 81h day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RL (Low Density Residential 2-4 Dwellings per acre) to ML (Medium Density Residential), or other appropriate zone(s) at the vacant northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana and at the southeast corner of 50t' Avenue and Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: APN: 631-700-076 through 81, 773-020-021, 026, 029, and 031 WHEREAS, said Zone Change request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial study (EA 97-343) and determined that the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recornmend ation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment and Zone Change only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. pAss\pereszc97083 o° w. n m o .0 n o m w CD n 3 TC-D o N CDco' �o x 3 a_ 0 cD o,'< m° w — CD n G N C' o 0 w =,; 0 3 m N n cn rn -� = S' o D� xx o -., a o 0 co co m D 00 3 Q -C, a o " W 1— — r+ s pAj N V% V1 CD o o a ,r N0 W a) O O_ con m w � 3 O M 0 co CD N O -i CD r+ o° p 3 CD .,O+ d (A N rt 0 z ZD ton 'O o 9: : r•+ cn 1+ D v o rr0n 0n 0 0 ca 3 0 0 3. -. 3 CDr. , . 3 �• CD ? CD m ,+ y p 00 Z Z CD CD 'O C < < •i N cu CD o 0 00 _a r. 0 0 0 m Z m* 3 3 0 m .o. ° CDCD N CD a � o co n � 0 �_ y Z r+ C 0 ri• O O -Do 5 M Dmtn yr - ry CD o? m 0o Q O43' cn O o CL � a,Do m -h r' o m D m cCD oo D 00 0 xr ®D Z W 0 -< m 0 D 4 m Planning Commission Resolution 97- 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. 3. The zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing zone designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 97-083; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California p:\ss\pereszc97083 Planning Commission Resolution 97- ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 4ro #I: .L: Am 0 !a's ;; .111kil3midifildICAM 14 RESOLUTION CASE No. CASE ZC 97-083 sheet 2 of 2 "EXHIBIT A" TG (�P) is Plan ,1. la Resort NORTH SCALE: NTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #4) KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 151h day of September, and 81h day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new employee parking lot facility, whose location is more particularly described as follows: Portions of Sections 1 and 36, T6S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121-E/EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the Hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27-hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121-E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85-24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the Master Plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) , in 1989 (Amendment 2), and in 1995 (Amendment 4), permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all P:\ss\peres9/15/97sp121 a#4 Planrung Commission Resolution 97- testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the specific plan amendment: The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club parking lots located near residential uses). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. The proposed development will be reviewed under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97-343, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be certified. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: P:\ss\peres9/1 5/97sp 121 a#4 Planning Commission Resolution 97- AYES: NOES: ABSENT': ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California P:\ss\peres9/15/97spl 21 a#4 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED SP 121 E, AMENDMENT #4 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL 1 . Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The Specific Plan text shall be revised pursuant to all required revisions, with a minimum of five final texts submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. The total number of single family residential units allowed in the specific plan area shall be revised to 1367 subject to approval of a Site Development Permit and/or Tentative Tract Map. 4. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 5. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97-343. 6. Check made out to County of Riverside in the amount of $1328. For the project Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24 hours after approval by the City Council. 7. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall provide an easement to be recorded for all hillside areas to remain undeveloped open space, except for the areas presently developed. Easement to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 8. Submit to Public Works Department a revised hydrology study to account for P:/stan\Conapp-pccsp 121 e,a4 RESOLUTION. 97- SP 121 E, AMENDMENT #4 SEPTE:MBER 15, 1997 the proposed increase in impermeable surfaces within the specific plan area prior to issuance of a building permit for any construction authorized by this Specific Plan for the applicant. 9. Make changes to specific items in the specific plan as follows. Pape Item 3.5 Garage/Carport Setback 3.6 Garage/Carport Setback 3.11 Garage/Carport Setback 3.20 Paragraph 3.3.16 3.21 Paragraphs C-2 and C-3 P:/stan\Conapp-pccsp 121 e,a4 Comment 5 ft. or 20-foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path/walk if garage/carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20-foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path/walk if garage/carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20-foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path/walk if garage/carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. Add "roads" to items for which plans are required. Add the requirement that plans be approved by the City Engineer. Plans for and revisions to on -site parking and circulation facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28545 TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW A 134-LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 62.2 ACRES CASE NO.: TTM 28545 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORT, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15" day of September and 8t' day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL DESERT RESORT, INC. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 134 lots on 62.2 acres, in the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club , generally located west of Eisenhower Drive, and south of Avenida Fernando, more particularly described as: A portion of Section 36, T6E, R6E, S.B.B.M. 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 97-343 for this project which states the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on conditions and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environment should be certified; 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 28545: 1. The proposed map and its design is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that its lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the Map is mostly developed and mitigation measures and conditions will be imposed. C:PCRE:S-TT28545 Resolutior 97- 3. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the 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 in that none presently exist and access to the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. 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 of Tentative Tract Map 28545 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C:PCRE.S-TT28545 Resol ition 97- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST; JERR'Y HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:PCRES-TT28545 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28545 KSL RESORTS, INCORPORATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map 28545 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal (requirements to be determined during plan check) • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 16,1997, on file in Community Development Department) • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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 parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties unless the owners specifically agree to the proposed diminishment of access rights. 8. The applicant shall dedicate private street, parking and utility easements or rights of way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and as required by the City Engineer except as approved in a revised specific plan for the project area. 9. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 10. 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 c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 11. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 12. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "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. 13. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 14. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as - constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 15. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 16. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, 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. 17. 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 c:conappcct-t28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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. 18. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, site development permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 22. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 23. 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. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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 The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: 25. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development or in adjacent golf course areas unless otherwise approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 26. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 27. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 28. 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. 29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 30. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater to off -site locations, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant and, subsequently, the applicant and the applicant's successors and assigns shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention programs and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. UTILITIES 31. 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 32. 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. 33. The applicant shall be responsible for any off -site traffic improvements shown warranted by the revised traffic study to be submitted with the revised specific plan. 34. All private street, parking and pedestrian improvements shall comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and current policies except as may be approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 36. 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. 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 38. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. QUALITY ASSURANCE c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMABER 15, 1997 39. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 40. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 41. The applicant shall employ or retain 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. 42. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 43. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 44. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 45. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. c:conappcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 46. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97-343. 47. This map shall be subject to all requirements of SP 121 E, Amendment #4, and SDP 97-607 and shall be revised as necessary prior to recordation. 48. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. c:conappcctt28545 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW 119 RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN UNITS AND A HEALTH SPA IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15" day of September and 8t' day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated, for approval of 119 residential specific plan units and a 14,600 square foot health spa in the RM Zone (zone change to TC (RSP) proposed), located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan,, south of the Tennis Club, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be recommended for certification; 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 a recommendation for approval of Site Development Permit 97-607: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that units of this type are permitted in the Tourist Commercial designation that exist on part of this property and is proposed for the balance of this property. 2. Thus project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. P:\ss\rE1soperevsdp607 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- 4. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that it is of architectural design, colors, and materials, and has been recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. 5. The site design of the project is attractive and well designed and appropriate for the area. Parking has been kept around the perimeter of the site to increase the pedestrian aspect of the project. 6. The landscape design of the project with utilize plants compatible with the existing development. An emphasis on landscaping will reinforce the resort community image and character of the area. 7. The project will not require excessive new signs since it will be a part of the La Quinta Resort and Club. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 97-607 because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4; 3. That the Environmental Impacts identified under EA 96-343 are binding for this case. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 15t' day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAss\resoperevsdp607 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERR'Y HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\ss\resoperevsdp607 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607 KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL_ 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97-607, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition. Construction, and upon site development/operation. A) prior to issuance of a demolition/building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction/demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. c:/conappccsdp97-607 ResolWtion 97- Site Development 97-607 September 15, 1997 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies; as needed: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. The project may be phased if a phasing plan is submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. A six foot high, solid grouted decorative block wall shall be constructed, if not already existing, adjacent to or across the street from all non -hotel related uses (Tennis Villas, Santa Rosa Cove residences, and any private residences).WalI to c:/conappccsdp97-607 Resolution 97- Site Development 97-607 September 15, 1997 be constructed prior to any demolition, grading, site disturbance, or construction on subject property. 9. All new head -in parking spaces shown on east side of Avenida Obregon shall be provided at the time of demolition of the adjacent 82 space parking lot. 10. The windows on the Spa building shall be revised to provide variety in shape and orientation. 11. Existing trees shall be retained or relocated whenever possible. Final landscaping plans, in compliance with all applicable City requirements shall be approved prior to issuance of first building permit authorized by this approval. 12. Site and other applicable plans shall be revised pursuant to requirements of the Historic Preservation Commission prior to issuance of first building permit for "residential specific plan" units. 13. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, and Tentative Tract 28545 shall be met. 14. Exterior walkway lighting shall be provided. Lighting to be low profile and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. FIRE MARSHAL 15. Fire apparatus roads shall be provided for every building when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This requirement shall be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. Other requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be determined during the plan check process. Conapppcs#97-607 Resolution 97- Site Development 97-607 September 15, 1997 MISCELLANEOUS 17. Prior to issuance of any building permit for structures approved by Site Development Permit 97-607, the developer shall complete the golf maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96-024, or any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto. Conapppcs#97-607 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT FACILITY IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 151h day of September, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of an employee parking lot on 2.4 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50tn Avenue, and 24C feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8" day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of a golf course/hotel maintenance facility with employee parking in the RL Zone (zone change to TC proposed), located on the south side of 50" Avenue, approximately 210 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97-343) and has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be recommended for certification; 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 the recommendation for approval of Site Development Permit 97-608: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan because the use is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the Specific Plan area. PAss\resoperevsdp608 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- 2. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended. 4. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with the site design will be acceptable. The revision approved will mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding residences by moving it to the west and south. 5. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping will provide visual screening of the on site facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 97-608 because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, 3. That the Environmental Impacts identified under EA 96-343 are binding for this case. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 15" day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\ss\rE!soperevsdp608 Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERR'Y HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\ss\resoperevsdp608 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL 1. The use of this site for an employee parking lot shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97-608, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition, construction, and upon site development/operation. A) prior to issuance of a demolition/building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction/demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies; as needed: Fire Marshal P:\STAN\CCA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall be met. 8. Exterior lighting shall to be low profile, down shining, and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Top of lights shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. Light shields may be required by the City within first six months after beginning of operation. 9. 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 property to which they apply. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. All easements, rights of way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the P:\STAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be acquired or granted, as appropriate, or the process of said acquisition or granting shall be ensured, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Grants shall include additional right of way widths as necessary for dedicated right turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc., included on approved plans. 11. The applicant shall grant public street right of way along Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - sufficient for a 50-foot half right of way plus additional area as needed for right- or left -turn lanes or other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 13. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and satisfy obligations required of this site development permit. Security provided shall conform with Chapter 13, LOMC. 15. 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. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. 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." Plans for site improvements may be combined on a single plan provided excess clutter doesn't affect readability. All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City P:\STAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEP64BER 15, 1997 Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "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. 17. 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. GRADING 18. 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. 19. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 21. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 22. 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. 23. 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 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development or in impounded areas on the adjacent golf course unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 25. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, cornmon areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, P:\STAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 27. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development (or off of the golf course areas) through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 28. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 29. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater water to off -site locations other than impounded areas on the adjacent golf course, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention program and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from the such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. UTILITIES 30. 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. 31. 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 32. The applicant shall complete primary arterial street improvements on the east P:\STAIV\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMIBER 15, 1997 side of Eisenhower Drive from the L.Q. Evacuation Channel bridge to the existing improvements at Eisenhower Drive including a full -width landscape median in the northerly half. The City will allow a left -in pocket at the project entry if the applicant provides sufficient right of way width fpr a median configuration which blocks right turns out. The applicant shall install a bus turnout and covered shelter in a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. 33. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to a left- & right-in/right-out driveway on Eisenhower Drive centered in this parcel's frontage. If the entry is gated, the applicant shall provide sufficient stacking room for entering vehicles and a turn -around for rejected vehicles. 34. 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. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by professional engineer(s) registered to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standards and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum structural sections shall be as follows: PASTAN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 38. Prior to opening the parking lot for use by employees, the applicant shall install all on- and offsite street and sidewalk improvements and traffic control devices on Eisenhower Drive. LANDSCAPING 39. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the Eisenhower Drive perimeter setback. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. .o 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. P:\STAIN\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 41. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 42. 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. 43. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment. 44. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 45. 75% of all trees shall be a minimum of 48" box size and 25% a minimum of 36" box size, or its equivalent along Eisenhower drive. 46. Parking lot shade trees shall be provided every four parking spaces with trees a minimum 24" box size. QUALITY ASSURANCE 47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 48. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 49. 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. 50. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all off -site plans which were signed by the City P:\STA'N\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 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 51. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. 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. FIRE MARSHAL 53. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 54. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. 55. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if any, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for PASTAMCOA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be 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". 57. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 58. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 59. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 60. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground/aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 61. Install portable fire extinguishers in structures, if any, per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but: not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 62. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. MISCELLANEOUS 63. Prior to issuance of any building permits for structures or fences approved by Site Development Permit 97-608, the developer shall complete the golf maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96-024, or any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto. P:\STAIV\COA KSL REV PC SDP 97-608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO, WEST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE. CASE NO.: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003 KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15" day of September, and 81h day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club located south of Avenida Fernando, West of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission did on the 19th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and did recommend approval, as requested by KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to allow the construction of 119 new Residential Specific Plan units within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Villa and Tennis Club, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 1 AND 36, T6S, R6E, SBB&M WHEREAS, on the 19th day of June, 1997, the Historic Preservation Commission did adopt Minute Motions 97-011 and 97-012 recommending to the Planning Commission and the City Council, approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Certificate of Appropriateness; and, 1. The proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club is consistent with the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for new construction. p:\pc Res COApp 97-003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2. The Certificate of Appropriateness has been deemed acceptable by the Historic Preservation Commission in that they have determined the proposed 119 Residential Specific Plan units are architecturally compatible with the historic La Quinta Structures, pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the finds of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above described Certificate of Appropriateness for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meet of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the this 15' day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\pc Res COApp 97-003 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003 KSL RECREATION CORP. SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 GENERAL. CONDITIONS: 1. A current site plan is needed in the report that identifies all structures within the resort campus; as well as their dates of construction. In addition a historic site plan is needed showing the original buildings and those demolished. Was there an original Master Plan for the hotel property? Changes to the La Quinta Hotel Historic Resource Evaluation Report, dated May. 1997: 2. Page 9: (Paragraph 3) The 100's series should be noted on a location map. 3. Page 1:; The term "Eclectic" is not a commonly used classification for the style of the buildings. Perhaps the term "Spanish Revival" should be used as it would be the traditional classification nomenclature for this style. 4. Huntsman Trout may have been the landscape architect for the La Quinta Hotel which lends additional support that there may have been a Master Plan for the Hotel development. A clearer discussion of the landscape plans is needed, especially the Quad concept. 5. Page 5: A discussion on how the La Quinta Hotel compares with other resort properties of the time and region is needed. Sanitariums? College campuses? Are there any similarities with other places of time and region, or is the La Quinta Hotel unique? 6. Page 10: (Last paragraph) The original function and location for La Casa needs to be discussed. 7. Page 14: a discussion regarding which criteria (National Register or local) is being used to assess the property needs to be clearly stated in the beginning of the report. 8. In addition, the comments by staff contained in the June 17, 1997, memorandum to Pam O'Connor (on file in the Community Development Department) need to be addressed in the report. 9. A qualified archaeologist shall be required to monitor the project if the grading pAstan`,pccoa ksl coapp97-003.wpd Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 KSL Recreation Corp. September 1.5, 1997 and trenching goes below ten feet in depth. 10. A final Archaeological Report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Miscellaneous: 11. Only one story structures shall be constructed next to historic structures to provide a transition between old and new. 12. That the building complex known as "San Vicente", located on the east side of Avenida Obregon, be documented. This house may have been a caretaker's house and is located on the Hotel grounds. p:\stan\pccoa ksl coapp97-003.wpd ATTACHMENTS 4" Q" ATTACHMENT 1 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: September 16, 1997 ITEM 7'ITL1E: Approval of Environmental Assessment 97-343, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Zone Change 97- 083, r13pecific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permits 97-607 and 97-608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003 Applicant: KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns (and various subsidiaries) AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt City Council Resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-343; 2. Adopt City Council Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 97-054; 3. Move to take up Ordinance No._ by title and number only and waive further reading for Change of Zone 97-083. Move to introduce Ordinance No. _ on first reading for Zone Change 97-083; 4. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, subject to conditions; 5. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Tentative Tract 28545, subject to conditions; 6. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97-607, allowing construction of 119 residential specific plan units and a health spa, subject to conditions; 7. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97-608, allowing construction of an employee parking lot, subject to conditions; 8. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003, which ensures that the proposed construction is appropriate for the existing historic structures, subject to conditions; p:\ks171597.wpd FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVIEWS: The City Council reviewed this request at its meetings of July 15, and August 5, 1997. The City Council continued the request to this meeting and instructed the applicant to restudy the proposal to address the concerns raised by the surrounding neighbors. REVISED PLAN: For the August 5, 1997, City Council meeting, the applicant revised the proposal for Site Development Permit 97-608 pertaining to the golf course/hotel maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The maintenance facility was deleted from the proposal. A smaller employee parking lot reduced from 292 to 244 spaces was proposed on the south side of 50" Avenue, east of Eisenhower Drive. At the meeting the applicant presented a further revision by moving the parking lot to the west and south, in the center of the golf course, with access only to Eisenhower Drive. The site of the prior parking lot is now shown as low density residential (2-4 dwellings per acre), along with the adjacent areas. Minor changes have been made to the spa and 119 unit residential specific plan units as follows: 1. The spa has been reversed in a north -south direction and moved slightly further to the north. 2. The Avenida Obregon cul-de-sac turnaround that has access from Avenida Fernando, in front of the spa has been modified to provide a drop off area for the spa and better access to the southernmost residential specific plan unit parking lot. 3. One residential specific plan unit cluster and half cluster have been reversed in a east -west direction. p:\ksl7'1597.wpd NEW INFORMATION: As a result of the August 5, 1997, meeting, the applicant has submitted the following: 1. A revised traffic study adding an analysis of vehicle stacking at the Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando entry gates, with mitigation measures including recommended changes in gate operating procedures. The traffic engineer has submitted a clarification to the study stating that for the 119 unit residential specific plan project, no vehicular traffic is proposed to utilize the south leg of Avenida Obregon, which is gated for "emergency -only" and pedestrian use (Attachment 1). 2. An air quality analysis for the proposed construction with mitigation measures. 3. Supplemental noise assessments for 1) Calle Mazatlan, immediately west of the entry gate at Eisenhower Drive and, 2) Avenida Fernando, between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Obregon that analyzes projected peak season daily traffic volumes on those street sections. 4. An updated Specific Plan text to reflect the currently proposed project, including the reduction of Tourist Commercial (Residential Specific Plan) uses along 50" Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the revised plans (employee parking lot, revised General Plan and Zone Change) at a special meeting scheduled for September 15, 1997. Staff will provide to the City Council, a verbal presentation of the Planning Commissions action. PROJECT REQUEST: The specific request of the applicant is as follows: 1. Approval of Environmental Assessment 97-343, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (see EA Resolution for Environmental information). 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential pAks171597.wpd 4-8 du. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from LDR (Low Density Residential 24 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50`h Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 3. Approval of a Change of Zone from RM (Medium Density Residential 4-8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from RL ( Low Density Residential 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50t' Avenue and 240 feet south of Eisenhower Drive. 4. Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121 E to update the plan and allow new development and uses for the area comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts, and the southeast corner of 50" Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map to divide approximately 62.5 acres into 134 lots for the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. 6. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-607 to allow removal of seven tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, and maintenance facilities and replace with 119 "residential specific plan" units and a health spa of approximately 14,600 square feet in the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east side of Avenida Obregon, across from the two existing sunken tennis courts. 7. Approval of Site Development Permit 97-608 to allow construction of a 244 space employee parking lot on approximately 2.4 acres, located approximately 220 feet south of 50" Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 8. Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure architectural compatibility between historic structures and proposed construction, pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was readvertised in the Desert Sun on August 24, 1997. All property owners within the project area and within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were; mailed a copy of the public hearing notice for this meeting. A number of letters p:\ks171597.wpd have: been received regarding this request since the August 5, 1997, meeting. All correspondence received has previously been given to the City Council and is on file in the City Clerk and Community Development Departments. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The La Quinta Community Development Department has completed a new Environmental Assessment 97-343 for this request pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is recommended for certification. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES (BY APPLICATION): Specific Plan 121 E. Amendment 4 Planning Area V, the hillside areas to the north and west, is conditioned to be preserved as undevelopable open space. As allowed in the Hillside Regulations of the Zoning Code, the applicant will be allowed to transfer 21 dwelling units (1 unit per 10 acres) for construction elsewhere. The Planning Commission is recommending the applicant provide an easement for all the existing hillside areas to remain unde:velopable open space. With the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Low and Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial (RSP), an accompanying decrease in the allowable residential units should occur. Rather than 1,558 units, a maximum of 1,367 dwelling units will be allowed as noted in the Specific Plan text. The existing Specific Plan allows a maximum of 200 Tennis Villas, of which 48 were constructed within the hotel compound. Within the vacant Villas area for the remaining 152 units, 85 of the proposed 119 "residential specific plan" units are planned. Therefore, the current proposal will create a less dense environment than the original Tennis Villas would if constructed. Intensity of the residential specific plan unit development is determined by compliance with development standards, including lot size, setbacks, and parking requirements (one space per bedroom). Site Development Permit 97-607: The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis contained in the Specific Plan Amendment Appendices states a portion of traffic (for residents of one "cluster" out of six p:\ks171597.wpd "clusters") to this 119 unit residential specific plan project will take vehicular access from the south leg of Avenida Obregon which is being terminated or cut off from the north leg which connects to Avenida Fernando. Presently, there is an "emergency -only and pedestrian gate across Avenida Obregon, approximately 1,900 feet south of the southern project boundary. The applicant does not have access control of this gate, and since it is for emergency and pedestrians only, vehicles will need to access this area through Calle Mazatlan. Access to the parking areas on Calle Mazatlan will require vehicles to enter through secured guard gates at either Avenida Fernando or Calle Mazatlan (50th Avenue). The Traffic Impact Analysis documents how hotel guests currently use the secured guard gates at Cale Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando. With a pass from the hotel, they enter the left entry lane and give the guard their name, hotel reservation number, and vehicle license number. According to the analysis, the majority of the hotel guests who use the gates enter at Calle Mazatlan, with Avenida Fernando gate users being approximately 90% residents, according to the report. The majority of the Calle Mazatlan gate users are hotel or golf course patrons. According to the report, the current and future entry stacking backup can be eliminated by initiating the following operational change: 1. The hotel should always include a reservation number on the guest passes to allow the hotel guests to utilize the right entry lane (members/residents gate) at the guard gates. This mitigation would in and of itself effectively eliminate all project -related traffic at the guard gates. Other mitigation strategies that would reduce current and future vehicular queuing impacts include the following: 1. A second guard should always be available during peak traffic hours to process vehicles in the left entry lane. 2. Hotel guests that arrive before their room is ready and visit the golf clubhouse should be given gate passes and instructed to use the right entry lane to minimize delays at the guard gate. 3. A map should be provided with each hotel guest pass, and gate instructions should be printed on the back of the guest pass that direct hotel guests to use the right entry lane at the gated entries and prominently display guest passes in vehicles. 4. Signs should be provided at the gated entries indicating that residents and hotel guests with passes should use the right entry lane. pAks17159'7.wpd 5. If the procedural changes identified above are implemented but the queue of vehicles in the left entry lane continues to extend longer than three vehicles, the guard gate at Calle Mazatlan should be relocated westerly to provide as much stacking distance for vehicles as possible and minimize the potential for queues of vehicles extending out onto Eisenhower Drive. These mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of approval. Site Development Permit 97-608 The new employee parking lot with access to Eisenhower Drive will eliminate the negative aspects of the existing facilities in the resort. On -site noise and traffic impacts from employees private vehicles west of Eisenhower Drive will be reduced, while possibly increasing peak resort related employee traffic on 501h Avenue. Except for some key hotel personnel, maintenance employees who work out of and park at the Avenida Carranza maintenance facility, and the Dunes Clubhouse employees (who will park at the adjacent clubhouse parking lot), hotel employees and maintenance personnel will utilize the new parking lot. The parking lot in the middle of the golf course area is proposed to be surrounded by a sip: foot high living chain link fence (chain link fence with vines or other vertical plants on it). Parking lot landscaping will be provided per City requirements. There is more than adequate sight distance for north bound traffic cresting the hill on the bridge south of the parking lot entrance and vehicles exiting the lot, to see each other, and respectively, operate their vehicles in a safe manner. The sight distance in this segment of Eisenhower Drive is suitable for vehicle speeds up to 70 miles per hour (mph). However, vehicle speeds that high are rarely encountered because the speed limit is 4.5 mph. The access driveway to the parking lot will accommodate right-in/right-out turning movements at Eisenhower drive. If adequate space permits within the right-of-way, a left turn lane may be constructed to accommodate left turns into the parking lot access driveway provided the median island and south bound travel way are widened enough to construct a positive barrier to prohibit left turn -out movements. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached resolutions. p:\ks171597.wpd Alternatives available to the City Council are: 1. Approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission and amended by the applicant, by adoption of the attached resolutions; or 2. Continue the request to allow further review and study; 3. Deny the request. dill 26 JERKS ERMA , Community Development Director AttaJ finents: 1. i-, Letter from Endo Engineering, dated September 8, 1997 2. Revised Specific Plan text and Technical Appendices (large document for City Council only) pAks171597.wpd 3E� M 197 17:12 ENDS ENaINEERIN.a a95 aa2 Endo Engineering September 8, 1997 Mr. Steve Speer Senior Engineer City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments SUBJECT": La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Response to Traffic Study Comments Dear Mr. Speer: Endo Engineering has reviewed the City of La Quinta comments on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Traffic Study dated August 25, 1997. Based upon our understanding of the project and our recent discussions with you, we are modifying the traffic study as described below. Comment 1: On page IV-3 of the traffic study the access to the residential area in Planning Area I includes a discussion of access to the south along Avenida Obregon. Did the traffic study assume access in this direction? Response 1: The analysis in the traffic study assumed that the southern extension of Avenida Obregon was closed to project traffic, and assumed that the traffic was assigned to Calle Mazatlan. The text in the traffic study (attached) will be revised to state that "The other five clusters will have access to Calle Mazatlan." We hope that the responses above and the revisions to the traffic study will meet your approval. If you have any concerns regarding our approach in responding to the comments. or have concerns other than those addressed above, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. Sincerely, Emm ENGNEERNG Grego d Principal Attachment 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1330 114) 362-0020 FAX: (714) 362-0015 3 P 39 '37 17:13 ENDO c'JuINEERIN3 a85 P03 Parking Area Traffic Distribution The project -related traffic distribution associated with the hotel employees destined to and from the existing parking areas was determined by interviewing the workers on April 29, 1997 as they entered the parking area. The primary routes currently utilized to access the employee parking area are Avenue 52 and Avenue 50. Secondary access routes include Highway I I I to Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive. The directional distribution of current trips to the existing hotel employee parking lot is shown in Figure IV-1. After the proposed employee parking lot is constructed, access on Eisenhower Drive will be restricted to right -turns. The employees will approach the parking lot from the south along Eisenhower Drive, as shown in Figure IV-2. The shuttle buses (included in Figure IV-2) that will transport the workers from the parking lot to their work areas will need to make a U-turn at Calle Tampico to approach the parking lot along Eisenhower Drive. Residential/Spa Traffic Distribution The traffic distribution for the residential area (including the spa relocation) is shown in Figure IV-3. The access for two residential clusters in Site #1 will be to the north along Avenida Obregon. The other five clusters will have access to the west onto Calle Mazatlan. The five clusters with access to Calle Mazatlan will ingress through the Avenida Fernando gate, but will egress through both the Avenida Fernando gate and the Calle Mazatlan gate. The existing 18 hotel units as well as the future spa relocation have access to the north along Avenida Obregon. Figure IV-4 presents project -related morning and evening peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area with the hotel employee parking area at its existing location. Figure IV-5 depicts the project -related peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area and incorporates the proposed residential uses, parking lot relocation and expansion, spa relocation, and adjustments for the removal of the existing hotel units. IV. B THROUGH TRAFFIC The estimated through traffic or non -site traffic for the year 1999 is shown in Figure IV-6. These traffic volumes were developed by applying a 10 percent annual growth rate for two years to adjust existing volumes to the project build -out year. Construction is anticipated to be completed by the end of 1999. IV. C TOTAL TRAFFIC Figure IV-7 shows the total traffic volumes within the study area upon project completion. The total peak hour volumes shown in Figure IV-7 were developed by first subtracting the existing on -site parking traffic (shown in Figure IV-4) from the 1999 Non -Site traffic volumes (depicted in Figure IV-6) and then adding the project -related traffic (shown in Figure IV-5). The regional growth factor applied to daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity were not applied to the streets west of Eisenhower Drive. Since the potential for future development in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan is limited, the total daily traffic volume shown for Avenida Fernando, the main La Quinta Hotel entry, Avenida Obregon, and Calle Mazatlan reflect the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure III-4 rather than Figure IV-6 which includes a growth rate. The daily traffic volumes associated with complete development of The Enclave is discussed in Section VI. IV-3