The URL can be used to link to this page

1996 05 28 PC� 9 z - a y OF CND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quints City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California May 28, 1996 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 96-017 Beginning Minute Motion 96-020 CALL TO ORDER - FLAG SALUTE - ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item .................... SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 Applicant ............. Washington Plaza Associates (Michael Shovlin) Location .............. North side of Highway 111 between Washington Street and Adams Street within the One Eleven La Quints Shopping Center Request ............... 1) Certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and 2) Approval of an amendment to the Specific Plan to allow two additional businesses with drive -through lanes Action ................ Resolution 96- . Resolution 96- PC/AGENDA 2. 3. 0 Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-026 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 Applicant ............ KSL Recreation Corporation (Mr. S. Chevis Hosea, Director of Real Estate) Location ............. South of Montezuma at the terminus of Avenida Carranza Request .............. 1) Certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) Approval to expand the existing La Quinta Resort and Club Golf Course Maintenance Facility; and 3) Approval of an adjustment to deviate from the development standards of the SR Zone District to allow a six-foot masonry wall along Avenida Carranza instead of a four -foot high wall Action ............... Resolution 96- . Resolution 96- Item ................... TENTATIVE TRACT 28340 Applicant ............ KSL Land Corporation, A Delaware Corporation Location ............. On the south side of PGA Boulevard, along both sides of Jack Nicklaus, Riviera and the north side of Merion Request .............. Approval of the subdivision of 37.98 acres into 117 single family and ten common amenity lots Action ............... Resolution 96- Item .................. TENTATIVE TRACT 28341 Applicant ........... KSL Land Corporation, A Delaware Corporation Location ............ The south side of Southern Hills at Laurel Valley and along both sides of Brae Burn Request ............. Approval of a subdivision of 16.4 acres into 56 single family and four common amenity lots Action ............... Resolution 96- BUSINESS ITEMS - Item ................... CONTINUED - SIGN APPLICATION 96-341 Applicant ............. Mr. Gerald H. Bogan Location ............. 78-120 Calle Estado Request .............. Approval of a master sign program for the newly constructed Bogan Villas Commercial Center Action ............... Minute Motion 96- 2. Item .................. STREET VACATION 96-029 Applicant ........... T. D. Desert Development Location ............ Streets within Tract Map 25154 - Via Melodia, Rio Arenoso, Casa Del Rio, and Rio Seco Request ............. Determination of Consistency with the General Plan to allow street vacation Action .............. Minute Motion 96- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1996. PC/AGENDA COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Commissioner report of the City Council meeting of May 21, 1996 2. Department update ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION Session Room 4:00 P.M. PC/AGENDA PH #1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 28, 1996 CASE 11'O.: SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 REQUEST: 1). CERTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2). APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE -THROUGH LANES. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET WITHIN THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER APPLICANT: WASHINGTON PLAZA ASSOCIATES (MICHAEL SHOVLIlN) PROPERTY OWNER: WASHINGTON/ADAMS PARTNERSHIP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-319 FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON- RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONING: C-P-S BACKGROUND: Project Hist= The subject property consists of a potential 600,000+ shopping center approved in April, 1990, by the City Council under Specific Plan 89-014. To date, approximately 263,000 square feet of building PCSS.205 area has been constructed. At the time of initial approval, a condition was imposed prohibiting drive - through facilities except for medical use. At that time, the applicants were proposing five drive - through facilities adjacent to Highway 111. The reason given for the prohibition is that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) discussed prohibiting drive -through facilities due to air pollution concerns. To date, no such prohibition has been implemented. In October, 1992, the City Council approved Amendment # 1 to this Specific Plan under Resolution 92-8:5 (Condition #71) allowing three businesses with drive -through lanes. Carl's Jr., Taco Bell, and McDonald's have been constructed within the shopping center with drive -through lanes. The applicants are requesting approval to have two additional businesses with drive -through lanes. The applicant has indicated that one user will be Boston Chicken with the second being an unnamed bank. The proposed Boston Market site is near the intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive. A Plot Plan application has not yet been submitted. This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 6, 1996. All property owners within 300-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public notice as required. No negative comments have been received. All correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Commission. Public Agency Review Staff'sent a copy of the applicant's request to all public agencies and City departments on February 29, 1996. We have received no negative comments. All other comments have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval. Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment 96-319 has been prepared for this Amendment request. No significant impacts were identified. The proposed amendment is within the scope of the original project as previously amended. Effects identified as less than significant were addressed within previous environmental documentation. Therefore, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency The City updated the General Plan in 1992. As part of the update, the General Plan designates this site as mixed regional commercial with a non-residential overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including restaurants and banks as is proposed by this Amendment. As such, this Amendment is consistent with the General Plan. PCSS.205 t • ' t� Issue 2 -]Public Welfare The subject site is presently developed with a commercial shopping center with vacant pad areas. As such, approval of additional drive -through lanes, provided they are designed properly (Municipal Code Section 9.160.50 K. 1-7), will not create any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Issue 3 - Land Use Compatibility The subject shopping center, as well as property to the south, east and west, is zoned for commercial uses. Therefore, development of the subject property with commercial uses having drive -through lanes will be compatible with adjacent properties. To the north is the White Water Storm Channel which provides a buffer from the residentially zoned properties. Issue 4 -Property Suitability The site is appropriate for a Specific Plan Amendment as proposed since circulation of the drive - through lanes can be integrated into the center, and the proposed uses are compatible and an integral part of the commercial development. Issue 5 -Additional Businesses With Drive -through Lanes Businesses with drive -through lanes have been constructed by McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Carl's Jr.. These facilities have been designed with adequate berming and landscaping to minimize any negative impacts. It is apparent that these types of facilities can be incorporated into the shopping center with no negative impacts to traffic circulation or aesthetics. Businesses with drive -through lanes reduces the need for parking lot spaces. CONCLUSION: The existing three businesses with drive -through lanes have been incorporated into the shopping center design in a manner which has no adverse impacts on traffic circulation, parking, or aesthetics. The approval in 1992 allowing three drive -through facilities required specific development standards including screening requirements, adequate stacking, safe circulation pattern, and a minimum of two pick-up windows for each lane, which staff recommends for the additional two drive -through lanes. Furthermore, the existing approval requires that each business with a drive -through lane file a Conditional Use Permit application for approval by the Planning Commission. These Conditions impose adequate controls to ensure that development of well -designed businesses with drive -through lanes. PCSS.205 REC'OMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- certifying a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- recommending to the City Council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Amendment for Specific Plan 89-014, Amendment No. 2 to allow two additional drive-throughs for a total of five subject to conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Initial Study for Negative Declaration PCSS.205 Prepared by: STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Pl nning Manager 4". s,1,4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-319 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-319 WASHINGTON PLAZA ASSOCIATES/MICHAEL SHOVLIN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 96-319, prepared for Specific Plan 89-014, Amendment #2; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared. an Initial Study (EA 96-319); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation to certify said Environmental Assessment: The proposed Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified. 2. The proposed Amendment does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the lack of any such factors existing on the shopping center site. The proposed Amendment does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The site is predominantly developed with commercial uses, which were subject to environmental review as part of analysis of the entire Specific Plan approval. resope.206 ti Planning Commission Resolution 96- 4. The proposed Amendment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the irnmediate vicinity. The site is an established commercial shopping center , with infrastructure to support such development already in place. 5. The proposed Amendment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, which were not previously analyzed in conjunction with review of the overall Specific Plan for the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend Certification of Environmental Assessment 96-313 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABLES, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY BERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 4 I I" resopc.206 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE THROUGH LANES. CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 WASHINGTON PLAZA ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28rd day, of May, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Washington Plaza Associates (One Eleven La Quinta Center) to allow an amendment to a Specific Plan which allows a commercial shopping center on 60+ acres located on a site bounded by Highway 111, Washington Street, White Water Storm Channel, and Adams Street, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, T5S, R73, SBBM AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, T5 S, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment 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 a Negative Declaration has been 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 certification of said Specific Plan Amendment: 1. 17his Amendment request is consistent with the General Plan in that the site is designated as Mixed Regional Commercial with a non-residential overlay. This Amendment request is for commercial uses which complies with the General Plan designation. 2. Subject property is partially developed with a commercial shopping center which is properly designed and will not create any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. The subject property as well as the properties to the south, east and west are zoned for commercial usage. As such commercial development of this site is compatible with adjacent properties. 4. Because the property was originally granted a Specific Plan in 1990, an Amendment to it is an appropriate use of the property. 1'i. resopc.205 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment #2 to Specific Plan 89-014 to allow two additional businesses with drive through lanes for a total of five. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERKY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California i',I;b resopc.205 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 * Modified by Planning Commission February 27, 1990 * * Amended by City Council on April 17, 1990 *** Deleted by City Council on April 17, 1990 **** Added by City Council on April 17, 1990 + Amended by City Council October 20, 1992 ++ Amended by Planning Commission on May 28, 1996 +++ Added by Planning Commission on May 28, 1996 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Th development shall comply with Exhibit 1, the Specific Plan for Specific Plan 89-014, the approved exhibits and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. Exterior lighting for the project shall comply with the "Dark Sky" Lighting Ordinance. Plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. All exterior lighting shall be provided with shielding to screen glare from adjacent streets and residential property to the north, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Parking lot light standards shall be a maximum 42-feet in height (per Owners Participation Agreement). 3. Plan for adequate trash provisions for each phase as constructed shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. Plan to be reviewed for acceptability by applicable trash company prior to City review. 4. * Comprehensive sign program for center (business identification, directional, and monument signs, etc.) Shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit. Included in approvals shall be applications for any adjustments to sign provisions required. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, mitigation measures as recommended by Archaeological Assessment UCRARU #1023 shall be completed at the Applicant/Developer's expense. 6. Prior to the issuance of a 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: • City Fire Marshal • Caltrans CONAPRVLA02 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 • City of La Quinta Public Works Department • Community Development Department • Coachella Valley Water District • Desert Sands Unified School District • Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 7. 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. Prior to issuances of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plan types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. ' Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. ** preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary landscape plan on file with the Community development Department. All tree sizes shall be a minimum of 24-inch box size or 2-1/2 inch caliper (measured 24-inches above root ball), and all Palm tress shall be minimum 12-feet in height (brown trunk). The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps/signatures from the riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). 9. Screening of parking lot surface shall be provided from all adjacent streets through use of berming, landscaping and/or short decorative walls. 10. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local requirements. 11. Prior to issuance of first building permit, parking analysis shall be submitted to Community Development Department to verify compliance of parking spaces provided based on Urban Land Institute Guidelines. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new CONAPRVLA02 9 1 , 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 parking study based on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 12. Project may be constructed in phases. Plans showing exact phasing shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. All perimeter street sidewalks, landscaping, and screening along Highway 111 shall be put in with the applicable phase, except at the time the first two phases are complete, the last phase improvements shall be completed. This will also apply to landscape buffer and/or walls along north property line. 13. Bus turnouts and bus waiting shelters shall be provided on Washington Street and Highway 111 as requested by Sunline Transit when street improvements are installed. 14. NSinimum landscaped setback along Washington Street shall be 30-feet from future curb (per Owners Participation Agreement). 15.++ "Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including construction, preliminary site work and/or archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FRCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and shall indicate time lines for any phasing of the project, and shall establish standards for comprehensive control of both anthropogenic and natural creation of airborne dust due to development activities on site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over the entire build out of the project such as for disturbed lands pending future development. 16. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building Official. 17. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 18. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed residential uses to the north across the Wash and provide mitigation of noise as required in the General Plan. The study shall recommend alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design. Study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques. CONAPRVIA02 10 i ; 1_ 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 19. Street dedications, bikeways, easements, improvements, landscaping with permanent irrigation system and screening, etc., to satisfaction of City, shall be provided by Applicant/Developer for any site(s) where dedication of land for public utilities and/or facilities is required. 20. All air quality mitigation measures as recommended in the Negative Declaration shall be complied with. 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of SP 89-014 and EA 89-150 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to he Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of EA 89-150 and SP 89-014 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of EA 89-150 and SP 89- 014. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 22. The 24-foot wide aisle next to satellite pads, that runs parallel to Highway 111 shall be widened to 26-feet, with aisle adjacent to south side of main building narrowed from 30-feet to 28-feet. 23. Southerly access of Washington Street service station to main driveway shall be relocated further to the east or otherwise modified to minimize traffic movement, turning, and stacking conflicts to satisfaction of the City. As requested by the City Engineer, the Applicant will provide a three car stack for he right out exiting the site onto Washington Street. 24. On -site intersection located between pad "N" and "A" in Phase I area shall be redesigned to eliminate intersection which crosses in front of pad "N" (creates traffic confusion and hazards) to satisfaction of Engineering and Community Development Department. 25. In Phase 3 area, short parking aisles near Highway I I I (perpendicular) shall be revised to align with long aisles to north (to eliminate traffic movement conflicts). *26. Adl pad buildings in project shall be designed with unified architectural theme utilizing matching exterior materials, colors, roofs, etc. CONA.PUL.402 ] ] PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, a 996 27. All conditions of the Design Review Board shall be met as follows: A. Architect to provide a more detailed sketch of the sections. B. More, and possibly a rounding of the arches. C. Details to be provided for the fast food stores. D. Blow up the design details (vignettes). E. Detailed security lighting on the rear buildings. *F. Major building on the east end to be designed to be integrated with the other buildings. ** 1). Wal-Mart architectural considerations: a). Entry bulkhead shall have "double diamond" concrete block detail. b).- Right side of entry (to east) shall have pilasters as shown on February 27, 1990, elevations. c). Bands shown at top and midway point of building wall are to be painted only without the "double diamond" detail with color to be dark brown. d). Sign fascia to be dark brown in color. Accent bands above and below the fascia shall be "peach" in color. 28. For major tenants and TBA's other than pedestrian doors, no overhead or similar door shall open to the north or towards any residentially zoned property unless adequately screened from noise and visibility to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 29. * * Applicant/Developer shall work with City and provide and install a fountain at the theme plaza at the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The theme plaza shall be approved by Art in Public Places Commission or other body as determined by City. 30. Decorative screen wall shall be provided around recycling center. 31. Variety in setbacks and siting shall occur in development of pads. 32. Walkway for pedestrian access from public sidewalk to parking lot shall be provided at intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 an d Adams Street and Highway 111. CONAPRVIA02 12 (, I *i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC; PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, l 996 33. No outside cart or other storage shall be permitted unless completely screened in a City approved area, excluding cart return areas within parking lot area. 34. Parking lot stripping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of building permits. 35. Plot Plan or Conditional Use Permit applications, as deemed necessary by C-P-S Zone requirements, shall be processed for each pad site. 36. The Planning Commission shall conduct annual reviews of this Specific Plan. During each annual review by the Commission, the Developer/Applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Specific Plan. The Applicant/Developer of this project hereby agrees to furnish such evidence of compliance as the City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require. Evidence of good faith compliance may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, good faith compliance with the requirements of the Specific Plan. Upon conclusion of the annual review, the Commission may extend the approval period for 12 months at a time. 37. Temporary access from signalized Highway 111 access to Phase 1 shall be paved as required by Engineering Department and Fire Marshal. 35. All outside storage areas shall be completely screened with architecturally compatible materials, so as not to be visible from adjacent streets, properties parking lots. 39. "]Plaza area shall be provided in front of shops between Major "A" and "B". Plaza to include landscaping, hardscape, street furniture, and accent features(s). 40. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". 41. Circulation of aisle next to pads in Phase 1 parallel to Washington Street and Highway 111 shall be reviewed to eliminate all 90-degree and abrupt turns to satisfaction of Community Development Department. FIRE MARSHAL: 42. All water mains and fire hydrants providing the required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Code in effect at the time of development. 43. Buildings shall be constructed so that the required fire flow does not exceed 3500 gallons per minute, or additional mitigation measures approved by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City of La ?Quints will be required. CONYORVIA02 13 J' t 1 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 45. The Applicant shall have a registered civil engineer prepare the grading plan. The engineer who prepares the grading plan shall: A. Provide written certification prior to issuance of any building permits that the constructed rough grade conforms with the approved grading plans and grading permit. B. Provide written certification of the final grade and verification of pad elevations prior to receiving final approval of the grading. 46. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 47. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. 48. All underground utilities located in the right-of-way shall be installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by the Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 49. The Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. 50. A Caltrans encroachment permit must be secured prior to construction of any improvements along State Highway 111, and all Caltrans requirements shall be implemented. 51. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. 52. Prior to issuance of any building permit, any existing structures which are to be removed from CONAPRVI..402 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC; PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 the property shall have been removed or there shall be an agreement for the removal which shall be secured by a faithful performance bond in a form satisfactory to the City and granting the City the right to cause any such structures to be removed. 53. The right-of-way dedications for public streets shall be as follows: A. Washington Street: 60-feet half -street plus additional right-of-way for extra lanes at Washington/1-1ighway I I I intersection, all as needed on east side of the centerline of the adopted Washington Street Specific alignment. B. Highway 111: 60-feet half -street minimum or as required by Caltrans, plus additional right-of-way for extra lanes at Washington/1-Iighway I I I intersection as needed. C. Adams Street: 44-feet half -street plus additional right-of-way for appropriate transition and turning lanes at the intersection of Highway 111 as required by the City Engineer to compliment the future Primary Arterial street improvements south of Highway 111. 54. Access to the site from public streets shall be as follows: A. Highway 111, as approved by Caltrans. B. Adams Street 1.) Full access to Adams Street shall occur at three locations only, none of which may be closer than 250-feet from the Highway 111 intersection centerline. The northerly access shall be constructed at a location that provides adequate sight distance in both directions. C." Washington Street 1.) Right turn -in only access from Washington Street may be allowed in conjunction with the access described in 2) below, subject to satisfaction of safety concerns of the City Engineer. 2.), The City will allow a full four way turn access at Washington Street at the northerly boundary of the site near the bridge, provided all traffic safety concerns of the City Engineer are adequately addressed, and subject to any required approvals from Riverside County or other applicable agencies. Intersection improvements including C0NM3RVL.4G2 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC; PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, ] 996 signals shall be installed by Applicant as required based on traffic loads, as determined by the City Engineer, subject to reimbursement of 50% of the cost thereof. 55. ,Applicant shall pay 100% of the cost for design and construction of the following street improvements: A. In general, the Applicant is responsible for all street improvements on the "development side" of the street centerline for all streets adjacent to the development site, unless specifically conditioned otherwise. All street improvements, including street lighting, shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and Caltrans where appropriate. B. Washington Street: From Highway 11 I to the White water Channel bridge: half -width General Plan street improvements and appurtenant conforms and amenities including an 8-foot wide sidewalk, plus additional turning lanes at the Highway I I I intersection in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. C. * Highway 111: From Washington to Adams Streets: as a minimum, Caltrans may require more, half -width General Plan street improvements and appurtenant conforms and amenities, plus turning lanes at the intersections, plus transitions as needed beyond the limits of the development site. The transitions are eligible for reimbursement. D. * * Adams Street: From Highway I I I to northerly most driveway: half -width General Plan street improvements including all appurtenant conforms and amenities, plus a 14- foot wide northbound travel lane, plus turning lanes and appropriate transitions as needed at the Highway 111 intersection to match the Primary Arterial street I movements on Adams Street south of Highway I I I (per Owners Participation Agreement). 56. Applicant shall accept responsibility for preparation of street plans at locations determined by City Engineer. 57. (Deleted per Owners Participation Agreement). 58. The City reserves the right to add additional public facilities as needed to the Mello -Roos District being formed to fund the public facilities in the project area. The Applicant has no fiscal responsibility for improvements added to the District by the City that are not a Condition of Development for this Specific Plan. 59. Traffic signals, including interconnect, are required at the following intersections; the C0NAPRVL.402 16 t '' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 Applicant shall pay a proportional share for the design and construction of these signals as follows: A. Highway I I I/Washington Street 100% front-end funding, 75% reimbursement B. Highway 111/Simon Drive 100% front-end funding, 50% reimbursement C. Highway 111/Washington Square 100% front-end funding, 50% reimbursement D. Highway III/Adams Street 100% front-end funding, 75% reimbursement the applicant shall pay 7.25% of the cost to design and construct the Washington Street bridge expansion across the White water Channel. 60. (Deleted per Owners Participation Agreement). 61. The Applicant shall provide subterrain storm drain facilities that will remove run-off from the 100-year storm without causing ponding or flooding of the on -site parking lots and access roads, Highway 111, Washington Street, and Adams Street. 62. (Deleted per Owners Participation Agreement). 63. The Applicant shall relocate all existing overhead utility lines that are adjacent to the site on the "development" side of the street centerline, or cross the site, to underground facilities. All future utilities that will serve the site shall also be located underground. Power lines rated above 12,500 volts are excluded from the undergrounding requirement. 64. Applicant shall design loading docks that front along the White water Channel in a manner that ingress to the docks occurs only from Adams Street and egress occurs only at Washington Street. 65. Trash dumpsters located in within public view shall be partially recessed below grade and aesthetically landscaped on three sides and aesthetically gated on the fourth, or as otherwise approved by the Community Development Department. 66. The Applicant shall dedicate easements for public landscape and sidewalk purposes between the street right of -way and parking lot edge and/or building along the site boundary streets. The landscape improvements shall be designed and installed by the Applicant in accordance with the City Engineer's requirements. The width of the landscaped easement/setback areas shall be as follows: A. Washington Street B. Highway 111 C. Adams Street 34-feet 50-feet 10-feet. CONAML.402 17 ' 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT#2 MAY 28, 1996 The Applicant, through C.C.& R.'s placed on future property owners located in the development, shall implement a method to fund and administer maintenance of the landscaped setback area and contiguous parkways. 67. * The Applicant may obtain reimbursement from the Mello -Roos District for those portions of the improvements specifically noted in these Conditions as eligible for reimbursement, if the District is successfully formed and if the improvements are installed at the Applicant's expense prior to availability of bond proceeds. If the improvements are funded with bond proceeds from the Mello -Roos District, the Applicant is relieved of the special tax for those portions of the improvements specifically noted in these Conditions as eligible for reimbursement. 68.**The Applicant shall dedicate land for an Imperial Irrigation District substation and Coachella Valley Water District well site (per CVWD letter dated January 5, 1990) prior to final approval of any land division map prepared for this commercial site. 69. Applicant shall pay all fees and costs, including wages and overhead, incurred by the City attributable to this commercial development as it pertains to the City Lead Agency role in plan preparation, administration, plan checking and inspection of the public improvements of Highway 111. 70."* * *All roof and wall mounted mechanical type equipment shall be installed or screened with architecturally compatible materials so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and streets to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development Director and/or the Planning Commission. Working drawings showing all proposed equipment and how they will be screened shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permit. 71.+ Drive through facilities shall be developed as follows: ++ A. Not more than five drive through facilities shall be permitted within the specific plan. B. All drive through facilities shall be screened by a combination of berms, walls, and landscaping so that the cars using the drive through facilities will not be visible by pedestrians and cars on the perimeter sidewalk and street in a manner satisfactory to the Community Development Director. C. Conditional Use Permit applications shall be processed for each drive through facility. D. Circulation pattern and stacking in drive through lane shall be reviewed and determined to be acceptable by the Engineering Department at the time of Planning Commission consideration of the Conditional Use Permit application. CONAPRVL.402 18 PLANNII\fG COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC: PLAN 89-014, AMENDMENT #2 MAY 28, 1996 E. Each drive through facility shall be provided with a minimum of two pick-up windows. F. All other development standards of the applicable Municipal Code regarding drive - through facilities shall be met. 72.+-++Per Condition 36, the Applicant within 30 days of approval of amendment #2 by the City Council, shall submit written evidence of compliance with terms of the Specific Plan. CONAPRVL.402 19 L y, Ir CASE No. CASE MAP ATTACHMENT 1 w-1 : ORTH SP 89-014 ISCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT Ae MW Mall & Foreman, Inc. Civil Engineering - Planning • Surveying -. Public Works May 1, 19% Stan Sawa Planning Department CM! OF LA QUT.IPITA 79-495 Cade Tampico I.a Quin, CA 92253 Re: Out Eleven La Quinta Center Specific plan Amendment Dear Stan, 4199-053-L57 Following our telephone conversation yesterday, I spoke with Michael Shoviin of Washington- AdarL% and messaged .Tohn Baker ofBoston Markets. As to the purpose of the amendment request, both these gentlemen can provide a greater level of detail as to the advantages... increased sales... benefits to the center in general... benefits to the consumer. As you know, the Amendment was filed to request two additional drive thrus...one for the proposed Boston Market, the second for a later use, still undefined. Without going into the level of detail and statistics that they can provide, I would suggest that the drive-thru concept provides the following: 1. Convenience to the consumer 2. Efficienq 3. Increased Was 4. lfncreased tax revenues I believe the convenience factor is key. User $iendly...ease of access and exit ... time effective...readily available. It makes for a thriving center. I trust this is help1bl. Should you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to call. HALL & FOREMAN. INC. Richard R.. Doolittle, P.E. Executive Vice PresidenVWncipal cc: Michael Shovlin 021 www Avenue, suite 200 }. Tustin, Calltmia V"0.7803 Tel 7'14/544-3404 Fax 7,141544.3155 iT aAiw.i cc c �+,c 77, / nn * vMv�una 1R - ^Wu an . Fn cn xv ATTACHMENT41 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 96-319 Case No.: SP 89-014 Date: May 13,1996 Amendment #2 I. Name of Proponent: Washington Plaza Assoc I Michael Shovlin Address: 71--084 Tamarisk Lane Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Phone: 519-324-5485 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): Specific Plan 89-014. Amendment #2 CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 023 eamm.001. II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources Air, Quality Noise HRecreation Mandatory Findings of Significance III. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. <' I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) 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 1AJ � '� Date May 17, 1996 Printed Name and Title Wallace Nesbit —Associate Planner For: City of La Quinta. Community Development Department Potentially Potentially Significant less lban significant Unless significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source #(s): 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 of 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: ki Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking X. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?` d;► Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e4 Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features?'� Potemially Potentially Significant Less 7Lan Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X. 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 glow of groundwater? h) 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? d) Create objectionai odors? #r'11: Potentially Potentially Significant 1<ae Tl= Significant Unless Significant Nc Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X.. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X 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 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a;► Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (inchuding, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? iv t>".4 / Potentially Potentially Significant Lees Than Significant Unit" Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any oj'the following areas: a) Fire protection? V Potentially Potentially significant less 7Lan significant Unless significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? X c) Schools? (r) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 3.12. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X. b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X. d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? X 3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal. a) Disturb paleontological resources? °X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X. c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X. e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? X. Vi Potentially Potentially Significant less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). X. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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 addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-319 Prepared for: SPECIFIC PLAN #89-014, AMENDMENT 42 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER CITY OF LA QUINTA Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 May 10,1996 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 3 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics 4 2.4 Objectives 4 2.5 Discretionary Actions 4 2.6 Related Projects 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 5 3.2 Population and Housing 5 3.3 Earth Resources 6 3.4 Water 6 3.5 Air Quality 7 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 7 3.7 Biological Resources 8 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 8 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 8 3.10 Noise 9 3.11 Public Services 9 3.12 Utilities 10 3.13 Aesthetics 10 3.14 Cultural Resources 10 3.15 Recreation 11 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 11 5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 12 SECTION 1: EXTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the proposal. 1..2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed amendment, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist in the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the potential change in the original uses of the project as approved. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of La Quinta. 4 14 SUMMARY OF PRELBUNARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study did not indicate potential for significant environmental impacts. As a result, no mitigation measures are recommended, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this proposal. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and County lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in May, 1982. The subject site consists of approximately 62 acres bordered by Washington Street, Highway 111, Adams Street and the Whitewater River Channel. The site is developed with various retail, office and restaurant uses established under Specific Plan 89-014. All parking areas have been completed, but there are several pad areas which are undeveloped. Vacant commercial land lies east and west of the site; Simon Motors is located to the south across Highway 111. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposal involves amending the Specific Plan to allow for the potential establishment of two drive - through facilities (one restaurant, one bank). The original approval in April, 1990 prohibited such uses. The plan was amended in 1991 to allow for three fast food drive throughs, all of which have been completed and are operating. No additional environmental review was deemed necessary at the time. 2..3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS A. cursory review of the original air quality analysis reveals that there are some established uses which are not consistent with the analysis. For example, the current restaurant square footage is more than double that originally considered, and the overall project footage analyzed is less than that actually approved. No specific information is available regarding the uses proposed under this amendment. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the amendment is to provide flexibility in marketing the remaining developable pad areas and to accommodate desires for prospective tenants. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A, discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta ) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve 5 a project. The proposed project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council for the following: Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project; Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment; Approval of Development Permit(s) for the drive -through uses. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There ,are no related projects to this proposal under review at present. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA, Appendix G. 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The subject site has been disturbed in it's entirety. There are several uses established within the site, which is being built out on a market demand basis. The overall project uses are consistent with the General Plan and zoning currently in effect. A through D. No Impact. The amendment does not propose uses inconsistent with the current or fixture land uses contemplated for the project area. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The City's population as of January,1995, is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 17,591 persons. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit. ' .B C.1 Local Environmental Setting The immediate area is designated Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC) on the General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram. The surrounding area to the north is designated residential and becoming densely populated, although no growth has occurred directly across the Whitewater Channel to this point. A through C. No Impact The amendment will not affect the area development patterns or population distribution, and will therefore not affect any population increase or area growth. The proposed uses are consistent with those already approved and established for the site. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Selling The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillsides, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. Local Environmental Setting The entire site has been disturbed and graded as part of previous development of parking, on -site access and building improvements. A. through L No Impact. The amendment will not present any additional exposure to geologic and soil related hazards. The existing physical conditions in the area will not be changed in a manner.which would create any impacts. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal and stored at Lake Cahuilla. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future. Local Environmental Setting The vicinity of the proposed amendment is protected from design storms by flood control and other required project improvements. The site is level and well drained, with existing retail and office uses having been established. A► through H. No Impact Current runoff rates may be incrementally increased due to pad development, but the development of pads with uses other than. those previously approved will have no additional impact. The area is currently protected from flood impacts by existing flood control facilities. f 7 Surface waters and streams will not be affected, and ground water resource quantity and quality will not be impacted. AIR QUALITY regional Environmental Setting lbe Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the LQMEA. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. In the Coachella Valley, the 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. 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. A, B, D - Less Than Significant Impact; C - No Impact - An air quality analysis was prepared for the original project in February, 1990. In 1992, Amendment 1 was approved to allow three drive throughs in the total project area; all three have been completed and are in operation. As part of that change; the applicant submitted information from a California Restaurant Association study on drive through service lanes, in response to a proposed AQMD ban on such lanes. This study indicated that a ban would actually increase ROG emissions by 7 percent over 1991 levels and 17 percent in the year 2000, for a typical restaurant. In relation to the entire project, and the existing and approved uses on site, any potential increase in emissions associated with two additional drive through uses is not considered significant. 16 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed 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, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quints experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. ,Local Environmental Setting The protect is bounded by three major City thoroughfares; Highway 111, Washington Street and Adams Street. All on site access ways, parking and driveways have been installed. A through G. No Impact No significant traffic increases or hazards are anticipated due to the proposal, beyond those already contemplated under full development of the specific plan. Trip generation ,rates for drive through versus sit down fast food restaurants do not vary significantly. At present, no 8 development plans have been submitted, so site specific impacts cannot be estimated. In consideration of'cumulative traffic generation for the entire center, no significant trip generation increase is anticipated from the addition of two drive through facilities. Access in the area will not be affected. No parking impacts will be created by the proposal which were not addressed and provided for in the specific plan. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected by water, air or rail traffic. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA. Local Environmental Setting The subject area is developed with commercial uses and rough graded pad sites for future commercial development. The LQMEA identifies the entire site as within the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat area, for which a federal 10A permit was obtained pursuant to adoption of the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A. through E. No Impact. The site has been disturbed and is developed with commercial structures, paved areas and vacant graded land with utilities installed. There is no potential for wildlife habitat to exist on the site. Mitigation fees have been paid for the CVFTL as part of grading permits originally issued for the site. 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District 01D), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting The site does not He within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist of Coachella Sand and loam and Myoma fine sand; these soils are well -drained and permeable. A., B. No Impact. The proposed amendment has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources in any manner. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats 0 to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the past. A. through E. No Impact There is no potential for additional risk or health hazard due to the request, rnr any effect on emergency response or potential fire hazard. The site has been assessed for risk impacts as part of the overall development framework; development of the individual pad sites will be subject to Fire and Health Department standards as in effect and applicable at the time. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. Local Environmental Setting Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic, and various short-term noise sources associated with urbanized residential uses. A,, B. No Impact No increase in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal. Development of remaining pad sites will have negligible effects upon noise levels or exposure to noise when considered with existing development on site. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff s Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Local Environmental Setting The nearest fire station to the area is Station #32 located approximately three miles south of the subject area. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center. A through E. No Impact The amendment will not impact public services. The existing approved commercial development pattern for the center will not be altered by the development of commercial drive through uses. a 10 3.112 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and the; Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area 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. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The subject site is significantly developed at present. Street and flood control improvements have been completed, along with sewer and water services. Recycling and waste management services have been established for the center. A through F. No Impact. The proposed amendment to allow drive through uses will not impact existing utility services or create a need for additional services. All utilities exist on the site and are adequate. 3.13 AESTHETICS Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. The project area is a developed, medium density section of the City. Views of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west. A, B, C No Impact. The amendment will not affect any existing views, scenic highways, or create light or glare, as existing area conditions will remain unchanged from that which is currently approved. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills. The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The proposal is in a developing urbanized commercial area; there is little likelihood that any cultural resources exist in the area. No historic structures exist in the immediate area. 11 A through E. No Impact. There are no potential impacts to cultural resources due to the proposal. 3.:15 RECREATION Local Fnvironmental getting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. A,. B. No Impact. The proposed amendment will not affect demand for recreational facilities or affect existing recreation. SECTION 4• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study for the proposed street vacation did not discover any significant impacts associated with the project. No development is proposed with the project, and no growth -inducing impacts will occur. 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 specific plan amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner which could change existing conditions or generally approved uses in the site, * The proposed specific plan amendment will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, as the amendment proposed will not significantly alter the types or intensity of the commercial uses already approved or in place on the site, * The proposed specific plan amendment will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the amendment, whether approved or not, will have no measurable effect upon surrounding development as currently approved and allowed under the existing specific plan for the entire site, * The proposed specific plan amendment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the amendment contemplates uses similar to those already assigned and approved as part of the overall specific plan, and which were addressed in the environmental assessment previously adopted for the plan. 12 SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of this assessment: • La Quinta General Plan Update; October 1992 • La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; October 1992 • Air Quality Analysis of the Proposed 111 La Quinta Center Project; February, 1990 • CRA Study on Drive-Thru Service Lanes; Spring 1991 • Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Transpacific Development Company Commercial Project; December, 1989 • Environmental Assessment 89-150; prepared for Specific Plan 89-014 and Plot Plan 90-434. These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were used in the preparation of this Initial Study. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. No significant impacts were identified as part of this analysis. The proposed amendment is within the scope of the original project as previously amended; effects identified as less than significant were addressed within previous environmental documentation as indicated. C. Mitigation Measures. No measures are proposed. Prepared by: Date: May 17,1996 Wallace H. Nesbit Associate Planner PH #,r STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 1996 CASE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-024, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 REQUESTS: 1. CERTIFICATION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND, 2. APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE EXISTING LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY; AND, 3. APPROVAL OF AN ADJUSTMENT TO DEVIATE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO ALLOW A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG AVENIDA CARRANZA INSTEAD OF A FOUR -FOOT HIGH WALL. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA CARRANZA, SOUTH OF VACATED CALLE TAMPICO (77-550 CALLE TAMPICO) APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION (MR. S CHEVIS HOSEA, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE) PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LA QUINTA CORPORATION REPRESENTATIVE: MR. FORREST K. HAAG, ASLA BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Previous Case Information In 1984/85, the Landmark Land Company (LML) processed a request to establish a one-story, 8,000 square foot golf course maintenance building in a R-1 * + + Zoning District on 0.6 acres of property at the southeast corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon (i.e., Plot Plan 84-088). The facility was built to maintain the existing golf courses to the north which is part of Specific Plan No. 121-E (Amendment 3), a Strp.066-a masher planned development that includes the hotel and surrounding private communities 1i.e., 775 units /719 rooms). The maintenance facility was planned to include a small shop, parts storage, office, employee lockers and restrooms, underground gas storage tanks, and 16 parking spaces. LML also requested the City allow them to vacate or abandon portions of Avenida Obregon and Calle Tampico to assist their development application. Ultimately, the abandonment of the right-of-way in this area was necessary to facilitate changes to the flood control system for the Cove Assessment Districts. On January 8, 1985, the Planning Commission had a number of concerns with the project, and after discussion, denied the application. On .January 23, 1985, LML appealed the Commission's denial of their project. However, prior to review of the case by Council, various changes to the original application were made based on concerns expressed at the Commission meeting. The City Council reviewed the appeal on February 19, 1985, and examined the following modifications as presented by the applicant: 1. The site plan was revised (i..e., calling for two phases of improvements). Phase #1 included the existing improvements, and Phase #2 included berming and landscaping along the east property line. Also considered in Phase #2, was the relocation of the chain link fencing along the dike and changing the golf course access point from the terminus of Avenida Obregon to Avenida Carranza. 2. The exterior material of the building was changed from metal to stucco, and other architectural modifications were made. 3. Landscaping along Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico would be installed, but the applicant requested the City assume the long term maintenance. 4. A contribution of 50 percent would be made to the traffic signal at 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. The applicant would pursue vacation of the Coachella Valley Water District right-of-way next to their site. A revised site plan was submitted. After discussion, the City Council referred the case back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. On March 12, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised changes and the agreement made with LML between the adjoining neighbors (Attachments 1 and 2). The Commission, on a 4-1 vote, approved Plot Plan 84-088 and adopted Resolution 85-3 determining that Street Vacation 84-005 was consistent with the La Quinta General Plan based on findings and conditions. Strp.066-a On March 19, 1985, the City Council reviewed the revised project and actions of the Commission. The Council approved the request based on the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3). The existing golf maintenance facility was completed in 1986. Surrounding Land Uses The subject parcel is bounded on the south by vacant parcels owned by CVWD, to the north by the flood control channel and existing golf course, to the east by existing and under construction single family houses. The existing maintenance facility is located to the west of the proposed expansion. Development Request At the beginning of this year, staff received the applicant's request to expand the existing golf maintenance facility onto the adjoining parcel fronting on Avenida Carranza (Attachment 4). The request involves installing an employee parking lot (33 spaces), a six-foot high perimeter wall, landscaping, and other improvements noted on the large exhibit in your packet dated January 6, 1996. Access to the site would be from an existing driveway established on the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Avenida Carranza. The SR Code provisions allow a four -foot high wall along the front property line. In this application, a six-foot high wall is proposed (Avenida Carranza) to mitigate equipment noise and reduce the visibility of any equipment stored in the proposed storage yard. Public Notice The cases were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 20, 1996, setting March 12th as the day to hold the public hearing. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the meeting to March 26, 1996, at the request of the applicant; the last review occurred on April 9th. The Commission granted the continuations because the applicant was preparing a noise study for the project. On May 4, 1996, staff renoticed the project for May 28th based on the applicant providing the noise study by May 14, 1996. Public Agency Comments All affected public agencies and City departments were also requested to comment on the notice. This correspondence is on file at the Community Development Department and their comments have been incorporated into the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Strp.066-a The adjustment will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. Regarding the findings of "special circumstances" justifying the adjustment request, the SR Zoning provisions provide inadequate wall heights to screen their equipment, provide security and mitigate equipment noise. Granting the adjustment will "provide aesthetic and security value that benefits the land owner and residence(s) mutually." General Plan/Zoning Designations The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan designates this site as Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwellings per acre) which is characterized by " ... one to two story, single -Family detached homes on medium and small lots and/or one to two- story, single-family attached units in projects with open space." This property is zoned SR (Special Residential) which permits various residential uses unless a conditional use permit is obtained for such uses as vocational schools, granny units, residential care facilities, bed and breakfast, nursery schools, time shares, and golf maintenance facilities. Environmental Assessment Based on the new project, staff has prepared Environmental Assessment 96-313 for the project. Staff recommends a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact based on the attached material (Attachment 5 - On file with Staff). Noise Study Noise impacts were an issue in the original review of Plot Plan 84-088. However, a noise study was not required for the initial project. Staff required the applicant to prepare an acoustic study for the expansion request, according to Policy 8-5.2.5 of the General Plan, to ensure consistency with City requirements. On May 14, 1996, staff received the applicant's noise study (Attachment 6, On file with Staff) which was prepared by J.J. Van Houten and Associates, a licensed acoustic firm. The applicant requested a study which analyzed the noise impacts of the project as well as to ascertain if the project can comply with the provisions of the General Plan requiring specific noise levels be maintained in residential neighborhoods. Table EH-1 of Chapter 8.0 requires outdoor residential areas to maintain 60dB CNEL (or less) rating but short duration events can exceed this level if within an infill residential area such as in this case. (Also applicable is the golf land use noise standard for on -site use which permits up to 70db.) Strp.066-a Letters from Property Owners All correspondence received from abutting property owners is attached (Attachment 7). STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - Parking Lot for Employees/Proiect Access In the original approval in 1985, access to the existing facility was to occur at Calle Tampico and Avenida Carranza which is the current situation except that the driveway leading from Avenida Carranza to the maintenance building is unpaved. The new proposal would correct this existing problem and reduce dust. The existing maintenance building has a small parking lot (i.e., 16 spaces) on the south side of the maintenance building. This new application will add 33 additional spaces to the project for a total of 49. Pursuant to Condition 11, under Plot Plan 84-088, the applicant can expand the site with additional parking based on the following provision: "[If the demand for parking by employees and visitors exceeds the number of spaces provided on site, the Applicant shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval for the expansion of the parking facillities." Staff supports installing the 33-space parking lot to not only relieve congestion at the site but also so that employees can park on a paved surface. Issue 2 - Traffic/Noise Impacts In 1992, this area of the City was projected to be in a predicted noise level area of 50- 60 dBA. Noise impacts from arterial streets such as Eisenhower Drive would not affect this area. The City in 1993 vacated the south leg of Calle Tampico westerly of Eisenhower Drive which created five cul-de-sac streets north of Avenida Montezuma (Street Vacation 93-024) including Avenida Carranza. Staff requested the applicant prepare a noise study for this project because residential houses are within 1,000-feet of this non-residential project. The noise study concludes that noise will be mitigated by placing the equipment adjacent to the east side of the existing maintenance building and installation of the six-foot high wall around the expanded project perimeter. The project is designed so that the parking lot is on the north side adjacent to the existing earthen levee thus reducing the number of houses near the expansion request. However, monitoring and enforcing where the equipment is placed is a tangible mitigation measure while door slamming will be harder to mitigate. Strp.066-a t �, Issue 3 - Hours of Operation In discussions with KSL, they state that they are opening and closing the facility in the same fashion as LML. Their employees (approximately 46) arrive at the site at 5:00 A.M. and work until approximately 2:30 P.M. Their response is attached (Attachment 8). After the letter was submitted, KSL personnel stated they also share equipment with their other existing golf maintenance facilities because their organization presently maintains eight golf courses in La Quinta. Therefore, they cannot guarantee that they will not have other equipment on -site on a temporary basis because it will be based on project need and the type of job being performed. The Commission can limit the hours of operation for this facility because it is a Conditional Use Permit application. However, the acoustical study shows that the CNEI_ levels set forth in the General Plan can be met with the mitigation as proposed. In addition, the City Council reviewed a proposed landscape maintenance ordinance on April 16. Based on testimony from golf course operators and Home Owners Association representatives, The Council denied the ordinance, which included time - based restrictions on starting maintenance operations. Based on the acoustical study and City Council action, staff does not recommend placing time restrictions on this proposal. Issue 4 - Unfinished Site Improvements Landmark Land Company did not complete all the necessary site improvements as required by the original Conditions of Approval (i.e., Phase 2). Improvements that are lacking are: (1) installation of the new six foot high wall to the east of the existing building,, (2) removal of the existing Tamarisk trees along the east property line and installation of new landscaping improvements, and (3) additional landscaping improvement along Calle Tampico to the east of the site. With the new application by KSL, the improvements would be installed but in different locations since additional property has been acquired. For example, the six-foot high wall that was planned to be built behind the existing maintenance building would be built along Avenida Carranza. Compliance would be met with this new project submittal with the exception of landscaping improvements along Calle Tampico. Staff recommends this condition be included. Issue 5 - Aesthetics A 195-foot long, six-foot high slumpblock wall is proposed along the Avenida Carranza Street frontage including a ten -foot wide entry gate. Abutting the wall is an eight -foot wide planter. The Bear Creek Bike Path runs along this frontage. Staff is concerned with compatibility of this wall with not only the surrounding residential area but also Strp.066-a the Scenic Recreational improvement. Most residences in the immediate area are not enclosed with walls. The proposed wall due to its length and height will be an imposing structure only softened with the proposed landscaping. Staff recommends the wall plan incorporate pilasters and four -foot deep by five-foot wide insets to increase the planter area and provide design interest. CONCLUSION: This development request will help to solve some of the existing problems by: (1) providing paved surfaces for on -site employee parking, and (2) installing landscaping and walls to screen the facility and make it more presentable to the homes on Avenida Carrainza. Noise impacts can be mitigated based on the information contained in the applicant's noise study. Therefore, the Community Development Department recommends approval based on the attached information and recommended Conditions of Approval as contained herein thus ensuring that the project will be compatible with the existing residential area. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , approving of a Mitigated Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 96-313) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , approving Conditional Use Permit 96-024 to allow expansion of an existing golf maintenance facility and to allow a six-foot high wall which is higher than permitted by Chapter 9.42 of the Municipal Code, subject to Conditions. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Original Site Plan (Reduced) 3. Original Conditions of Approval 4. New Site Plan - Reduced 5. Environmental Assessment 96-313 (Commission Only) 6. Noise Study (Commission Only) 7. Property Owner Letters 8. A letter from KSL 9. Large Plans (Commission Only) Strp.066-a 4 /^ Prepared by: r / ( Greg Tr sdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Strp.066—a s,� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96- 024 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 KSL RECREATION AND LAND CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 96-313, Conditional Use Permit 96-024, and Adjustment to wall height from four -feet to six -feet; and, WHEREAS, said Public Hearing had been previously continued from March 12th, March 26th and April 9th, to allow time for the applicant to complete an acoustical analysis; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 96-313); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Use Permit and Adjustment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified, and less than significant or potentially significant impacts can be addressed by the incorporated mitigation measures. 2. The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the lack of any such factors existing on or near the existing facility. resope.176 i,j�is Planning Commission Resolution 96- The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with implementation of the monitoring program. 4. The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. The area is established infill subdivision, with infrastructure to support such development already in place. The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 96-313 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABLES, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California resopc.176 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-024 TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF THE KSL GOLF MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND AN ADJUSTMENT APPROVING A DEVIATION IN THE SR ZONING CODE STANDARDS TO PERMIT A SIX-FOOT HIGH WALL ALONG AVENIDA CARRANZA. CASE NOS. CUP 96-024 - KSL RECREATION CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of March, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request by KSL to expand the existing golf maintenance facility at 77-550 Calle Tampico and deviation from the SR Zone District standards to permit a six-foot high masonry wall on Avenida Carranza to mitigate noise from the storage of outdoor equipment on 0.8 acres on property located on the west side of Avenida Carranza, 250-feet north of Avenida Montezuma, more particularly described as: Portions of the south -half of Section 1, Township 6S, and Range 6E WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of March, 1996, continue the public hearing at the request of the applicant because the project noise study had not been completed. Further continuances occurred on March 26th and April 9th without extensive deliberations; and, WHEREAS, on May 4,1996, staff placed public notices in the Desert Sun newspaper informing the public that May 28, 1996, had been chosen as the date to review the project since the applicant had submitted the required noise study for the development request; and, WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), and the Planning Commission will consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project at the May 28, 1996 meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit application. General Plan Compatibility - The proposed golf maintenance building expansion request is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan because noise mitigation measures will be imposed per Chapter 8 (Environmental Hazards Element) which resopc.158a Planning Commission Resolution 96-_ ensure that exterior noise that may affect adjacent residential properties are less than 60 dB CNEL. A study was prepared indicating that projected noise from the expansion of the facility will be consistent with this requirement if mitigation measures are imposed. These measures are incorporated into the Environmental Assessment and the proposed Conditions of Approval. 2. Zoning Code Consistency - The site is zoned S-R (Special Residential) which permits single family developments or other uses if a Conditional Use Permit is issued. This use requires special review by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Code provides that other development standards shall be met besides building height restrictions, walls, landscaping, etc. This project is planned to expand the existing maintenance building constructed in 1986 which includes an 8,000 square foot. building, small parking lot with on -site landscaping by adding additional parking for KSL employees and outdoor areas to store their golf maintenance equipment. Adjustment findings can be made to construct the wall eight -feet from the front property line to six -feet in height from the allowable five-foot height limit to mitigate noise, screen equipment, and provide a landscape buffer. 3. Health, Safety and Welfare - Off -site urban improvements are available at this site. They include streets, electric, sewer and other necessary facilities to support this project. On -site improvements are proposed for this project such as parking, landscaping, and screen wall for the storage of equipment. All new improvements shall be meet Federal, State and local code provisions during construction. All facilities will conform to these standards, therefore, health and safety policies are insured. 4. Environmental Assessment - An environmental assessment (EA 96-313) has been prepared based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act statutes. This assessment has determined that the applicant's noise study meets the required standards of Chapter 8 of the General Plan provided mitigation measures are imposed reducing any significant adverse impact through the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment. resopc.158a Planning Commission Resolution 96- That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 96-024 with conditions as set forth in this Resolution, labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST:; JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La. Quinta, California Resopc. 158 EXHIBIT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-024 - KSL REC. CORP. MA`S, 28, 1996 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Conditional Use Permit 96-024 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. All on- and off -site improvements shall be installed by May 28, 1997 otherwise this application will become invalid. Use of the expansion area for the storage of supplies, equipment or parking will not be permitted until all required improvement have been installed to the satisfaction of the City. 4. The development shall comply with the exhibits on file and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of Plot Plan 84-088. 5. A landscaping and irrigation plan for the project shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscaping materials to be native and drought tolerant. Thirty-six inch box evergreen trees shall be specified in each of the wall insets along Avenida Carranza. Irrigation system to utilize emitter irrigation system where possible. Within five -feet of the curb, no spray irrigation heads nor lawn shall be used. Within this area only emitters and spreading shrubs and ground cover may be used. The owner of the site shall maintain all on- and off -site landscaping improvements as required by the final plan. Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the Community Development Director, the Director of Public Works, the Coachella valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and Coachella Valley Water District. �, 11 4 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the perimeter wall, the wall plan shall include four, 4-foot deep and five-foot wide insets along the outdoor equipment storage portion of the site plan along Avenida Carranza. Pilasters shall be included along the entire street frontage at a regular interval. The gates shall be solid. 7. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 96-313 shall be met. S. Heavy equipment with diesel or gas power motors shall be stored on the east side of the existing one story building. No heavy equipment shall be placed and/or stored farther than 60-feet from the east side of the maintenance building. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading 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: - City Fire Marshal - Public Works Department - 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 approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 11. The outdoor equipment storage area shall be surfaced with three -inches of 3/4" gravel to reduce dust impacts to adjoining residential properties. 12. No employee parking shall occur on Avenida Carranza. 13. The maintenance of equipment shall occur in the existing maintenance building except for the installation of gas and fluids for the lawn mowing equipment. 14. The parking lot on the south side of the maintenance building shall be used for employee parking only with no other uses allowed such as the storage of equipment or lawn products. 15. To reduce door slamming noise and its impact on the existing single family house to the south, an acoustical device (i.e., a parabolic device, etc.) shall be installed on the existing six- foot high wall prior to final inspection. The acoustic device shall reduce the noise level by 5 dB. The design shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 16. If landscaping products are stored in the new expansion area, all products shall be kept in three- or four-sided containers and not be stacked any higher than five -feet. All storage containers shall be a minimum distance of ten -feet from the perimeter wall. 17. The access gates proposed on Avenida Carranza will require review and approval by the City Fire Marshal prior to installation. 18. Prior to issuance of an electrical permit the lighting plan, including a photometric analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Attachment 1 Vicinity Map oh Not to Scale Existing Golf Course FProject S- Calle Tam ico (Vacated) Exist' ng g ilitY Site 1I =i �i v � a MM Case: CUP 96-024, VAR 96-026, EA 96-313 Por. S1/2 Sec. 1; T6S R6E APN: 773-052-024 1_ '7 Ct Mr=CNS OF APPRWn (Per City Council Action on March 19, 19851 Gcneral ATTACHMENT 3 1. Plot Plan No. 84-088 shall catply with all standards and requirements set for in the City of Ia, puinta Land Use Ordinance. L 21is Plot Plan approval shall expire one year after the date of final approva within which time the construction authorized mist be substantially begun or occupancy authorized be in use unless a time extension applied for prior to t expiration date is approved. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use conterplat by this approval, the Applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: ° Riverside Canty Dmiran mtal Health Delartment • ® City Fire Marshal ° Qoachella Valley Water District • Comity Development Depart me nt, Planning Section Evidence of said permit or clearance shall be presented to the Building Sect at the time of application for a building permit for the use contemplated he with. 4. Street Vacation No. 84-005 shall be approved and all conditions therewith cc with or this approval shall bec1. ! null and void. Site and Building Design 5. Development of site and buildings shall be in aocorcdance with Revised ndiib: Al, AZ, B. and C and the following =Iditions of approval, which oandit'Cnss take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provision of the Plot 6. Phase s inproveceants shall be initiated within 90 days of completion of flo Control adjacent to the site. 7. Colors and building materials shall be substantially as submitted and shall subject to final approval by the Ccm unity Development Dgmrtmcnt. 8. Any outside storage, including that which is seasonal, shall be in designat areas and shall not exceed the height of enclosures. 9. All mscisanical equipment shall be grand minted or screened by the design the roof structure when viewed from adjacent residential properties and put streets. 10. Pausing on the site shall be restricted to the designated spaces as sty i achihit "A" and in accordance with City standards. All etployees and visi to the facility shall park within this approved area. 11. If the demand for parking by employees and visitors exceeds the taamber of provided on site, the Applicant shall m mit plans to the Camnnity Develo Department for review and approval for the expansion of the parking facili -1- CCNDITICNS OF APPROVAL - March 19, 1965 12. The location and ..cnstn)c.'tim of Phase 2 access t - the golf course shall be reviewed and approved by the C= mi.ty Development Department at such time that the new IA Quinta Storamater Channel dike is ocnstn=ted. 13. The primary access from Calle Tampico and Avenida Carranza to the project site shall be constn=ted with a minimum travelway width of 24 feet and shall be reasonably protected from flood damage. Streets, Traffic t Grading and Access 14. The following street inprovements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of ooapancy for the approved building: a. -1he westerly port = of the iatersec-'ti can of Calle Tampico and Avenida Carranza shall be =proved to City standards to a typical "amdda' design for a 9011 intersection- b. The above iuprovenents will necessitate curb, gutter or sidewalk. 15. Provision shall be made to block off that portion of Avenida Obregon north of the se=xiary entrance to prevent use of the abandoned street and a temporary turnarounA shall be provided. if flood control imprwefn—mrts are not completed by June 1, 1987, this turnamund shall be paved. 16. the Applicant shall restrict parking as follows and in accordance with the Community Development Department's requirements: a. the primary access fran Calle Tampico west of Avenida Carranza shall be pemmanently posted as 'No Parking% b. During Phase 2, the se=xlary driveway access from Avenida Cbregon shall be designated as 'No Parking'. 17. A grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 18. Applicant shall employ appropriate nos to assure use of the Calle Tampico entrance as the primary access. Public Services and Utilities 19. 'the Applicant shall oomply with the following requirements of the City Fire Marshal, to the extent required by the Fire Marshal: a. Provide for a minim= 1250 GEM fireflow (unless the change in o--t ftic type results in a different fireflow requirement) from a water system capable of sustaining such flaw for a two~ -hair duration at 20 psi residue pressure. "spec' type fire hydrants to be located not more than 1659 of less than 25' from any portion of the building exterior. b. Provide paved access along west side of building which shall be a minima of 24' wide. c. All gates shall be equipped for immediate emergency access with tr�t of an approved type. -2- CfCtmmms of APPROVAL - March 19, 1985 20. Prior to the issues : of any building = grading Pe ts, the Applicant shall provide written clearance from Coachella Valley Water District that there are no conflicts between the project and existing and future District facilities. 21. All new utilities serving the facility shall be placed underground on the site. 'Ihe Applicant shall fly with ail requirements. of the Imperial Irrigation District. Walls, Landscaping, LightiM and Sic s 22. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the approved use, the following walls and fences shall be installed: a. A maociau:m six -foot -high masonry wall with stucco finish along the south property line. b. A maximna six -foot -high fence or cyclone fence along the western project b=xda>ey. C. Rhe gate for the seeoxlary access from Avenida began shall be six-foot h and view obscuring. d. Plans for primary and secondary access gates small be approved by the C=m ty Develq;rmt Department prior to their installation. e. No barbed wire, razor wire or similar materials shall be installed an any reqaired perimeter fence or wall without prior City approval. 23. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a detailed on --site landscaping plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the C="unity Developm Department. Said plan shall indicate the location, species, size and spacing of all planting materials. The landscaping plan shall indicate, but not be limited to, the following: a. A minimum of six, 8-foot-high trees along the south side of the parking area, as shown an EdAbit "A". 'IIo trees shall be of species which are non -deciduous and their canopies will provide screening of the building from Avenida Cbregon. b. The existing trees along the east property (On Lot 1) shall be mm;inta' until the flood improvements are abandoned. 24. Prior to the issuance of building pets, Applicant shall enter into a sepa� agreement to install landscaping along the EisehhoWer1TaffTPiCO oorr'idor genes as shown an Exhibit *W . Details of the planr timing of installatian, mint and other activities associated with the Applicant's letter and other Partin issues shall be resolved as part of the agreement. 25. As part of Rum 2 is vvevents, Applicant shall submit a detailed la d Plan for review and approval by the OamtautY Development Department. Said plan shall indicate the location, species, size and spacing of plant mnteria The ling plan shall indicate, but not be limited to, the following. a. An scaping buffer along the east property line. b. Upinq along the south side of Tampico driveway- C. Applicant shall also install a i prey wy wall, with plaster finish, along the east - .3 - "., # CoCNDIT]:CNS OF APPROOL - March 19, 1985 26. Applicant shall m..t t a detailed lighting plan s2. ing the location, design, type (including manufacturer) and intensity of all proposed exterior lighting. All lighting shall be screened so as not to shine directly on properties oit side the project's perimeter walls nor to create substantial light wash which may be a nuisance to surrounding residents. 27. The location and design of all signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Cc manity Development Department. Miscellaneous 28. Applicant shall secure approval of a parcel merger frcan the Cc mmmity DevelopM IXpartmmt for pots 1-6 prior to 0=4w -y of the subject building. 29. Applicant shall be responsible for payment Of infrastructure fees either inter' t. or pervanent based upon adopty - 4 - ATTACHMENT 4 ~ Calle Tampico (vacated) yI fill, All aa ; Of, (" ,♦ May 28, 1996 PLANNING COM IISSION MEETING ATTACHMENT 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON FILE WITH THE CON vfUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF (COPY GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION) F7viNUBLD4 ATTACHMENT 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 96-313 Case No.: CUP 96-024 Date: January 22, 1996 I. Name of Proponent: KSL Recreation and Land Corporation Address: 56-140 PGA Boulevard, La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 619-564-1088 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): Golf Course Maintenance Facility Expansion at 77-500 Calle Tampico 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 Population and Housing Earth Resources Water Air Quality III. DETERMINATION. Transportation/C irculation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and Human Health X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Utilities Aesthetics 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 a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find. that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 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 S/z 3 /9 Date .J wT-2 Printed Name and Title Wallace H. Nesbit, Associate Planner For: City of La Quinta 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 (source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? X g) Altered direction or rate of glow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectional odors? X .o� 0 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X 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 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X iv d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Potentially Potentially Significant less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X Fi R. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 3.12. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X 3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? , X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten :o eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X EARLIER ANALYSES. �1 X X 91 X Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. EVITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 Prepared for: KSL Recreation Corporation Conditional Use Permit 96-024fVariance 96-026 Santa Rosa Cove Golf Course Maintenance Facility Expansion 77-550 Calle Tampico Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 January 22, 1996 Revised May 20, 1996 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Ph.ysical Characteristics 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics 4 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 6 3.2 Population and Housing 7 3.3 Earth Resources 8 3.4 Water 10 3.5 Air Quality 12 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 14 3.7 Biological Resources 16 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 17 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 17 3.10 Noise 19 3.11 Public Services 20 3.12 Utilities 22 3.13 Aesthetics 23 3.14 Cultural Resources 24 3.15 Recreation 26 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 26 5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 27 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 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). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the proposed development. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed project. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for the maintenance facility's expansion; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist the preparation of an EM 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. 4 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended expansion of the facility. In addition, the revised approval for the overall La Quinta Cove Golf Club project (Condition 9 of SP 121-E Revised; approved 10/5/82) requires an Environmental Assessment to be done for any discretionary permit within the Specific Plan area. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is minimal potential for adverse environmental impacts on some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. Mitigation measures have been recommended 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 a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southeasterly portion ofthe Coachella galley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal acid County lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in May of 1982. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed expansion adds 36,155 square feet of area (.83 acres) to the existing 26,572 square foot site (.61 acres). The project site is located along the west side of Avenida Carranza along the northwest periphery of the Cove. No additional building area is proposed. A, 6' block wall is proposed to enclose the entire site area, which will provide an additional 33 parking spaces on -site (49 total) to supplement the 16 previously approved in 1985 for Plot Plan 84-088. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The site currently provides maintenance and storage related to operation and care for the golf course areas associated with the La Quinta Hotel Resort and Club. The existing maintenance building is approximately 8,000 square feet and was originally approved in 1985. The facility provides storage for various types of equipment and materials related to golf course maintenance activities. According to the original staff report, the hours of operation were indicated to be 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 2A OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed expansion is to accommodate additional equipment and maintenance personnel. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Tlie proposed project will require discretionary approval from the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and City Council for the following: * Certification of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project; * Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the project; * Approval of an adjustment for the project. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no current projects related to the proposed expansion. The project site is, however, part of Specific Plan 121-E that was approved prior to the City's incorporation, by the County of Riverside. There have been several tract map and plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last ten years. The proposed project requires that a variance be approved to permit the proposed construction of a 6' high block wall, for security and screening purposes, around the north, east and westerly project limits. This variance is being processed concurrently with the proposed CUP. SECTION 3• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the maintenance area. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a brief description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site is located along the west side of Avenida Carranza, northeasterly of the north termination of Avenida Obregon and just west of the previous alignment for C alle Tampico, in the west -central area of the City of La Quinta. The project site serves the La Quinta Resort and Club golf course areas.The exact project site is not within the existing limits of the Specific Plan, but is located immediately south of and adjacent to it. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potntially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project is within the SR zone classification, which permits golf course maintenance facilities by CUP. The General Plan land use designation is Medium Density Residential. The land use designation and zoning designation are compatible with each other; conditions attached to the CUP are intended to ensure that the proposed use will be acceptable in light of the surrounding predominant land use. The project use will be conditioned to mitigate my potential impacts on the surrounding residential uses as identified in this EA. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over this project approval. The primary environmental .plans and policies related to expansion of the facility are identified in the La Quinta General Plan, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and Specific Plan 121-E,. 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 or near the 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 project site expansion will affect the physical arrangement of existing types of development in the La Quinta Cove area, immediately suarounding the use, to some degree. The expansion involves only additional land area, some limited parking additions and a perimeter block wall. There is potential that building expansion will also occur in the near future, which could cause property value decreases such that area residents may relocate and vacant properties will not develop. However, the use has been established for over 10 years. Any further impacts would be relatively insignificant in relation to the existing conditions. (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making it the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. The number of City residents blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. La Quinta's share of the entire valley population increased from 3.7%, in 1980, to 5.1%, in 1990. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The City's population as of January, 1995, is estimated by the State Department of Finance, to be 17,591 persons. This is an increase of 208% in the last ten years. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.5 persons per unit. Local Environmental Setting The proposed site is an existing golf course maintenance yard. There are no residents on the site, which is on the periphery of an older single-family residential area. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The proposed expansion will result in no new residential units. Limited new jobs related to the operation of the expanded facility may also be created. El. 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)? No Impact. It is not anticipated that additional development will result from expansion of the site. The project will not create any type of growth -inducing impact or infrastructure. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. There may be some impact to surrounding residential units from the project due to noise, lighting and traffic. It is not anticipated that displacement of any housing will occur due to these incremental increases, as the use has existed for 10 years. 3.21 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting Tli.e City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans and steep hillsides, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral reef Mountains. Local Environmental Setting The area where the project is proposed is a developed residential area. There has been no recorded seismic activity from the nearby inferred faults, thus, there is a low probability for such activity. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the area include the San Andreas fault located several miles to the north of the City. Faults within the City include two inferred faults transecting the southern section of La Qiiinta. A., Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred faults in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project site, while the other lies approximately 1 mile south. 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; LQGP; LQGPA). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who will be subject to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone III; however, no new structures are proposed. All proposed improvements to the site will be required to meet current seismic standards to reduce the risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? No 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 1,00 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. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast area of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and goundshaking. '.However, the lake is not anticipated to affect the City in the event of a levee failure or seiche. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The immediate project site is at the periphery of an existing residential area that is near the base of an outcropping of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The site is protected from snide activity to some degree by the Bear Creek Channel. It is not anticipated that the area would be significantly impacted by potential mudslides or landslides. 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? No Impact. The proposed expansion will negligible grading construction. No new buildings or structures, beyond a 6' block wall, are proposed. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? 10 No Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards. (Source: LQMEA) H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? No Impact. The project site will not be developed with additional structures. No foreseeable exposure of people to impacts associated with expansive soils is anticipated. L Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No 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 on the project site or near enough to be affected by the proposed expansion request. 3A WATEIR 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 well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality ofwater 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. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (7'DS) can increase significantly from 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 nearest stands of surface water consist of several small lakes located on the resort golf courses. The Bear Creek Channel conveys storm flows around the project site, but remains predominantly dry otherwise. ii A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Then Significant Impact. The proposed project may require additional drainage facilities. There is an existing drainage system for the golf courses that directs runoff to the existing golf course lakes. A grading, and drainage plan will be required to address the handling of additional storms and nuisance waters associated with site development B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The site is within a designated 500 year flood plain zone (Zone x). The hazard factors for this zone have been determined to be less than one foot average depth. There are existing flood control facilities in the Cove area that protect the project site (Source: LQMEA). 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 project site will be directed to an approved drainage system in compliance with NPDES requirements and the City of La Quinta D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body`.' No Impact. Increase in runoff is expected due to relatively significant increases in impervious site area. However, water quantities from this increased runoff are not anticipated to pose any impact to surface waters (Source: Proposed Site Plan). 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 bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The `'Vhitewater River and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel are stormwater channels that are usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawl, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? 12 No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. The site expansion will likely require minimal increased waiter needs which would have no impact on groundwater quantities. The site is currently serviced with an existing distribution system which does not require direct access to groundwater. 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. No wells are proposed for the project and the site is served with a closed distribution system that does not directly access groundwater resources. H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary source of runoff will be the construction of hardscape and paved parking lot. Stormwater runoff will be directed into an approved drainage system which will probably culminate in the golf course lakes. Percolation and natural filtering ofthis runoff in combination with lakewaters will then occur. These additions to the water table will not significantly impact groundwater quality. It is not anticipated that additional development will result from the expansion. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental ,Vetting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and lies within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the LQMEA. In the Coachella Valley, the 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 California Air Resources Board (CARB) has designated the Coachella Valley as a serious non -attainment area for PM10. It is currently the most significant locally attributable air quality concern in the Valley. Local Environmental Setting The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an arid climate characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. t 4, } 13 The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan, which describes measures to bring the region 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. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There will be some pollutants as a result of vehicular traffic during the construction phases and from employees. The primary impacts will be from fugitive dust (PM10) during construction activity. The developer will be required to file a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) prior to or with submittal of a grading plan, or prior to any site disturbance taking place, B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include land uses with concentrations of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The adjacent land uses consist of residential development to the immediate east and south, with golf course to the north. Primary impacts will be from fugitive dust (PM10) during construction activity. Compliance with an approved FDCP will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. All on- si a vehicle storage areas shall be suitably payed or similarly treated to eliminate dust sources. C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in any of these impacts. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. Some impact due to odors emanating from chemical or organic storage piles may occur, as well as from the day to day operations of the facility. These are not anticipated to be significant due to the lack of any odor based complaints during the current operation's 10 year history. It is recognized that expansion of the site could lead to additional operations not currently being conducted. Any potential source of objectionable odors shall be properly contained on -site or shall be removed from the site if the odor persists. 14 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 17,500 permanent residents. There is a substantial portion of the City that is undeveloped. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed 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, and Eisenhower Drive. 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. Existing transit service for the City is limited to three regional fixed bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects 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. There are some existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems are to be completed as new developments come to the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located at the fringe of the La Quinta Cove area, along the west side of Avenida Carranza. This street is a 60' r.o.w. with 36' c.t.c. Access to the site will be via this street at the west edge of the existing cul-de-sac. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary concern with traffic is the type generated by this project. There will be a significant amount of commercial traffic associated with operation of the facility, in consideration of the fact that it is located in a residential area. However, it is not considered to be a significant increase in terms of vehicle trip generation and the current traffic being generated. The existing local street is more than adequate to handle traffic that is generated from this facility as well as the surrounding residential uses. There are only a few homes on the east side of Carranza, which is not a through street and does not carry pass - through traffic. Thus, there should not be any significant increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond that which currently exists. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. There are currently no hazards from design features of the existing roadway or the proposed project. The proposed project does not include any new roadways or the alteration of any existing roadways. It does propose additional parking, 15 which will alter circulation on the site. There are no obvious hazardous design feature associated with the project. Review of the entry gate off the Carranza cul-de-sac will be subject to review by the Fire Marshal and Public Works Department, C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposal will not obstruct emergency access to the surrounding area. A secondary emergency access will be provided at the current entry, at the north termination of Obregon. D. Would the, project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? LE-ss Than Significant Impact. The expanded facility allows for a total of 49 parking spaces, 33 ofthem currently proposed as part of the expansion. Although no specific standards exist for determining the adequacy of parking for such uses, similar past projects have generally provided adequate parking area. (riven that no additional building area is proposed at present, it appears that parking should be more than adequate. Conditions will require that all ernuloyee and delivery varking traffic occur strictlyon-site Upon submittal for any future expansions, the applicant must provide a parking use inventory and breakdown for the site. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact upon the existing Bear Creek bikeway, which fronts the property. A block wall is proposed, which will separate the site from pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area. Pedestrians and cyclists crossing in front ofthe proposed access gate will need to be aware of gate and vehicle movements. Otherwise, there should be minimal impact upon pedestrians or bicyclists. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project will not interfere with the existing alternative transportation modes and facilities. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) 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, or air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. 16 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. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. It is in an area which was subdivided in the 1930's and has residential development ocurring on an infill basis.Thus, any potential biological resources or habitat has been long gone from the site. The LQMEA indicates that the vicinity of the project site is within the traditional habitat of the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher bird. 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)? No Impact. The proposed project site has been developed for several years, thus all habitat has been rendered unusable for such purpose. (Source: Site Survey) B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 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 & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: LQMEA; Site Survey). C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. Surrounding land uses include golf course and single family homes. Di. 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: LQMEA). 17 E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors in the project area (Source: LQ MEA). 3.13 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing resources on the proposed project site. 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 expansion does not propose any construction other than a block wall, parking and other hard surface areas. No mitigation is required or feasible for this project. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? No Impact. The proposal will not impact non-renewable resources associated with its construction. Landscaping will 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 to 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. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. 18 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 has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the recorded past. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? Less than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance operations and from fire or explosion due to upset of on - site fuel storage and delivery of those fuels. Other risks include toxic releases from stored pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals which may interact with each other through upset due to spillage or exposure to fire, water or other elements. These impacts are not considered significant unless these incidents occur. The proposal shall meet all requirements of the Fire Marshal as applicable to both the exnansion of the facility and its operational aspects B. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Construction activities will be limited to the proposed parking lot area, block wall improvement and hardscape as necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency responses to the surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the project beyond those discussed in items 3.5.A and 3.9.A. Any hazards would be less than significant as discussed due to mitigation as required. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are potential health hazards on the proposed project site as discussed in items 3.5.A and 3.9.A. The proposedexpansion is not expected to create any additional health hazards, as long as OSHA and County Health Department safety regulations are followed by employees. The site has been in operation for over 10 years and is required to conform to all applicable health and safety codes of the City. 19 E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a cleared area but does have some existing tamarisk trees on the south and east sides of the building which serve as a view screen. There will be no increase in fire hazard associated with flammable vegetation due to the expansion. 3.110 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic and equipment noise due to current operations at the site. Minimal noise impacts the ambient level from easterly residential uses. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? I.esS Than Significant Impact. Any increase in noise resulting from the expansion of the site is anticipated to be insignificant. Impacts are localized on the surrounding residential properties and emanate primarily from operations and traffic associated with the site. The existing (1992) noise levels for the project site area exceed 60 dBA due to roadway noise from Eisenhower Drive. However, an acoustical study prepared by the project proponent indicates that existing exterior CNEL levels are below 60 dBA at residential units along Carranza and Obregon, and states that the proposal will actually reduce existing noise levels due to equipment storage relocation and installation of the proposed 6' high block wall. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless 1Vlitigated. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Expansion of the current site can be assumed to create additional noise based on the increase in area and parking spaces. The uncertainty at present with regard to use of the site over time dictates that these impacts could potentially be significant. Conditional uses are permitted where restrictions can be placed on the use such that the impacts are similar to or acceptable 20 in fight of the surrounding land use and conditions. The most effective means of mitigating potential noise impacts from this expansion is a requirement for sound attenuation. The eject will incorporate all mitigation measures as recommended in the acoustical study eared by J J. Van Houten and Associates dated May 3, 1996.The proposed project will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery is capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 MA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The Municipal Code regulates construction hours to which the developer must comply (Source: La Quinta General Plan). 3.111 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. 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 Avenida 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. Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats in the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There is one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school within the City. These schools are within the Desert Sands Unified School District. The City is also 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 area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and contains 2,065 square feet of space and approximately 18,000 volumes. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, which is a satellite clinic of the Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. 21 Local Environmental Setting The nearest fire station to the project is Station #32, located approximately'/2 mile southeast. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center and by County, State, and federal agency offices in the desert and region. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The development of the project may affect the need for fire protection due to additional fire hazards associated with upset risk (See 3.9.A.) The development 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 minimise the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required. Other code requirements (such as fire sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) will be required. 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. The Riverside County Sheriffs Department responded with comments on this project. They had no negative comment and stated that the project will not significantly impact the Sheriffs Department's ability to provide services. Ample exterior and address lighting is requested by the 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? No Impact. The proposed project will be subject to payment of school impact fees to mitigate potential impacts on local schools, although no impacts can be anticipated 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. No Impact. No impacts are anticipated to any public facilities. E:. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? No Impact. Building, engineering, planning, and inspection services provided by the City will b�e partially offset by application fees charged to the developer. Business license and code enforcement services will be provided by the City of La Quinta. 3;; 22 3.12 UTII.TTIES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas limes and substations are found throughout the City. HID 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 Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water 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 13 wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. 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 ofthe 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 storm drainage system in place at the golf resort complex. Runoff is directed to the golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities exist at the project site. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas services? No Impact. Power, sewer, and gas lines exist at the site. Expansion will not affect existing services. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? No Impact. The site is currently served with telephone communication. Expansion will not affect existing services. C'. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? No Impact. The site is currently served with water service. It is not anticipated that expansion will result in any measurable impact on local water resources. 23 D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? No Impact. The site is currently served by an approved sewage system. It is not anticipated that expansion will result in any significant impact to the sewer system. E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? No Impact. The site will include additional pavement as a result of the expansion proposal. There is an existing storm drainage system serving this project. No impacts are anticipated as drainage considerations will be addressed as required by Public Works. Storm and nuisance runoff is not considered significant here. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? No Impact. The site currently requires service from Waste Management of the Desert. Any on -site programs for recycling are coordinated with Waste Management. No impacts to current services are anticipated due to the expansion. 3.13 A.ESTBIETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located at the foot of an outcrop of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the west cfaitral portion of the City. No structures are proposed as part of the expansion beyond a 6' high block wall. A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? No Impact. No new structure(s) are proposed with the expansion. The proximity of the site to the base ofthe mountain indicates that any expansion will not impact scenic vistas, as the site is too close to the base to block any viewsheds. 24 B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing building is near the foot of the mountain base and does not affect any view lines. However, the proposed wall is shown along the Bear Creek bike path, which is intended as a scenic recreational improvement. It will also be visible to residents across the street from the facility. Construction of the block wall shall incorporate landscaping and structural enhancements (pilasters, capping, recessed planter areas, etc into its design A minimum 10' landscape setback along Avenida Carranza shall be required, iacMorating tree stands and other vegetation to enhance the aesthetics of the parkway. Trees shall be located in planter wells, flanked by pilasters and recessed a minimum of four feet into the; wall design. There should be no significant adverse impact upon the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area with inclusion of these measures into the project approval. C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated expansion will likely include some additional exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the current operation. All lighting shall be required to comply with Chapter 9.210 and other related policies of the Cites A lighting plan shall be submitted for review, along with a photometric analysis to illustrate impacts of the lighting plan. Lighting shall be limited to that determined necessary to provide adequate security. No unnecessary lighting shall be permitted. 3.:14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The history of the La Quints area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. Early inhabitants of the Colorado Desert were people who had migrated across the Bering Strait more than 20,000 years ago. As their migration progressed, they passed through the Colorado Desert on their gradual way to Central America. The Coachella Valley became home to a band of people that migrated from the Great Basin. Ethnographically these people are known as the Cahuilla. The Cahuilla followed a hunting and gathering life style as they lived along the ancient Lakeshore and cove areas in the valley. The archaeological record, as it is known today, extends back almost 6,000 years. The settling ofthe La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. d'i;;h 25 La Quinta experienced rapid growth in the late 1970's which lead to incorporation of the City in 1982. The City has grown from a population of approximately 5,400 in 1982 to 17,591 in 1995. The incorporated boundaries currently include over 31 square miles of area. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site is proximate to a designated historic resource, the La Quinta Hotel. There are over a dozen recorded prehistoric archaeological sites within a mile radius of the project site. The site itself has been disturbed by flood improvement work, residential devel.opment and prior establishment of the current maintenance operation. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? No Impact. No significant paleontological resources have been found on the site. The project site has been heavily disturbed, thus it is not anticipated that paleontological resources will be found in the project site. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? No Impact. There will be no excavation associated with the expansion. The site is so heavily disturbed that no artifacts would be uncovered unless extensive excavation was undertaken. There is no real likelihood that any artifacts would be uncovered as a result of site development for the expansion. C. Would the project affect historical resources? No Impact. No historic resources will be affected by expansion of the existing site. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? No Impact. The site expansion 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 fimctions or uses or sacred uses on the proposed project site or adjacent to it. 26 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The Bear Creek Channel bikeway runs along the frontage of the proposed site expansion. The proposed block wall will be set back from the path approximately 8 feet. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The proposed project will not create demand for parks or recreational facilities. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. Refer to mitigation under AESTHETICS, 3.13.B. SECTION 4• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study for the proposed maintenance facility expansion indicates that there is some potential for adverse impacts on some of the environmental issues addressed in the checklist. The potential significance can be lessened to levels below significance if the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MAD) has been prepared for this project based upon this environmental assessment. 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. * The proposed project will not have impact which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. 0 a � 27 The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. Specific Plan 121-E was approved in 1975 by Riverside County. The project was required to prepare an EIR (EIR 41). This project proposed an expansion to the hotel complex with the construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, and 27-hole golf course with clubhouse and service facilities on 619+ acres. In 1982, the Specific Plan was revised to allow and addition of 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms. An environmental assessment was prepared for the revision which resulted in the adoption of a Negative Declaration. Five other subsequent amendments for revisions to the specific plan have been approved through 1989, each with a Negative Declaration being certified by the City. This project is not physically a part of the project limits and thus not assessed in associated environmental assessments. Plot Plan 84-088 was approved in 1985 to allow the maintenance facili9y use as it currently operates. Condition 9 of the revision to SP 121-E, approved by the City in 1982, requires any discretionary approval to go through the CEQA process. Other documents utilized include the La Quinta General Plan and the La Quinta MIA. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Not applicable. Impacts from expansion of the maintenance facility have been addressed by this Initial Study. Previous documents were used to identify existing conditions. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed and underlined in this addendum where possible. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been attached for the project that will become a part of the conditions of approval attached to the project approvals and permits. H A z A d w OU 2 0 c U o a Cd aA $Cd, d U Cd O z o � o A a P� p w UAA v 4 p cu o Sri D .� CA 1.4 b c b .M 6 � I„ S, W Q U U W U H C7 z �o zz 0 w� 0 w a � O � w o F 0-4 a O0-4 ok .y W z O o M f } f-t I E" W E-+ Q z14 Q d U Q+ W O U d H U z � � wa z' a� oaf O a � A � U c� • of x 5 .0 �� A o ebb a is cncr cd c M C/� Q� W Y� w H Q z� dQ U U U C 0 � � a Ew-• o � b c �z 00 � o � •� w b a Ub el cc C7 W �; ■" � v .d cw c� � F, U �'' aj a a• w W o o s°'• '' c b a� �' W :� b a o ��b aaa� u M b Q W F W Q Q z � Q aU W O U W Ei U C p cu p_ V ap 41 aF- a ow � CI UAA� UAC�6� rA c U y ul y O z a o c �b p 0-4 a.,o eoa U gz 0-4 rA cn � o W /Q F--1 � nW' � W OV _ o Z c� so�o tea, U u •o o a+ •° p W Z b au W p U �+ ZOz � o � Ei A' t pw UAAW �GaUAA� �o PC 1. W PO b W u C �' c ri •� O P4 ed d o a o0 " 1 Y F A U � a� UU W U z F z �o zz 00 a� W� a0 w � V O d w 0 z Et` F A U u w U z w w� �o �H zz a�W� a0 w d u W C7 p F cu M z • "1 ns�� S N a U F A z� �w au OU z � � .b a C7 W z �O E� i w w a � a� z v �b �b v' ot U A CA co cu W F-� d A V �q z �a w a UU ° rA v 0-4 �. ad a•o �aa c '- W5 a� a� 0-0 cn 0 cl o �' UAA UAAW SAW y b dQ O ° y Ix Oi� ion •n 1yn v y � z cet a� f. ns r; Oa d� vna. d ,moo !Ci It N 0 rn a U F A U pq a� Vu W U 5� E W �O zz a�W� a0 w E-+ M z n H A U p�q W U E� G5 Wz i zz 00 a� �W a0 w z o � W A U p�q W �U W Ov o N �+ O � U da' coy o Ea a o a� ►� a 'ti cc cn b � .5 ad �,, UAAc�aA N � � � � v ® W 3 rA F v N 0 o� a U H A U � Ca U� W F a U L7 F Wz �o � F oz 55 �o w � w U a� z o a F � z o F A U � u U E-� U z H w� �o z� o� �o w F ° M z Y May 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENT 6 KSL NOISE STUDY ON FILE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF (COPY GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION) FMMTBLD3 May 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENT 7 NEIGHBORHOOD LETTERS FOR CUP 96-024 KSL MAINTENANCE BUILDING FMMMM March 3, 1996 Planning Commission City of La Quinta La Quinta Civic Center 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 i• Subject: Application by KSL Recreation Corporation to expand the existing La Quinta Resort & Club Golf Course Maintenance Facility onto the adjoining Lot to the East and Install a six- foot Wall Along Avenida Caranza on Property in the Special Residential Zone District. Dear Sirs: My wife and I own the property which is the second lot away from the proposed project. We live next door, south of the doctor who is directly next to the proposed project. We feel that our property will be adversely affected by this proposed project since Tampico will suffer in its aesthetic qualities. Further studies should be done as we believe the value of our property will suffer for the following reasons: 'I) It will create a jagged wall defining the cove. 2) It will call attention to the fact that there is a maintenance facility there. 3) The gardeners who now park on the lot will now start parking on the street. 4) A bigger facility means more traffic, more lighting, and more congestion. We believe that any plans to expand the facility out to the street should be part of a larger architectural plan on how the boundary defining the cove is to be developed. This should include plans on how the strip park is to be developed, how it is to be graded and landscaped, what setbacks are to be incorporated, where the walls are to be built, and what the landscaping will be. If the maintenance facility is to be expanded toward the street, I believe some consideration should be given to the three property owner to the south of it They should be allowed to extend their properties toward Avenida Carranza in a similar manner as the maintenance facility, so that the wall is continuous without a break. Naturally there would have to be restrictions against building on this property since it used to be flood control channel and was filled in as part of building the new channel. I believe there is enough property between the present property lines and Avenida Carranza so that some of it could be utilized for expanding the current property interests, and still allow enough space for an adequate strip park. Most of the strip park in that area will be for the bike path, which can be moved closer to the street. In order to maintain the aesthetics of the cove, I believe the project should include the landscaping of the entire cove,. It should not be designed in a piecemeal manner. If nothing else, this proposal to expand the maintenance facility deserves more study. I would like to know what the results of that study are and how the project fits into the overall plan for the area. I believe ad the other property owners in the cove share this interest. I am sure that a fair and equitable solution can be agreed upon by all concerned parties. I doubt that I will be able to attend your hearing on March 12, 1996, but I would appreciate having my letter read into your record. I would also appreciate an acknowledgment that you have received this fetter. We all share in the common goal of seeing our community develop into a desirable place to live. I was very satisfied with how the street paving project turned out. It was a very good example that we can work together as a community and come up with solutions which we all can live with. Please feel free to phone me at work at (714) 558-4177 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � V 5 //f'� George S and Marlene B Hatch 51230 Avenida Obregon La Quinta, CA February 26, 1996 City of La Quinta ;-tr1 7 7 1G_U5 Planning Commission Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 - Re: Conditional Use Permit 96-024, Variance 96-026 and Environmental Assessment 96-313 As residents directly across the street from the existing La Quinta Resort & Club Golf Course Maintenance Facility, expansion and improvements are eagerly anticipated. Our concern is that the six-foot high wall will be installed too close to the existing bike path. Hopefully, the setback will be at least ten feet, thus allowing leeway for both directions of bike and foot traffic. The bike path is only eight feet wide, and a wall installed at the edge of the path could cause safety problems, i.e., small children needing extra room for maneuverability, room for opposing foot traffic, baby carriages, etc. Our other concern is the large piles of sand and gravel at the north side of the maintenance yard. These sand piles are allowed to blow loose and cover the bike path driveway at the north end of the Ave. Carranza cul-de-sac, causing an unsafe condition. This safety hazard is further exacerbated by water runoff from the golf course, causing the drifted sand to become wet and slippery. I have enclosed a snapshot of this condition for your edification. Hopefully, the planned wall will extend to the north end of the maintenance yard, in order to contain the drifting sands. We are thankful for the efforts of the KSL Recreation Corporation to improve their maintenance facility. ncerely, Leo K. Miller Louise Miller 51-040 Avenida Carranza La Quinta, CA 92253 564-2288 Enclosure March 3, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning Commission Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Conditional Use Permit 96-024 Variance 96-026 Environmental Assessment 96-313 To Whom it may concern, At one time, the City proposed a green belt on the former flood control next to the bike and jogging trail. In July 1995, the engineering department informed us that they had the nomey to start the green belt. This did not take place. If the new proposed project that KSL is planning gets passed, there should be some changes made in the plans. The existing building sets two feet (2'0") lower than the curb on Carranza. Therefore, the new parking lot should be excavated down two feet (2'0") with a eight foot (8'0") block wail on the parking lot side and a six foot (6'0") wall on the bike trail and Carranza side. The wall should be held back no less than twenty feet (20" 0") from the bike trail with sound barrier landscaping. With the eight foot (8' 0") wall on their side, it would hide all of the equipment from view on Carranza. On the south end of the parking lot, the block wall should have a large radius on the end to make it more attractive for the the residents coming in on Carranza. Sincerely, Jack Hochanadel, 51-120 Avenida Carranza La Quinta, Calif. 92253 619-564-6638 17' ro tert i .` •y -or At oni March 4, 1996 Sirs: I would like to register my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the golf maintenance area of the Ln Quinta Hotel. My property is adjacent to the present area„on thi_ south, so I have lived with uhis eye sore and noise for 8'years. The owners have not lived up to their agreem.;-nt to landscape, build a wall, and generally keep the place up. In addition there is a serious noise problem especially related to their alarm system, which has countless times awakened me and my fancily. As these pictures show, the place resembles the city dump more than anything. This is in an otherwise attractive residential area with fastidi.t,usly maintainr.:i lawi,s and houses. K.S1, does not want their pa•yizi,: oust -corer to br exposed to thi-iness, even though there iz; ampie rucin wi:h_11 tneir campus. Tht�y clearly don't care about; their neighbors, as long as the, profits keep rolling into Colorado. In truth, this abomination should not have been alicwed in the first place. It was passed in part by Landmark paying off the neighbors. (Ask Bruce Robinson who got a Life time golf membership and now lives in Hawai ). it was passed in part by agreeing to landscape, etc., which they have not done. If the planning Commission wants to act in its community's real interests, it will rule to the present maintenance building and reic,cate to an area rem`.ved from -:.he tt_:wr.sy eople of La Quinta. Sincerely, Robert L. /Stepririi-on, `'1D 78-150 CALLE TAMPICO, SUITE 100. LA OUINTA. CA 92253. (619) 564-0302 RECREATION CORPORATION MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 8 February 26,1996 TO: Forrest Haag CC Cynthia 7amorez (for file) 10 FROM: Virgil Robinson-- RE: Conditional Use Permit 96-024 (Mountain Maintenance Wall) The following will answer the letter of February 15,1996, from the City of La Quinta: 1. Equipment to be stored in proposed vehicle storage area: Tractors (5), Toro Rak O-Vac Sweepers (2), Turfco Mete-R-Matic Topdressers (2), Verti-Drains (2), Toro Multi -Pro Sprayers (2), Toro Walk -Behind Mete-R-Matic (2), DitchWitch 1420 W/Trailer, Drive on Tilt Trailer, Aerway, Lely Spreaders (3), Champion Trailer, Chem - Pro 370 Gal Sprayer, Toyota Longbed Pickup, JD Backhoe, Steel Storage Container 10' X 271. The unpaved yard area will be treated with Calcium Chloride and periodically watered for dust control. 4. There will be 4 areas for materials which will be stored on contiguous concrete pads with block wall dividers for access and separation. Those materials are gravel, blow sand, USGA graded sand and Mulch. 5. I believe this is redundant to point 1. 6. The landscaping right-of-way along Avenida Carranza will be maintained by KSLmo, Corporation. LA. I believe this addresses the questions that maintenance can respond to in the above referenced letter. La Quetta, California 92253 • (619) 564-4463 0 Fax 1619) 7 i 1.0546 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:: MAY 28, 1996 CASE: NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-024, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 REQUESTS: 1. CERTIFICATION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND, 2. APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE EXISTING LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY; AND, 3. APPROVAL OF AN ADJUSTMENT TO DEVIATE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO ALLOW A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG AVENIDA CARRANZA INSTEAD OF A FOUR -FOOT HIGH WALL. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA CARRANZA, SOUTH OF VACATED CALLE TAMPICO (77-550 CALLE TAMPICO) APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION (MR. S CHEVIS HOSEA, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE) PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LA QUINTA CORPORATION REPRESENTATIVE: MR. FORREST K. HAAG, ASLA BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Previous Case Information In 19184/85, the Landmark Land Company (LML) processed a request to establish a one-story, 8,000 square foot golf course maintenance building in a R-1 * + + Zoning District on 0.6 acres of property at the southeast corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon (i.e., Plot Plan 84-088). The facility was built to maintain the existing golf courses to the north which is part of Specific Plan No. 121-E (Amendment 3), a Strp.066-a master planned development that includes the hotel and surrounding private communities (i.e., 775 units /719 rooms). The maintenance facility was planned to include a small shop, parts storage, office, employee lockers and restrooms, underground gas storage tanks, and 16 parking spaces. LML also requested the City allow them to vacate or abandon portions of Avenida Obregon and Calle Tampico to assist, their development application. Ultimately, the abandonment of the right-of-way in this area was necessary to facilitate changes to the flood control system for the Cove Assessment Districts. On January 8, 1985, the Planning Commission had a number of concerns with the project, and after discussion, denied the application. On January 23, 1985, LML appealed the Commission's denial of their project. However, prior to review of the case by Council, various changes to the original application were made based on concerns expressed at the Commission meeting. The City Council reviewed the appeal on February 19, 1985, and examined the following modifications as presented by the applicant: 1. The site plan was revised (i.e., calling for two phases of improvements). Phase #1 included the existing improvements, and Phase #2 included berming and landscaping along the east property line. Also considered in Phase #2, was the relocation of the chain link fencing along the dike and changing the golf course access point from the terminus of Avenida Obregon to Avenida Carranza. 2. The exterior material of the building was changed from metal to stucco, and other architectural modifications were made. 3. Landscaping along Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico would be installed, but the applicant requested the City assume the long term maintenance. 4. A contribution of 50 percent would be made to the traffic signal at 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. The applicant would pursue vacation of the Coachella Valley Water District right-of-way next to their site. A revised site plan was submitted. After discussion, the City Council referred the case back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. On March 12, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised changes and the agreement made with LML between the adjoining neighbors (Attachments 1 and 2). The Commission, on a 4-1 vote, approved Plot Plan 84-088 and adopted Resolution 85-3 determining that Street Vacation 84-005 was consistent with the La Quinta General Plan based on findings and conditions. Strp.066-a On March 19, 1985, the City Council reviewed the revised project and actions of the Commission. The Council approved the request based on the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3). The existing golf maintenance facility was completed in 1986. Surrounding Land Uses The subject parcel is bounded on the south by vacant parcels owned by CVWD, to the north by the flood control channel and existing golf course, to the east by existing and under construction single family houses. The existing maintenance facility is located to the west of the proposed expansion. Development Request At the beginning of this year, staff received the applicant's request to expand the existing golf maintenance facility onto the adjoining parcel fronting on Avenida Carranza (Attachment 4). The request involves installing an employee parking lot (33 spaces), a six-foot high perimeter wall, landscaping, and other improvements noted on the large exhibit in your packet dated January 6, 1996. Access to the site would be from an existing driveway established on the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Avenida Carranza. The SR Code provisions allow a four -foot high wall along the front property line. In this application, a six-foot high wall is proposed (Avenida Carranza) to mitigate equipment noise and reduce the visibility of any equipment stored in the proposed storage yard. Public Notice The cases were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 20, 1996, setting March 12th as the day to hold the public hearing. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the meeting to March 26, 1996, at the request of the applicant; the last review occurred on April 9th. The Commission granted the continuations because the applicant was preparing a noise study for the project. On May 4, 1996, staff renoticed the project for May 28th based on the applicant providing the noise study by May 14, 1996. Public Agency Comments All affected public agencies and City departments were also requested to comment on the notice. This correspondence is on file at the Community Development Department and their comments have been incorporated into the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Strp.066-a The adjustment will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. Regarding the findings of "special circumstances" justifying the adjustment request, the SIR Zoning provisions provide inadequate wall heights to screen their equipment, provide security and mitigate equipment noise. Granting the adjustment will "provide aesthetic and security value that benefits the land owner and residence(s) mutually." General Plan/Zoning Designations The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan designates this site as Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwellings per acre) which is characterized by " ... one to two story, single-family detached homes on medium and small lots and/or one to two- story, single-family attached units in projects with open space." This property is zoned SR (Special Residential) which permits various residential uses unless a conditional use permit is obtained for such uses as vocational schools, granny units, residential care facilities, bed and breakfast, nursery schools, time shares, and golf maintenance facilities. Environmental Assessment Based on the new project, staff has prepared Environmental Assessment 96-313 for the project. Staff recommends a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact based on the attached material (Attachment 5 - On file with Staff). Noise Study Noise impacts were an issue in the original review of Plot Plan 84-088. However, a noise study was not required for the initial project. Staff required the applicant to prepare an acoustic study for the expansion request, according to Policy 8-5.2.5 of the General Plan, to ensure consistency with City requirements. On May 14, 1996, staff received the applicant's noise study (Attachment 6, On file with Staff) which was prepared by J.J. Van Houten and Associates, a licensed acoustic firm. The applicant requested a study which analyzed the noise impacts of the project as well as to ascertain if the project can comply with the provisions of the General Plan requiring specific noise levels be maintained in residential neighborhoods. Table EH-1 of Chapter 8.0 requires outdoor residential areas to maintain 60dB CNEL (or less) rating but short duration events can exceed this level if within an infill residential area such as in this case. (Also applicable is the golf land use noise standard for on -site use which permits up to 70db.) Strp.066-a Letters from Property Owners All correspondence received from abutting property owners is attached (Attachment 7). STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - Parking Lot for Employees/Project Access In the original approval in 1985, access to the existing facility was to occur at Calle Tampico and Avenida Carranza which is the current situation except that the driveway leading from Avenida Carranza to the maintenance building is unpaved. The new proposal would correct this existing problem and reduce dust. The existing maintenance building has a small parking lot (i.e., 16 spaces) on the south side of the maintenance building. This new application will add 33 additional spaces to the project for a total of 49. Pursuant to Condition 11, under Plot Plan 84-088, the applicant can expand the site with additional parking based on the following provision: "[If the demand for parking by employees and visitors exceeds the number of spaces provided on site, the Applicant shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval for the expansion of the parking facilities." Staff supports installing the 33-space parking lot to not only relieve congestion at the site but also so that employees can park on a paved surface. Issue 2 - Traffic/Noise Impacts In 1992, this area of the City was projected to be in a predicted noise level area of 50- 60 dBA. Noise impacts from arterial streets such as Eisenhower Drive would not affect this area. The City in 1993 vacated the south leg of Calle Tampico westerly of Eisenhower Drive which created five cul-de-sac streets north of Avenida Montezuma (Street Vacation 93-024) including Avenida Carranza. Staff requested the applicant prepare a noise study for this project because residential houses are within 1,000-feet of this non-residential project. The noise study concludes that noise will be mitigated by placing the equipment adjacent to the east side of the existing maintenance building and installation of the six-foot high wall around the expanded project perimeter. The project is designed so that the parking lot is on the north side adjacent to the existing earthen levee thus reducing the number of houses near the expansion request. However, monitoring and enforcing where the equipment is placed is a tangible mitigation measure while door slamming will be harder to mitigate. Strp.066-a Issue 3 -.Hours of Operation In discussions with KSL, they state that they are opening and closing the facility in the same fashion as LML. Their employees (approximately 46) arrive at the site at 5:00 A.M. and work until approximately 2:30 P.M. Their response is attached (Attachment 8). After the letter was submitted, KSL personnel stated they also share equipment with their other existing golf maintenance facilities because their organization presently maintains eight golf courses in La Quinta. Therefore, they cannot guarantee that they will not have other equipment on -site on a temporary basis because it will be based on project need and the type of job being performed. The Commission can limit the hours of operation for this facility because it is a Conditional Use Permit application. However, the acoustical study shows that the CNEL levels set forth in the General Plan can be met with the mitigation as proposed. In addition, the City Council reviewed a proposed landscape maintenance ordinance on April 16. Based on testimony from golf course operators and Home Owners Association representatives, The Council denied the ordinance, which included time - based restrictions on starting maintenance operations. Based on the acoustical study and City Council action, staff does not recommend placing time restrictions on this proposal. Issue 4 -.Unfinished Site Improvements Landmark Land Company did not complete all the necessary site improvements as required by the original Conditions of Approval (i.e., Phase 2). Improvements that are lacking are: (1) installation of the new six foot high wall to the east of the existing building, (2) removal of the existing Tamarisk trees along the east property line and installation of new landscaping improvements, and (3) additional landscaping improvement along Calle Tampico to the east of the site. With the new application by KSL, the improvements would be installed but in different locations since additional property has been acquired. For example, the six-foot high wall that was planned to be built behind the existing maintenance building would be built along Avenida Carranza. Compliance would be met with this new project submittal with the exception of landscaping improvements along Calle Tampico. Staff recommends this condition be included. Issue 5 - Aesthetics A 195-foot long, six-foot high slumpblock wall is proposed along the Avenida Carranza Street: frontage including a ten -foot wide entry gate. Abutting the wall is an eight -foot wide planter. The Bear Creek Bike Path runs along this frontage. Staff is concerned with compatibility of this wall with not only the surrounding residential area but also Strp.066-a the Scenic Recreational improvement. Most residences in the immediate area are not enclosed with walls. The proposed wall due to its length and height will be an imposing structure only softened with the proposed landscaping. Staff recommends the wall plan incorporate pilasters and four -foot deep by five-foot wide insets to increase the planter area and provide design interest. CONCLUSION: This development request will help to solve some of the existing problems by: (1) providing paved surfaces for on -site employee parking, and (2) installing landscaping and "falls to screen the facility and make it more presentable to the homes on Avenida Carranza. Noise impacts can be mitigated based on the information contained in the applicant's noise study. Therefore, the Community Development Department recommends approval based on the attached information and recommended Conditions of Approval as contained herein thus ensuring that the project will be compatible with the existing residential area. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , approving of a Mitigated Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 96-313) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , approving Conditional Use Permit 96-024 to allow expansion of an existing golf maintenance facility and to allow a six-foot high wall which is higher than permitted by Chapter 9.42 of the Municipal Code, subject to Conditions. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Original Site Plan (Reduced) 3. Original Conditions of Approval 4. New Site Plan - Reduced 5. Environmental Assessment 96-313 (Commission Only) 6. Noise Study (Commission Only) 7. Property Owner Letters 8. A letter from KSL 9. Large Plans (Commission Only) Strp.066-a Prepared by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Strp.066-a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96- 024 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 KSL RECREATION AND LAND CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 96-313, Conditional Use Permit 96-024, and Adjustment to wall height from four -feet to six -feet; and, WHEREAS, said Public Hearing had been previously continued from March 12th, March 26th and April 9th, to allow time for the applicant to complete an acoustical analysis; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 96-313); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Use Permit and Adjustment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified, and less than significant or potentially significant impacts can be addressed by the incorporated mitigation measures. 2. The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the lack of any such factors existing on or near the existing facility. resopc.176 Planning Commission Resolution 96- 3. The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with implementation of the monitoring program. 4. The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. The area is established infill subdivision, with infrastructure to support such development already in place. The proposed Use Permit and Adjustment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 96-313 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABLES, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY BERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California resopc.176 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-024 TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF THE KSL GOLF MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND AN ADJUSTMENT APPROVING A DEVIATION IN THE SR ZONING CODE STANDARDS TO PERMIT A SIX-FOOT HIGH WALL ALONG AVENIDA CARRANZA. CASE NOS. CUP 96-024 - KSL RECREATION CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of March, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request by KSL to expand the existing golf maintenance facility at 77-550 Calle Tampico and deviation from the SR Zone District standards to permit a six-foot high masonry wall on Avenida Carranza to mitigate noise from the storage of outdoor equipment on 0.8 acres on property located on the west side of Avenida Carranza, 250-feet north of Avenida Montezuma, more particularly described as: Portions of the south -half of Section 1, Township 6S, and Range 6E WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of March, 1996, continue the public hearing at the request of the applicant because the project: noise study had not been completed. Further continuances occurred on March 26th and April 9th without extensive deliberations; and, WHEREAS, on May 4, 1996, staff placed public notices in the Desert Sun newspaper informing the public that May 28, 1996, had been chosen as the date to review the project since the applicant had submitted the required noise study for the development request; and, WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), and the Planning Commission will consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project at the May 28, 1996 meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit application. General Plan Compatibility - The proposed golf maintenance building expansion request is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan because noise mitigation measures will be imposed per Chapter 8 (Environmental Hazards Element) which resopc.158a Planning, Commission Resolution 96- ensure that exterior noise that may affect adjacent residential properties are less than 60 dB CNEL. A study was prepared indicating that projected noise from the expansion of the facility will be consistent with this requirement if mitigation measures are imposed. These measures are incorporated into the Environmental Assessment and the proposed Conditions of Approval. 2. Zoning Code Consistency - The site is zoned S-R (Special Residential) which permits single family developments or other uses if a Conditional Use Permit is issued. This use requires special review by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Code provides that other development standards shall be met besides building height restrictions, walls, landscaping, etc. This project is planned to expand the existing maintenance building constructed in 1986 which includes an 8,000 square foot. building, small parking lot with on -site landscaping by adding additional parking for KSL employees and outdoor areas to store their golf maintenance equipment. Adjustment findings can be made to construct the wall eight -feet from the front property line to six -feet in height from the allowable five-foot height limit to mitigate noise, screen equipment, and provide a landscape buffer. 3. Health, Safety and Welfare - Off -site urban improvements are available at this site. They include streets, electric, sewer and other necessary facilities to support this project. On -site improvements are proposed for this project such as parking, landscaping, and screen wall for the storage of equipment. All new improvements shall be meet Federal, State and local code provisions during construction. All facilities will conform to these standards, therefore, health and safety policies are insured. 4. Environmental Assessment - An environmental assessment (EA 96-313) has been prepared based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act statutes. This assessment has determined that the applicant's noise study meets the required standards of Chapter 8 of the General Plan provided mitigation measures are imposed reducing any significant adverse impact through the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment. resopc.158a Planning, Commission Resolution 96-. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 96-024 with conditions as set forth in this Resolution, labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AXES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRX HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Resopc.158 EXHIBIT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-024 - KSL REC. CORP. MAY 28, 1996 •1M _0)c ._; 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Conditional Use Permit 96-024 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. All on- and off -site improvements shall be installed by May 28, 1997 otherwise this application will become invalid. Use of the expansion area for the storage of supplies, equipment or parking will not be permitted until all required improvement have been installed to the satisfaction of the City. 4. The development shall comply with the exhibits on file and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of Plot Plan 84-088. 5. A landscaping and irrigation plan for the project shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscaping materials to be native and drought tolerant. Thirty-six inch box evergreen trees shall be specified in each of the wall insets along Avenida Carranza. Irrigation system to utilize emitter irrigation system where possible. Within five -feet of the curb, no spray irrigation heads nor lawn shall be used. Within this area only emitters and spreading shrubs and ground cover may be used. The owner of the site shall maintain all on- and off -site landscaping improvements as required by the final plan. Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the Community Development Director, the Director of Public Works, the Coachella valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and Coachella Valley Water District. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the perimeter wall, the wall plan shall include four, 4-foot deep and five-foot wide insets along the outdoor equipment storage portion of the site plan along Avenida Carranza. Pilasters shall be included along the entire street frontage at a regular interval. The gates shall be solid. 7. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 96-313 shall be met. 8. Heavy equipment with diesel or gas power motors shall be stored on the east side of the existing one story building. No heavy equipment shall be placed and/or stored farther than 60-feet from the east side of the maintenance building. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading 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: - City Fire Marshal - Public Works Department - 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 approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 11. The outdoor equipment storage area shall be surfaced with three -inches of 3/4" gravel to reduce dust impacts to adjoining residential properties. 12. No employee parking shall occur on Avenida Carranza. 13. The maintenance of equipment shall occur in the existing maintenance building except for the installation of gas and fluids for the lawn mowing equipment. 14. The parking lot on the south side of the maintenance building shall be used for employee parking only with no other uses allowed such as the storage of equipment or lawn products. 15. To reduce door slamming noise and its impact on the existing single family house to the south, an acoustical device (i.e., a parabolic device, etc.) shall be installed on the existing six- foot high wall prior to final inspection. The acoustic device shall reduce the noise level by 5 dB. The design shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 16. If landscaping products are stored in the new expansion area, all products shall be kept in three- or four-sided containers and not be stacked any higher than five -feet. All storage containers shall be a minimum distance of ten -feet from the perimeter wall. 17. The access gates proposed on Avenida Carranza will require review and approval by the City Fire Marshal prior to installation. 18. Prior to issuance of an electrical permit the lighting plan, including a photometric analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Vicinity Map �'orth Not to Scale E _— ject Site � xi.�tn8 F�� Si I I b►. FF FT Case: CUP 96-024, VAR. 96-026, EA 96-313 Attachment 1 Avenida Montezuma Community Park Por. S1/2 Sec. 1, T6S R6E APN: 773-052-024 TACHMEN OC MMCNS OF AppFarAI. (Per City Council Action on March 19, 1985) General ATTACHMENT 3 1. Plot Plan No. 84-088 shall cenply with all standards and requirements set for in the City of I a Quinta Iand Use Ordinance. 2. 'This Plot Plan approval shall expire one year after the date of final approva within which time the construction authorized must be substantially begun or occupancy authorized be in use unless a time extension applied for prior to t expiration date is approved. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for censtn=tim of any use contemplat by this approval, the Applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Riverside County Dzvirom mtal Health Department • ° City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Cotmt.nity Development Department, Planning Section Evidence of said permit or clearance shall be presented to the Building Sect at the time of application for a building permit for the use contemplated he with. 41. Street Vacation No. 84-005 shall be approved and all conditions therewith oe with or this approval shall became null and void. Site and Building Design 5. Development of site and buildings shall be in accordance with Revised ndiibi Al, A29 B and C and the following conditions of approval, which coalitions take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provision of the Plot 6. Phase 2 1---- ve is shall' be initiated within 90 days of completion of floc wntrol improvements adjacent to the site. 7. Colors and building materials shall be substantially as submitted and shall subject to final approval by the a m=ty Develc>ptr�t Department. 8. Any outside storage, including that which is seasonaml, shall be in designat areas and shall not exceed the height of surrounding encl osuXeS. 9. All mechanical equipmt shall be ground mounted or screened by the design the roof structure when viewed fran adjacent residential properties and Put streets. 10. Parking on the site shall be restricted to the designated spaces as dwwnc Mdubit OW and in accordance with City sWndards. All mpl°yees and visil to the facility shall panic within this approved area. 11. If the demand for parking by employees and visitors exceeds the rnnmber of provided on site, the Applicant shall submit plans to the Cmmnlity Develop Department for review and approval for the e>gwwicn of the parking facili - 1 - MMITIMS OF APPROVAL - March 19, 12. The locaticn and ..cnstru:tion of Phase 2 access t_ the golf course shall be reviewed and approved by the Clammmity Development Department at such time that the new Ise (�=ta Stommwater Channel dike is constructed. 13. The primary access from Calle Tampico and Avenida Carranza to the project site shall be cchnistr=ted with a minimum travelway width of 24 feet and shall be reasonably protected from flood damage. Streets, Traffic, Grading and Access 14. The following street improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the approved building: a. The westerly portion of the intersection of Calle Tampico and Avenida Carranza shall be unproved to City standards to a typical "knuckle" design for a 90° inter.�ection. b. Zhe above imQrreveients will necessitate curb r gutter or sidewalk. 15. Provision shall be made to block off that portion of Avenida a=egon north of the secondary entrance to prevent use of the abandioned street and a temporary turnaround shall be provided. If flood control iatpX-C"- 1 skits are not aompleted by June 1, 1987, this turnaround shall be paved. 16. The Applicant shall restrict parking as follows and in accordance with the Community Development Department's requirements: a. The primary access from Calle Tampico west of Avenida Carranza shall be permanently posted as "No Parking". b. During Phase 2, the secondary driveway access from Avenida Cbregan shall be designated as "No Parking". 17. A grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil B iSheer s2ha11 be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 18. Applicant shall employ appropriate methods to assure use of the Calle Tampico entrance as the primary access. Public Services and Utilities 19. The Applicant shall comply with the following regArments of the City Fire Marshal, to the extent required by the Fire Marshal: a. Provide for a minimum 1250 GPM fireflcw (unless the change an type results in a different fireflow requizammaht) from a water system capable of sustaining such flow for a two -(hour duration at 20 psi residua pressure. "Super" type fire hydrants to be located not more than 165' nc less than 25' from any portion of the building exterior. b. Provide paved access along west sine of building which shall be a mininL m of 24' wide. c. All gates shall be equipped for immediate emergency access with tzaa9nitt of an approved type. - 2 - CCNDITICNS OF APPFWAL - March 19, 1985 20. Prior to the issues : of any building or grading pe ts, the Applicant shall provide written clearance from Coachella Valley Water District that there are no conflicts between the project and existing and future District facilities. 21. All new utilities serving the facility shall be placed underground on the site. The Applicant shall amply with all requiremmtsof the Imperial Irrigation District. Walls, landso,ap' Lighting and Signs 22. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the approved use, the following walls and fences shall be installed: a. A mmci m sax -foot -high masonry wall with stucco finish along the south property line. b. A maxm= sax -foot -high fence or cyclone fence along the western project bwxIary. c. The gate for the secondary access from Avenida Cbregm shall be six-foot h and view obscuring. d. Plans for primary and secondary access gates shall be approved by the Ommhity Development Department prior to their installation. e. No barbed wire, razor wire or similar materials shall be installed on any required perimeter fence or wall without prior City approval. 23. Prior to the issuance of any building pennits, a detailed an -site landscaping plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Caim=ty Developne Depart ent. Said plan shall indicate the location, species, size and spacing of all planting materials. The landscaping plan shall indicate, but not be limited to, the following: a. A minimum of six, 8-foot-high trees along the south side of the parking area, as shown on Ed-dbit "A". 'Itm trees shall be of species which are non -deciduous and their canopies will provide screening of the building from Avenida Cbregon. b. The existing trees along the east property (on Int 1) shall be maintained until the flood improvements are abandoned. 24. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Applicant shall enter into a separ agreement to install landscaping along the /Tanpioo corridor gerpra as shaarh on inhibit *Do. Details of the plan, timing of installation, nainte and other activities associated with the Applicant's letter and other pertim issues shall be resolved as part of the agreement. 25., As part of Phase 2 anq�rvvemerrts, Applicant shall submit a detailed Lu dscapir plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department. Said plan shall indicate the location, species, size and spacing of plant material The landscaping plan shall indicate, but not be limited to, the following: a. Ianiscaping buffer along the east property line. b. Iandscapinq along the south side of Tmpiw driveway. C. Applicant shall also install a maxim n six -foot -high masonry wall, with plaster finish, along the east property line. - .3 - CCtIDITICNS OF APPROVAL - Marrh 19, 1985 26. Applicant shall m jrit a detailed lighting plan s2. ing the locatim, design, type (including manufacturer) and intensity of all proposed exterior lighting. All lighting shall be screened so as not to shine directly on properties oit side the project's perimeter walls nor to create substantial light wash which may be a nuisance to suxrou ding residents. 27. Ilie location and design of all signage shall be subject to the review and a;?proval of the Ccmnmity Development Department. Miscellaneous 28. Applicant shall secure approval of a parcel merger from the Q2Tm ity Developner Department for rDts 1-6 prior to ooarpancy of the subject building. 29. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of infrastructure fees either interir or permanent based upon adopted City Policy- - 4 - ATTACHMENT 4 ico (Vacated) I� I� May 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENT 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON FILE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF (COPY GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION) Rv MIBLD4 ATTACHMENT 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 96-313 Case No.: CUP 96-024 Date: January 22, 1996 I. Name of Proponent: KSL Recreation and Land Corporation Address: 56-140 PGA Boulevard, La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 619-564-1088 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): Golf Course Maintenance Facility Expansion at 77-500 Calle Tampico CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 II. ENVIRO1oTMENTAL 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 Mitiga.ted," 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 X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Utilities Aesthetics 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 a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and art 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 Date _January 22, 1996 Printed Name and Title Wallace H. Nesbit, Associate Planner For: City of La Quinta 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 (source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X 0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? X g) Altered direction or rate of glow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectional odors? X iii Potentially Potentially Significant lass Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X 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 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X iv d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Potentially Potentially Significant less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X 0 Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in an), of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X V Potentially Potentially Significant less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 3.12. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X 3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Potentially Potentially Significant Ixss Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of 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 future projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X EARLIER ANALYSES. X X X F3 R. 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 addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. vii INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-313 Prepared for: ]KSL Recreation Corporation Conditional Use Permit 96-024Nariance 96-026 Santa Rosa Cove Golf Course Maintenance Facility Expansion 77-550 Calle Tampico Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 January 22,1996 Revised May 20,1996 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I FA 3 4 5 INTRODUCTION Page 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics 4 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 6 3.2 Population and Housing 7 3.3 Earth Resources 8 3.4 Water 10 3.5 Air Quality 12 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 14 3.7 Biological Resources 16 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 17 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 17 3.10 Noise 19 3.11 Public Services 20 3.12 Utilities 22 3.13 Aesthetics 23 3.14 Cultural Resources 24 3.15 Recreation 26 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 26 EARLIER ANALYSIS 27 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 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). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the proposed development. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed project. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for the maintenance facility's expansion; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist 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. 4 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended expansion of the facility. In addition, the revised approval for the overall La Quinta Cove Golf Club project (Condition 9 of SP 121-E Revised; approved 10/5/82) requires an Environmental Assessment to be done for any discretionary permit within the Specific Plan area. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is minimal potential for adverse environmental impacts on some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. Mitigation measures have been recommended 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 a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southeasterly portion of the Coachella Malley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and County lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in May of 1982. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed expansion adds 36,155 square feet of area (.83 acres) to the existing 26,572 square foot site (.61 acres). The project site is located along the west side of Avenida Carranza along the northwest periphery of the Cove. No additional building area is proposed. A 6' block wall is proposed to enclose the entire site area, which will provide an additional 33 parking spaces on -site (49 total) to supplement the 16 previously approved in 1985 for Plot Plan 84-088. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The site currently provides maintenance and storage related to operation and care for the golf course areas associated with the La Quinta Hotel Resort and Club. The existing maintenance building is approximately 8,000 square feet and was originally approved in 1985. The facility provides storage for various types of equipment and materials related to golf course maintenance activities. According to the original staff report, the hours of operation were indicated to be 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed expansion is to accommodate additional equipment and maintenance personnel. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The proposed project will require discretionary approval from the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and City Council for the following: * Certification of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project; * Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the project; * Approval of an adjustment for the project. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no current projects related to the proposed expansion. The project site is, however, part of Specific Plan 121-E that was approved prior to the City's incorporation, by the County of Riverside. There have been several tract map and plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last ten years. The proposed project requires that a variance be approved to permit the proposed construction of a 6' high block wall, for security and screening purposes, around the north, east and westerly project limits. This variance is being processed concurrently with the proposed CUP. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the maintenance area. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a brief description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site is located along the west side of Avenida Carranza, northeasterly of the north termination of Avenida Obregon and just west of the previous alignment for Calle Tampico, in the west -central area of the City of La Quinta. The project site serves the La Quinta Resort and Club golf course areas.The exact project site is not within the existing limits of the Specific Plan, but is located immediately south of and adjacent to it. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potntially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project is within the SR zone classification, which permits golf course maintenance facilities by CUP. The General Plan land use designation is Medium Density Residential. The land use designation and zoning designation are compatible with each other; conditions attached to the CUP are intended to ensure that the proposed use will be acceptable in light of the surrounding predominant land use. The project use will be conditioned to mitigate any potential impacts on the surrounding residential uses as identified in this EA. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over this project approval. The primary environmental plans and policies related to expansion of the facility are identified in the La Quinta General Plan, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and Specific Plan 121-E. 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 or near the site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project. (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey) 7 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 project site expansion will affect the physical arrangement of existing types of development in the La Quinta Cove area, immediately surrounding the use, to some degree. The expansion involves only additional land area, some limited parking additions and a perimeter block wall. There is potential that building expansion will also occur in the near future, which could cause property value decreases such that area residents may relocate and vacant properties will not develop. However, the use has been established for over 10 years. Any fizrther impacts would be relatively insignificant in relation to the existing conditions. (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making it the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. The number Of City residents blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. La Quinta's share of the entire valley population increased from 3.7%, in 1980, to 5.1%, in 1990. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The City's population as of January, 1995, is estimated by the State Department of Finance, to be 17,591 persons. This is an increase of 208% in the last ten years. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.5 persons per unit. Local Environmental Setting The proposed site is an existing golf course maintenance yard. There are no residents on the site, which is on the periphery of an older single-family residential area. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The proposed expansion will result in no new residential units. Limited new jobs related to the operation of the expanded facility may also be created. 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)? No Impact. It is not anticipated that additional development will result from expansion of the site. The project will not create any type of growth -inducing impact or infrastructure. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. There may be some impact to surrounding residential units from the project due to noise, lighting and traffic. It is not anticipated that displacement of any housing will occur due to these incremental increases, as the use has existed for 10 years. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans and steep hillsides, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral reef Mountains. Local Environmental Setting The area where the project is proposed is a developed residential area. There has been no recorded seismic activity from the nearby inferred faults, thus, there is a low probability for such activity. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the area include the San Andreas fault located several miles to the north of the City. Faults within the City include two inferred faults transecting the southern section of La Quinta. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred faults in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project site, while the other lies approximately 1 mile south. 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; LQGP; LQGPA). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who will be subject to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone I11; however, no new structures are proposed. All proposed improvements to the site will be required to meet current seismic standards to reduce the risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? No 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. Lake Cahuillla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast area of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and goundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect the City in the event of a levee failure or seiche. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The immediate project site is at the periphery of an existing residential area that is near the base of an outcropping of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The site is protected from slide activity to some degree by the Bear Creek Channel. It is not anticipated that the area would be significantly impacted by potential mudslides or landslides. 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? No Impact. The proposed expansion will negligible grading construction. No new buildings or structures, beyond a 6' block wall, are proposed. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? 10 No Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards. (Source: LQMEA) H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? No Impact. The project site will not be developed with additional structures. No foreseeable exposure of people to impacts associated with expansive soils is anticipated. L Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No 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 on the project site or near enough to be affected by the proposed expansion request. 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 well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality ofwater 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. 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) can increase significantly from 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 nearest stands of surface water consist of several small lakes located on the resort golf courses. The Bear Creek Channel conveys storm flows around the project site, but remains predominantly dry otherwise. I A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Then Significant Impact. The proposed project may require additional drainage facilities. There is an existing drainage system for the golf courses that directs runoff to the existing golf course lakes. A grading and drainage plan will be required to address the handling of additional storm and nuisance waters associated with site development B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The site is within a designated 500 year flood plain zone (Zone X). The hazard factors for this zone have been determined to be less than one foot average depth. There are existing flood control facilities in the Cove area that protect the project site (Source: LQMEA). 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 project site will be directed to an approved drainage system in compliance with NPDES requirements and the City of La Quinta. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. Increase in runoff is expected due to relatively significant increases in impervious site area. However, water quantities from this increased runoff are not anticipated to pose any impact to surface waters (Source: Proposed Site Plan). 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 bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The Whitewater River and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel are stormwater channels that are usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawl, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? 12 No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. The site expansion will likely require minimal increased water needs which would have no impact on groundwater quantities. The site is currently serviced with an existing distribution system which does not require direct access to groundwater. 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. No wells are proposed for the project and the site is served with a closed distribution system that does not directly access groundwater resources. H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary source of runoff will be the construction of hardscape and paved parking lot. Stormwater runoff will be directed into an approved drainage system which will probably culminate in the golf course lakes. Percolation and natural filtering of this runoff in combination with lakewaters will then occur. These additions to the water table will not significantly impact groundwater quality. It is not anticipated that additional development will result from the expansion. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and lies within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the LQMEA. In the Coachella Valley, the 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 California Air Resources Board (CARB) has designated the Coachella Valley as a serious non -attainment area for PM10. It is currently the most significant locally attributable air quality concern in the Valley. 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. 13 The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan, which describes measures to bring the region 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. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There will be some pollutants as a result of vehicular traffic during the construction phases and from employees. The primary impacts will be from fugitive dust (PM10) during construction activity. The developer will be required to file a Fu, tiye Dust Control Plan (FRCP) prior to or with submittal of a grading_plan. or prior to any site disturbance taking place. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include land uses with concentrations of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The adjacent land uses consist of residential development to the immediate east and south, with golf course to the north. Primary impacts will be from fugitive dust (PM 10) during construction activity. Compliance with an approved FDCP will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. All on - site vehicle storage areas shall be suitably paved or similarly treated to eliminate dust sources. C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in any of these impacts. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. Some impact due to odors emanating from chemical or organic storage piles may occur, as well as from the day to day operations of the facility. These are not anticipated to be significant due to the lack of any odor based complaints during the current operation's 10 year history. It is recognized that expansion of the site could lead to additional operations not currently being conducted. Anypotential source of objectionable odor(s) shall be properly contained on -site or shall be removed from the site if the odor persists. 14 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 17,500 permanent residents. There is a substantial portion of the City that is undeveloped. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed 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, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic vohunes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -whiter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Existing transit service for the City is limited to three regional fixed bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway I I I serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are some existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems are to be completed as new developments come to the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located at the fringe of the La Quinta Cove area, along the west side of Avenida Carranza. This street is a 60' r.o.w. with 36' c.t.c. Access to the site will be via this street at the west edge of the existing cul-de-sac. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary concern with traffic is the type generated by this project. There will be a significant amount of commercial traffic associated with operation of the facility, in consideration of the fact that it is located in a residential area. However, it is not considered to be a significant increase in terms of vehicle trip generation and the current traffic being generated. The existing local street is more than adequate to handle traffic that is generated from this facility as well as the surrounding residential uses. There are only a few homes on the east side of Carranza, which is not a through street and does not carry pass - through traffic. Thus, there should not be any significant increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond that which currently exists. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. There are currently no hazards from design features of the existing roadway or the proposed project. The proposed project does not include any new roadways or the alteration of any existing roadways. It does propose additional parking, 15 which will alter circulation on the site. There are no obvious hazardous design feature associated with the project. Review of the entry gate off the Carranza cul-de-sac will be subject to review by the Fire Marshal and Public Works Department. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposal will not obstruct emergency access to the surrounding area. A secondary emergency access will be provided at the current entry, at the north termination of Obregon. D. Would the, project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. The expanded facility allows for a total of 49 parking spaces, 33 of them currently proposed as part of the expansion. Although no specific standards exist for determining the adequacy of parking for such uses, similar past projects have generally provided adequate parking area. Given that no additional building area is proposed at present, it appears that parking should be more than adequate. Conditions will require that all employee and delivery parking traffic occur strictly on -site Upon submittal for any future Mansions, the applicant must provide a parking use inventory and breakdown for the site. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact upon the existing Bear Creek bikeway, which fronts the property. A block wall is proposed, which will separate the site from pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area. Pedestrians and cyclists crossing in front of the proposed access gate will need to be aware of gate and vehicle movements. Otherwise, there should be minimal impact upon pedestrians or bicyclists. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project will not interfere with the existing alternative transportation modes and facilities. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) 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, or air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. 16 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. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. It is in an area which was subdivided in the 1930's and has residential development ocurring on an infill basis.Thus, any potential biological resources or habitat has been long gone from the site. The LQMEA indicates that the vicinity of the project site is within the traditional habitat of the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher bird. 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)? No Impact. The proposed project site has been developed for several years, thus all habitat has been rendered unusable for such purpose. (Source: Site Survey) B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 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 & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( Source: LQMEA; Site Survey). C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. Surrounding land uses include golf course and single family homes. 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: LQMEA). 17 E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors in the project area (Source: LQ 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 Areas (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 compames. Local Environmental Setting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing resources on the proposed project site. 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 expansion does not propose any construction other than a block wall, parking and other hard surface areas. No mitigation is required or feasible for this project. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? No Impact. The proposal will not impact non-renewable resources associated with its construction. Landscaping will 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 to 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. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. 18 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 has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the recorded past. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? Less than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance operations and from fire or explosion due to upset of on - site fuel storage and delivery of those fuels. Other risks include toxic releases from stored pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals which may interact with each other through upset due to spillage or exposure to fire, water or other elements. These impacts are not considered significant unless these incidents occur. The proposal shall meet all requirements of the Fire Marshal as applicable to both the expansion of the facility and its operational aspects B. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Construction activities will be limited to the proposed parking lot area, block wall improvement and hardscape as necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency responses to the surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the project beyond those discussed in items 3.5.A and 3.9.A. Any hazards would be less than significant as discussed due to mitigation as required. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are potential health hazards on the proposed project site as discussed in items 3.5.A and 3.9.A. The proposedexpansion is not expected to create any additional health hazards, as long as OSHA and County Health Department safety regulations are followed by employees. The site has been in operation for over 10 years and is required to conform to all applicable health and safety codes of the City. 19 E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a cleared area but does have some existing tamarisk trees on the south and east sides of the building which serve as a view screen. There will be no increase in fire hazard associated with flammable vegetation due to the expansion. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic and equipment noise due to current operations at the site. Minimal noise impacts the ambient level from easterly residential uses. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Any increase in noise resulting from the expansion of the site is anticipated to be insignificant. Impacts are localized on the surrounding residential properties and emanate primarily from operations and traffic associated with the site. The existing (1992) noise levels for the project site area exceed 60 dBA due to roadway noise from Eisenhower Drive. However, an acoustical study prepared by the project proponent indicates that existing exterior CNEL levels are below 60 dBA at residential units along Carranza and Obregon, and states that the proposal will actually reduce existing noise levels due to equipment storage relocation and installation of the proposed 6' high block wall. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Expansion of the current site can be assumed to create additional noise based on the increase in area and parking spaces. The uncertainty at present with regard to use of the site over time dictates that these impacts could potentially be significant. Conditional uses are permitted where restrictions can be placed on the use such that the impacts are similar to or acceptable 20 in light of the surrounding land use and conditions. The most effective means of mitigating potential noise impacts from this expansion is a requirement for sound attenuation. The project will incorporate all mitigation measures as recommended in the acoustical study prepared by J. J. Van Houten and Associates dated May 3, 1996.The proposed project will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery is capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The Municipal Code regulates construction hours to which the developer must comply (Source: La Quinta General Plan). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. 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 Avenida Bermudas, and Station 970, 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. Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats in the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There is one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school within the City. These schools are within the Desert Sands Unified School District. The City is also 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 area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and contains 2,065 square feet of space and approximately 18,000 volumes. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, which is a satellite clinic of the Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. 21 Local Environmental Setting The nearest fire station to the project is Station #32, located approximately'/z mile southeast. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center and by County, State, and federal agency offices in the desert and region. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The development of the project may affect the need for fire protection due to additional fire hazards associated with upset risk (See 3.9.A.) The development 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. Other code requirements (such as fire sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) will be required. 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. The Riverside County Sheriffs Department responded with comments on this project. They had no negative comment and stated that the project will not significantly impact the Sheriffs Department's ability to provide services. Ample exterior and address lighting is requested by the 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? No Impact. The proposed project will be subject to payment of school impact fees to mitigate potential impacts on local schools, although no impacts can be anticipated 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. No Impact. No impacts are anticipated to any public facilities. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? No Impact. Building, engineering, planning, and inspection services provided by the City will be partially offset by application fees charged to the developer. Business license and code enforcement services will be provided by the City of La Quinta. 22 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas limes and substations are found throughout the City. IID 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 Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water 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 13 wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. 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 storm drainage system in place at the golf resort complex. Runoff is directed to the golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities exist at the project site. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas services? No Impact. Power, sewer, and gas lines exist at the site. Expansion will not affect existing services. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? No Impact. The site is currently served with telephone communication. Expansion will not affect existing services. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? No Impact. The site is currently served with water service. It is not anticipated that expansion will result in any measurable impact on local water resources. 23 D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? No Impact. The site is currently served by an approved sewage system. It is not anticipated that expansion will result in any significant impact to the sewer system E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? No Impact. The site will include additional pavement as a result of the expansion proposal. There is an existing storm drainage system serving this project. No impacts are anticipated as drainage considerations will be addressed as required by Public Works. Storm and nuisance runoff is not considered significant here. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? No Impact. The site currently requires service from Waste Management of the Desert. Any on -site programs for recycling are coordinated with Waste Management. No impacts to current services are anticipated due to the expansion. 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located at the foot of an outcrop of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the west central portion of the City. No structures are proposed as part of the expansion beyond a 6' high block wall. A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? No Impact. No new structure(s) are proposed with the expansion. The proximity of the site to the base of the mountain indicates that any expansion will not impact scenic vistas, as the site is too close to the base to block any viewsheds. 24 B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant impact. The existing building is near the foot of the mountain base and does not affect any view lines. However, the proposed wall is shown along the Bear Creek bike path, which is intended as a scenic recreational improvement. It will also be visible to residents across the street from the facility. Construction of the block wall shall incorporate landscgping and structural enhancements (pilasters, capping, recessed planter areas, etc.) into its design A minimum 10' landscgVe setback along Avenida Carranza shall be required. incorporating tree stands and other vegetation to enhance the aesthetics of the parkway. Trees shall be located in planter wells flanked by_pilasters and recessed a minimum of four feet into the wall design. There should be no significant adverse impact upon the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area with inclusion of these measures into the project approval. C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated expansion will likely include some additional exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the current operation. All lighting shall be required to comply with Chapter 9 210 and other related policies of the City A lighting plan shall be submitted for review, along with a photometric analysis to illustrate impacts of the lihtingplan Lighting_shall be limited to that determined necessary to provide adequate security No unnecessary lighting shall be permitted. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The history ofthe La Quinta area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. Early inhabitants of the Colorado Desert were people who had migrated across the Bering Strait more than 20,000 years ago. As their migration progressed, they passed through the Colorado Desert on their gradual way to Central America. The Coachella Valley became home to a band of people that migrated from the Great Basin. Ethnographically these people are known as the Cahuilla. The Cahuilla followed a hunting and gathering life style as they lived along the ancient lakeshore and cove areas in the valley. The archaeological record, as it is known today, extends back almost 6,000 years. The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. 25 La Quinta experienced rapid growth in the late 1970's which lead to incorporation of the City in 1982. The City has grown from a population of approximately 5,400 in 1982 to 17,591 in 1995. The incorporated boundaries currently include over 31 square miles of area. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site is proximate to a designated historic resource, the La Quinta Hotel. There are over a dozen recorded prehistoric archaeological sites within a mile radius of the project site. The site itself has been disturbed by flood improvement work, residential development and prior establishment of the current maintenance operation. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? No Impact. No significant paleontological resources have been found on the site. The project site has been heavily disturbed, thus it is not anticipated that paleontological resources will be found in the project site. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? No Impact. There will be no excavation associated with the expansion. The site is so heavily disturbed that no artifacts would be uncovered unless extensive excavation was undertaken. There is no real likelihood that any artifacts would be uncovered as a result of site development for the expansion. C. Would the project affect historical resources? No Impact. No historic resources will be affected by expansion of the existing site. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? No Impact. The site expansion 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 or sacred uses on the proposed project site or adjacent to it. OR 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The Bear Creek Channel bikeway runs along the frontage of the proposed site expansion. The proposed block wall will be set back from the path approximately 8 feet. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The proposed project will not create demand for parks or recreational facilities. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. Refer to mitigation under AESTHETICS, 3.13.11. SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study for the proposed maintenance facility expansion indicates that there is some potential for adverse impacts on some of the environmental issues addressed in the checklist. The potential significance can be lessened to levels below significance if the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been prepared for this project based upon this environmental assessment. 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. * The proposed project will not have impact which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. 27 * The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. Specific Plan 121-E was approved in 1975 by Riverside County. The project was required to prepare an EIR (EIR 41). This project proposed an expansion to the hotel complex with the construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, and 27-hole golf course with clubhouse and service facilities on 619+ acres. In 1982, the Specific Plan was revised to allow and addition of 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms. An environmental assessment was prepared for the revision which resulted in the adoption of a Negative Declaration. Five other subsequent amendments for revisions to the specific plan have been approved through 1989, each with a Negative Declaration being certified by the City. This project is not physically a part of the project limits and thus not assessed in associated environmental assessments. Plot Plan 84-088 was approved in 1985 to allow the maintenance facility use as it currently operates. Condition 9 of the revision to SP 121-E, approved by the City in 1982, requires any discretionary approval to go through the CEQA process. Other documents utilized include the La Quinta General Plan and the La Quinta MEA. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Not applicable. Impacts from expansion of the maintenance facility have been addressed by this Initial Study. Previous documents were used to identify existing conditions. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed and underlined in this addendum where possible. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been attached for the project that will become a part of the conditions of approval attached to the project approvals and permits. 0 .Q w uU me Utr, C N W ?� N z ¢mow U A U A aU U U 0 w H cd U o Ell W Q �w O U W U z H � O vI E-y zz 0 �o w � O � H N M Z � z W H Q � Q aU U U W H U z �3a a� �E � a � b vw p4 A W M O� J S" N O ON U W A z� �A � W OU E 0 o � z � a �v c zz y��a � � a o � bD cn W W PC H Q Q dQ W U U � A it z ao aEA aE % w UAA� UAAW 4, 0 rA "o V W b 0-4 cn M 5nC 0 w0 'v° aoo PC a a� o St" H Q z� � Q � W O U s. u w da' b Od w z O PC C� U+ O w o W '� o ��AUAA� 4 Q UAAW o � o � a W F• � c "o r; � o P U C W F A U W U z F L7 v� z� 0 CA U � O a� eli z F A U p�q U 0 U z H a� z® o® a Eli �o w a CA W c 00 M ® z o z H A U 0 'o U x � a� U G7 a� as o® � w o ® c a PC CA OF � .�•v� L7 � Lv o� �pa ra w O; H A U pq �A a� a �w o� y ° b Fri r°. 4.0 f°• ° M n•'o n• Q, a c � GM a� �Q o cow o v�F U�U zz. �4 415 It �.. �t UAAW C°AAW w o a' 0 y W t� w 40 '� z°. 4 w- w GO cc rA o V2 d y + W5 . Vr ii Gn C� ►.� a � � y WW c o. i� a� F ° a 1* N 0 rn NO F A U � A W U z a� as Oz a� a b u M z o z S H A U � W U E-� L7 a� as Oz h M z v N O A U p�q �A U W OV o N U � � 3 C7 � � a RA W v o w VAA0A o N .d � � O� �, Q � ,� ou •� p, o � Z O ►-� W o wo ,s7 V �� .�2prA en IM , e c en ►a � O E� .� P4 cci O W o, F N 0 O1 a U H A U� 0 W U F C4 z® o® a� � w 0 01 N 0 rn U H U p�q A W a U z z� o® a� low H � a� � o M z o z May 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENT 6 KSL NOISE STUDY ON FILE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF (COPY GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION) FMMTBLD3 May 28; 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENT 7 NEIGHBORHOOD LETTERS FOR CUP 96-024 KSL MAINTENANCE BUILDING FWMLD March 3, 1996 Planning Commission City of La Quinta La Quinta Civic Center 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Application by KSL Recreation Corporation to expand the existing La Quinta Resort & Club Golf Course Maintenance Facility onto the adjoining Lot to the East and Install a six- foot Wall Along Avenida Caranza on Property in the Special Residential Zone District. Dear Sirs: My wife and I own the property which is the second lot away from the proposed project. We live next door, south of the doctor who is directly next to the proposed project. We feel that our property will be adversely affected by this proposed project since Tampico will suffer in its aesthetic qualities. Further studies should be done as we believe the value of our property will suffer for the following reasons: 1) It will create a jagged wall defining the cove. 2) It will call attention to the fact that there is a maintenance facility there. 3) The gardeners who now park on the lot will now start parking on the street. 4) A bigger facility means more traffic, more lighting, and more congestion. We believe that any plans to expand the facility out to the street should be part of a larger architectural plan on how the boundary defining the cove is to be developed. This should include plans on how the strip park is to be developed, how it is to be graded and landscaped, what setbacks are to be incorporated, where the walls are to be built, and what the landscaping will be. If the maintenance facility is to be expanded toward the street, I believe some consideration should be given to the three property owner to the south of it They should be allowed to extend their properties toward Avenida Carranza in a similar manner as the maintenance facility, so that the wall is continuous without a break. Naturally there would have to be restrictions against building on this property since it used to be flood control channel and was filled in as part of building the new channel. I believe there is enough property between the present property lines and Avenida Carranza so that some of it could be utilized for expanding the current property interests, and still allow enough space for an adequate strip park. Most of the strip park in that area will be for the bike path, which can be moved closer to the street. In order tc maintain the aesthetics of the cove, I believe the project should include the landscaping of the entire cove,. It should not be designed in a piecemeal manner. If nothing else, this proposal to expand the maintenance facility deserves more study. i would like to know what the results of that study are and how the project fits into the overall plan for the area. I believe ali the other property owners in the cove share this interest. I am sure that a fair and equitable solution can be agreed upon by all concerned parties. I doubt that 1 will be able to attend your hearing on March 12, 1996, but I would appreciate having my letter read into your record. I would also appreciate an acknowledgment that you have received this letter. We all share in the common goal of seeing our community develop into a desirable place to live. I was very satisfied with how the street paving project turned out. It was a very good example that we can work together as a community and come up with solutions which we all can live with. Please feel free to phone me at work at (714) 558-4177 if you have any questions. Sincerely, °V S 92tz' George S and Marlene B Hatch 51230 Avenida Obregon La Quinta, CA February 26, 1996 City of La Quinta r Planning Commission Community Development Department - 78-495 Calle Tampico „ La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Conditional Use Permit 96-024, Variance 96-026 and Environmental Assessment 96-313 As residents directly across the street from the existing La Quinta Resort & Club Golf Course Maintenance Facility, expansion and improvements are eagerly anticipated. Our concern is that the six-foot high wall will be installed too close to the existing bike path. Hopefully, the setback will be at least ten feet, thus allowing leeway for both directions of bike and foot traffic. The bike path is only eight feet wide, and a wall installed at the edge of the path could cause safety problems, i.e., small children needing extra room for maneuverability, room for opposing foot traffic, baby carriages, etc. Our other concern is the large piles of sand and gravel at the north side of the maintenance yard. These sand piles are allowed to blow loose and cover the bike path driveway at the north end of the Ave. Carranza cul-de-sac, causing an unsafe condition. This safety hazard is further exacerbated by water runoff from the golf course, causing the drifted sand to become wet and slippery. I have enclosed a snapshot of this condition for your edification. Hopefully, the planned wall will extend to the north end of the maintenance yard, in order to contain the drifting sands. We are thankful for the efforts of the KSL Recreation Corporation to improve their maintenance facility. 'ncerely, Leo K. Miller Louise Miller 51-040 Avenida Carranza La Quinta, CA 92253 564-2288 Enclosure r�:Sy h �i�xd•��.ft'aPy� vA Aj March 3, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning Commission Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Conditional Use Permit 96-024 Variance 96-026 Environmental Assessment 96-313 To Whom it may concern, t •E At one time, the City proposed a green belt on the former flood control next to the bike and jogging trail. In July 1995, the engineering department informed us that they had the nomey to start the green belt. This did not take place. If the new proposed project that KSL is planning gets passed, there should be some changes made in the plans. The existing building sets two feet (2'0") lower than the curb on Carranza. Therefore, the new parking lot should be excavated down two feet (2'0") with a eight foot (8'0") block wall on the parking lot side and a six foot (6'0") wall on the bike trail and Carranza side. The wall should be held back no less than twenty feet (20" 0") from the bike trail with sound barrier landscaping. With the eight foot (8' 0") wall on their side, it would hide all of the equipment from view on Carranza. On the south end of the parking lot, the block wall should have a large radius on the end to make it more attractive for the the residents coming in on Carranza. Sincerely, �^ Jack Hochanade1, 51-120 Avenida Carranza La Quinta, Calif. 92253 619-564-6638 March 4, 1996 Sirs: I would like to register my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the golf maintenance area of the La Quinta Hotel. My property is adjacent to the present area„on thr_ sou-ch, so I have lived with uhis eye sore and noise for 9' years. The owners have not lived up to their agreement to landscape, build a wall, and generally keep the place up. In addition there is a serious noise problem especially related tc their alarm sy--tem, which has countless times awakened me and my family. As these pictures show, the place resembles the city damp more than. anything. This is in an otherwise attractive residential area with fast idiuusiy maintainr_,_i ]aw!,s and houses. KS)1, does not want their pa•yin„ br exposed to this; mess, even though there i.L- ,ampi.e roo!r, wiuh-ci tneir campus. They clearly don't care about their neighbors, as long as the profits keep rolling into Colorado. In truth, this abomination should not have been allowed in the first place. It was passed in Fart by Landmark paying off the neighbors. (Ask Bruce Robins•c�n who got, a -iie time golf membership and r:ow lives in Hawaii ) . it was passed in part by agreeing to landscape, etc., which they have not done. If the planning Commission wants to act in its community's real interests, it will rule to .�1��Pil the pr•eser!t maintenance building and reiccate to an area re!nc,ved from ��F tc:wn.:-people of La Quinta. Sincerely, Robert L. Stepht—nson, MD 78-150 CALLE TAMPICO, SUITE 100. LA OUINTA. CA 92253, (619) 564-0302 RECREATION CORPORATION MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 8 February 26,1996 TO: Forrest Haag CC Cynthia Zamorez (for file)10 4 U FROM: Virgil Robinson ' RE: Conditional Use Permit 96-024 (Mountain Maintenance Wall) The following will answer the letter of February 15,1996, from the City of La Quinta: 1. Equipment to be stored in proposed vehicle storage area: Tractors (5), Toro Rak-O-Vac Sweepers (2), Turfco Mete-R-Matic Topdressers (2), Verti-Drains (2), Toro Multi -Pro Sprayers (2), Toro Walk -Behind Mete-R-Matic (2), DitchWitch 1420 W/Trailer, Drive on Tilt Trailer, Aerway, Lely Spreaders (3), Champion Trailer, Chem - Pro 370 Gal Sprayer, Toyota Longbed Pickup, JD Backhoe, Steel Storage Container 10' X 27'. The unpaved yard area will be treated with Calcium Chloride and periodically watered for dust control. 4. There will be 4 areas for materials which will be stored on contiguous concrete pads with block wall dividers for access and separation. Those materials are gravel, blow sand, USGA graded sand and Mulch. 5. I believe this is redundant to point 1. 6. The landscaping right-of-way along Avenida Carranza will be maintained by KSLMcl- ICorporation. L� believe this addresses the questions that maintenance can respond to in the above referenced letter. Ld QUlnta, C akfornia 92253 • (b19) 564-446.3 9 Fax 16171 ' 546 PH #3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 1996 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28340 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 37.98-ACRES INTO 117 SINGLE FAMILY AND TEN COMMON AMENITY LOTS LOCATION: ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PGA BOULEVARD, ALONG BOTH SIDES OF JACK NICKLAUS, RIVIERA AND THE NORTH SIDE OF MERION (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LAND CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORP. REP: MR. S. CHEVIS HOSEA, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE FOR KSL ENGINEERS: MDS CONSULTING (MR. STANLEY C. MORSE, P.E.) DEVELOPER: PHH, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS TRACT MAP APPLICATION IS PART OF PGA WEST, AND HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 65457(A) PLANNING AND ZONING LAW BECAUSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE "PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN" AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 1, 1984. A SUBSEQUENT EIR WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED AS PART OF AMENDMENT #1 IN 1988 (SEPTEMBER 20, 1988). THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC.) ZONING/ SPECIFIC PLAN: R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) STRPPC.87p, RES0200p, CONAPL28P In 1984, the City approved the Landmark Land (LML) PGA West Specific Plan (83- 002) permitting 5,000 single family homes, a Resort Village (400 hotel room units, 250 apartment/condominium cottages, and support facilities), four 18-hole golf courses, and other commercial resort facilities on 1,600+ acres (Attachment 2). LML amended the plan in 1988 to permit the height of the hotel to be six stories instead of four stories and added 350 hotel rooms thereby increasing the hotel cottage portion to 1,000 rooms. In 1989, they amended the plan a second time to enlarge the project area by 21.5 acres to 1,686 acres. The proposed parcels shown on the map exhibit are vacant. Jack Nicklaus, a gated private street, leads into the tract and was planned and built under Tract Map 25499 in the early 1990's (previously a portion of Tract Map 21642). Tract Map 25499, approved by the City Council in 1990 under Resolution 90-15, permitted 33 residential airspace condominium lots on 88.5-acres. The number of houses approved under this map was 409 on the 33 condominium lots (Attachment 3 - TTM 25499). This map is a portion of the original map excluding the area on the east side of Jack Nicklaus and north of Riviera. The number of units shown for this area was 123 with seven community pools. After approval, the Sunrise Company revised the number of units plotted to 308 units which the Community Development Director accepted on May 18, 1990. The lots involved in the revised map were Lots 8 through 16. Legends and Highlands units were planned (i.e., 89 units) for this area, and the developer planned four common pools/spas for this infill development. No maps were ever processed by Landmark Land Company or the Sunrise Company for the property east of Jack Nicklaus abutting the new Tom Weiskopf Signature golf course. The properties, around this area, are within the PGA West Resort. The properties are zoned R-2 or R-3. To the north is the planned PGA West Hotel. To the east and south is the Jack Nicklaus Resort golf course. To the west is the Tom Weiskopf Signature golf course built this year by KSL. To the south (across Merion) are existing Gallery condominium units built by the Sunrise Company in 1990 and other vacant land owned by KSL but mapped for Tournament Series houses under Tentative Tract Map 28118 (e.g., 35 single family lots on 4.6-acres). STRPPC.87p, RESO200p, CONAPL28P To the southeast, is an approved PGA West expansion request approved by the City in 1990 that permits 880 dwelling units on 220 acres (SP 90-017). This expansion request permits expansion east of Madison Street along Avenue 58. The Commission approved an annual review for this project on April 11, 1995. The next review, based on Minute Motion 95-015 is April 11, 1997. The newly built Tom Weiskopf Signature golf course is part of this master planned expansion. Tentative Tract Map 28340 was submitted to the Community Development Department on March 25, 1996. This map proposes to create 117 single family and various other non-residential lots on +37-acres in the middle of the PGA West development, a reduction of six units from previous land division applications without including the other property excluded to the east and north of Jack Nicklaus and Riviera. Lots A thru D are planned for active recreation. The project density is three dwellings per acre. The lots vary in size but are generally from 60-feet in width by 147-feet in depth (0.2-acres) to approximately 83-feet in width by 216-feet in depth (0.4-acres) or larger. The single family lots front on private streets and back up to the existing golf course (Attachment 4 - TTM 28340 Reduced). The applicant is proposing access to the tract via PGA West Boulevard, a major north/south collector street that connects to the intersection of Avenue 54 and Jefferson Street. KSL shows private two-way streets providing internal access to all single family lots. This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 15, 1996. All affected property owners within 500-feet area were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by Title 13 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. • Staff sent a copy of the applicant's request to all public agencies and City Departments on April 5, 1996. No negative comments were received. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the PGA West Specific Plan in 1984 (SP 83-002). The City Council certified this document on May 1, 1984. Subsequent amendments have been permitted and certified by the Commission and Council. Therefore, this site has received prior environmental consideration and we deem no further considerations warranted. STRPPC.87p, RES0200p, CONAPL28P Based on the provisions of the General Plan, SP 83-002, Zoning Code and the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13) the following overview of the project is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency/PGA West Specific Plan (SP 83-002) The City's General Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing. The specific plan is consistent with the existing General Plan and its internal elements because only 5,000 homes are allowed in the PGA West development along with other commercial resort amenities. The proposed single family development is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code as designed. The adopted Specific Plan for this community outlines its long term development pattern for this mixed -use project. Its text includes a land use map and narrative describing all land uses in the area. The proposed tract map is in a residential district area of the Plan. In 1995, KSL began filing subdivision maps for properties they purchased from the RTC in the PGA West Resort. One issue that surfaced was the number of common pools/spas and gardener restrooms needed for each tract or phase of development. The prior subdivider, The Sunrise Company, had proposed common pools/spas for airspace condominium units whereas KSL had planned to begin building detached single family houses on fee simple lots. In previous applications, the Commission and Council have required some of the KSL subdivision applications to have common pools/spas facilities with gardeners restrooms at a ratio of one facility per 21 houses. This ratio is based on previous plans by The Sunrise Company although the PGA West Specific Plan does not dictate the number or size of the common recreation amenities other than the location of the various golf courses. In this application, KSL has proposed four common pools/spas or one pool/spa per 29 houses. Condition 52 ensures that common facilities for the future resident are installed. In 1996, staff began processing an amendment to SP 83-002 (Amendment #3) with KSL actively participating in the preparation of a new specific plan for PGA West to assist in the ultimate development of the PGA West Resort in the coming years. The reason for the update was to resolve and/or delete many of the obsolete policies or graphics in the Plan that were are not consistent with KSL development plans. The revision will help staff and future PGA West developers better understand their obligations and requirements. KSL is still working on their submittal material and application, therefore, no hearing dates have been established at this time. We anticipate that this document will be before the Commission in the next few months. STRPPC.87p, RES0200p, CONAPL28P Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Private streets are proposed for this subdivision map as required by SP 83-002. Access to the site will be from existing Southern Hills and future Brae Burn streets. All streets will be a minimum width of 36-feet as established by the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and SP 83-002. No flag or irregular lots are proposed. Street and other infrastructure improvements are required for this project. The recommended conditions will ensure that all on -site work is consistent with City standards. Issue 3 - Environmental Consideration An EIR was prepared for the PGA West Resort in the early 1980s. The City Council certified the EIR and approved this master planned development request in May of 1984. The plan allowed 5,000 single family homes, golf courses, a resort hotel(s) and other related resort facilities (i.e., a commercial site at Avenue 54 and PGA West Boulevard). Subsequent amendments permitted 350 additional hotel rooms in 1988 (Amendment 1). The project is exempt from further environmental consideration because no changes are proposed greater than that which was planned or approved between 1984 and 1988. Issue 4 - Health and Safety As mentioned above, all necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are either installed or will be constructed as required by the attached Conditions. This includes water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. All electric services will be undergrounded and will meet all requirements of the service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). The property owner's request conforms with Specific Plan 83-002 Land Use Map. Our General Plan also identifies this area for single family homes based on the LDR designation. The site is next to other residential areas to the north and northwest and the applicant has proposed new street improvements that will interconnect their project with those condominiums on Southern Hills and Laurel Valley. The tentative map, as conditioned, is consistent with the existing golf course and private recreational facilities in the immediate area. No physical constraints prevent the development of the site as planned. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to City Council conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 28340. STRPPC.87p, RES0200p, CONAPL28P Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. PGA West Exhibit 3. TTM 25499 4. TTM 28340 Exhibit (Reduced) 5. TTM 28340 (Large Exhibit - Commission Only) Prepared by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning nager STRPPC.87p, RES0200p, CONAPL28P RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 39.98-ACRES INTO 117 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS ON PROPERTY IN THE PGA WEST RESORT GENERALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PGA BOULEVARD AND ALONG THE EAST AND WEST SIDE SIDES OF JACK NICKLAUS, RIVIERA AND NORTH SIDE OF MERION, PRIVATE INTERIOR STREETS CASE NO.: TTM 28340 APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORP., A DELAWARE CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and recommended approval of a 37.98-acre site with 117-lot single family and other common lots, generally on the south side of PGA Boulevard and on both sides of Jack Nicklaus and Riviera and on the north side of Merion in the PGA West Resort, more particularly described as: Lot 22 and a portion of Lot 1 of Tract Map 25499-4, Book 237 of Maps, Pages 73-76, Lot 1 of Tract 25499-3, Book 228 of Maps, Pages 33-39, Lot 12 and a portion of Lot 13 of Tract Map 21642, Book 202 of Maps, Pages 51-61, and a portion of record of survey book 70 of Maps, Pages 96-98 inclusive, City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, Sate of California 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), in that the Community Development Director has determined that the original Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan) approved by the City Council in 1984, and as amended in 1988, is still valid and binding on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; 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 Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify recommending said Tentative Tract Map 28340: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The project is in a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the 1992 General Plan Update; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element (Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract Map 28340 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Specific Plan 83-002 provided conditions contained herein are required to ensure among other things consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan). RFSOPC.200a/conaprvl. Resolution 96- The site is zoned R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) which permits single family developments. All plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Specific Plan 83- 002 and the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2). All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards of the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -site streets are private (36-feet wide, paving area) and will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Access for the single family lots will be provided from internal private streets in the PGA West Resort. C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division and is part of other previously approved subdivision maps by the Sunrise Company approved by the City but not fully completed. The original development plan will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were required during the grading of the site by Landmark Land Company and the Sunrise Company a few years ago. Dust control measures shall be required during any further on -site construction work as required by Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Health and safety concerns were addressed in 1984 and 1988 during consideration and approval of the master planned PGA West Resort. Mitigation measures were imposed to reduce noise, traffic and other environmental concerns under Specific Plan 83-002. The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed private streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. 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 RESOPC.200a/conaprO._ Resolution 96- 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 Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby reconfirm the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (as amended) since its original approval in 1984; 3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 28340 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to -the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California RPSOPC.Z Wa/conaprv1._ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28340 - KSL LAND CORPORATION MAY 28, 1996 GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28340 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 approval shall expire and become void within two years of the City Council approval unless extended based on the provisions of Chapter 13.12.150. 3. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Coachella Valley Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall fumish 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 an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan. 5. 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. CondapL8a PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver of a final map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 7. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Dedications required of this development include: A. Riviera, "I" & "J" Streets and unnamed loop off Riviera - 37 feet 8. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties. 9. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 10. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 11. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 12. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish the City, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer, accurate computer files of the map(s) as approved by the City's map checker. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 13. 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 the Planning 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. 14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate computer files of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in a program format acceptable the City Engineer. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 15. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a 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 improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 18. 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. 19. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. 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. 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 21. The applicant shall conduct a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering investigation and shall submit the report of the investigation ("the soils report") with the grading plan. 22. 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. 23. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within this development, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 24. 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 25. Stormwater falling on the site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained in accordance with the approved hydrology study and drainage plan for the PGA West development. UTILITIES 26. 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 27. 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. 28. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS-DE-SACS 1) Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (buildings on both sides). 2) Collector (L-300 homes or 3,000 vpd) - 40 feet wide. Main entry streets and interior circulation routes, bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and/or other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths, raised medians or other mitigation measures as determined by the City Engineer. 29. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. Street right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 33. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping. 34. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5/6.50" The applicant shall submit mix designs for road base and pavement materials, including complete testing lab results, for review and approval by the City. Paving operations shall not be scheduled until City staff approves the mix design. 35. 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. LANDSCAPING 36. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 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. 37. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 38. 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 private streets. 39. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 40. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. QUALITY ASSURANCE 41. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 42. The applicant shall employ or retain 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. 43. 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 44. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on - site street improvements. 45. The applicant shall provide an executive summary maintenance booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES AND DEPOSITS 46. 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 DEPARTMENT 47. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2.5" X 2.5") will be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 500-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any frontage more than 250-feet from afire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 G.P.M. for a two- hour duration at 20 PSI. 48. Before recordation of the final map, applicant/developer will furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the 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." 49. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MISCELLANEOUS 50. The provisions of Specific Plan 83-002, including sideyard setbacks, shall be met prior to issuance of building permits. 51. The applicant/developer shall submit preliminary single family architectural plans for construction in this tract for review and approval by the Planning Commission unless the previous approved prototype houses under Plot Plan 95-552 and Plot Plan 95-565 (KSL Model Homes) are constructed on these lots. 52. The site developer shall submit the recreation amenity package (i.e., four pools/spas and other common lots) to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The recreational facilities shall be built before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential houses unless the map is phased. Restroom facilities shall be provided at each common pool and spa complex. Separate restroom facilities shall be accessible to the golf course maintenance workers and gardeners during their normal working hours. 53. Golf cart easements (i.e., Lots E and F) as shown on the map exhibit shall be conveyed during acceptance of the final map by the City. 54. If during grading activities archeological or prehistoric remains are found, all on -site work will be stopped and a qualified archeologist shall review the materials and determine their cultural significance. The Community Development Director will be notified and consulted before site work is resumed. MAY 289 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENTS FOR TTM 28340 ATTFORM5-A VICINITY MAP o TTM 28340 ATTACHMENT I ■ 52nd AVENUE 53rd AVENUE 0 z 54th AVENUE o � v z z AIRPORT BLVD. r TRACT NO. 28340 58th AVENUE VK*M MAP NOT TO SCALE ■Fr ■ Fire--------T Jefferson St. ATTACHMENT 2 relocated Station 54th Ave. Commercial Center k 0 R ID 0 Residential if g� ilk 11 Residential Ip % R�s .. n�J I 0 ------- C) Vfillage Open ore �S�Ce� IIl / �% f I -- 0 Airpoi golf course tunnel 0 0 0 Residential 4D C�v - - ------------ 0 C3 1 S; County I Park 58th Ave. IN TI+e cmr of a aUIxr" ATTACHMENT 3 •1•a Fes►-MJ r 1/\rl/.»r as..rraru•u•a.aa �� •.pro R EEL Lp FE3 -6 M a CITY OF to QUINTA RANKING & DEYUMM DEPL s, s �, . i QiEifl7tA� NOTtS r ! VN NOW PGq o B . e...a •m b" d. ?.vitas: t C VD. • ..®.•,a....... L t / ` a seem, as UP•.•�wa uw so • A t "a ANIMISM` me" aws» "a •a.a • • .• •`•r - ..� •.furorr».....»aarrra»Use LOT TABULATIONS 0-40 Laos -some" ooftwm UNIT COUNTS wrn PbObWl TOTAL • . \ `F '�� w►•wr ...ram ». Location of TTM 28340 s; Legend ♦ a1 ` 58th Avenue ' ue TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 28340 PGA WEST ATTACHMENT 4 ,.AC, No. 29M fit of m ruu ,...,'/ , -'1, % .•. A~(M SRN 139)m n• � a. u •v li Rnli Ri�],fN,l/,I 7 % ) w. s uwi �• r. 4 �b ~ 1 �, ,\\• ■ I. ]NR r'ORPORlTRNw ,eir nrr' 1 0• / S a'n 1j i� 1� • 1 e N �� I l'� L ... ®• � , \� u a.�a. n n. Imp r...., • �.7 r I to �, • •+n1. „ I •.u.... LiOAt DEOCIriION � S �i'iLrr Q f S j n � . • ® i1 ' • �I I) � i � QmYf.67P1e9 4 ! N ��(' % 150/ b Menr .lY,f♦ T7A7 .�.,�.' w:n:'m�..: iu4w .•7. r7•Tjss. IMr I /AaM fw 9AY0 a ®. • r]' ie , •11 vrs 911v LOT AMAJAM UN MMMff ]N v®� • � „ I Iwly OO/fT}611�'TOA m e • . em - I � I N � wsle!!e tt]il1�t•Isne MV. •e,•P uturEe ' � cam• , 5, . � � , .,"r,.,, ti . ,>o, �..,. n•,1 r..»e• ... �.e .� .� a �' • ( ) N.,. �I.� �. � " • ooNeuLTAerr 1JI »®• y, ws i I C•=III fI=4 NOTO u.'.LI'r6'1i9e•aNul.a.n '1 . I , :, to p� -• M • wil.�ni>iou/Ise . ' h`' � I 'r� may ` • 4�}I p � � 7 f � 1 � • 1 � � � 5 �. r�•�. �'� •i c� •• .�•, ca) n � � � (1 � ^ I/ tabQED bs. I� '1 7c� �a 1i»+� I��n n n , fi is !n �t~;ryt♦ `�� In ' I '� ra c I e �' MR sa .qm 4 D, CrD ISD nawbr1n! rT, Ae-b iGD b ] I .. Nn 2067 �iC• S ]. � lab I ] ] , n t ! t t• 10 11 Ir 1] 1• 1! It It 1! In ]0 rl n • �..� dr�� 21 .14 POOL 1 rr+� �•� � f� � � C✓«'ti r+Tb � �� c!)! c�+,° �� Cb! AND c+n Cn � rn � � r47m WE MI]f»t0 NNN.1114. IN• row 000wr.10! .nar 1 a+N:ots] awl NtiOJla eoows .•..e... •.. wn.Nl etivets] n,�r , o,so.ln] PH #4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 1996 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28341 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 16.4-ACRES INTO 56 SINGLE FAMILY AND FOUR COMMON AMENITY LOTS LOCATION: ON THE SOUTH SIDE SOUTHERN HILLS AT LAUREL VALLEY AND ALONG BOTH SIDES OF BRAE BURN, A NEW PRIVATE STREET (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LAND CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORP. REP: MR. S. CHEVIS HOSEA, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE FOR KSL ENGINEERS: MDS CONSULTING (MR. STANLEY C. MORSE, P.E.) DEVELOPER: PHH, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS TRACT MAP APPLICATION IS PART OF PGA WEST, AND HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 65457(A)OF PLANNING AND ZONING LAW BECAUSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE "PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN" AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 1, 1984. A SUBSEQUENT EIR WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED AS PART OF AMENDMENT #1 IN 1988 (SEPTEMBER 20, 1988). THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC.) ZONING/ SPECIFIC PLAN: R-2 (MULTI11PLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) Strp.77p, Reso195p, condap152p In 1984, the City approved the Landmark Land (LML) PGA West Specific Plan (83- 002) permitting 5,000 single family homes, a Resort Village (400 hotel room units, 250 apartment/condominium cottages, and support facilities), four 18-hole golf courses, and other commercial resort facilities on 1,600+ acres (Attachment 2). LML amended the plan in 1988 to permit the height of the hotel to be six stories instead of four stories and added 350 hotel rooms thereby increasing the hotel cottage portion to 1,000 rooms. In 1989, they amended the plan a second time to enlarge the project area by 21.5 acres to 1,686 acres. The proposed parcels shown on the map exhibit are vacant. In 1989, this area was included in the overall planning of the Landmark Land Company to subdivide this area for development under Tentative Tract Map 21643 (Attachment 3). The map involved the division of 391.6-acres into 30 large residential lots and other golf course/common lots to permit LML to sell parcels to prospective developers. This Tract was shown as Lots 10-12. The City Council approved the subdivision map on April 4, 1989, by adoption of Resolution 89-43. The map has been recorded. Condition 7 requires of the map requires all interior private streets to be 36-feet in width. Subsequent maps by the Sunrise Company one year later further divided this area into 106 units and 23 units under Tentative Tract Maps 26139 and 25500, Amendment #1 (i.e., totaling 129 units). Legends and Medalists units were planned along with four community pools/spas under these previous map applications. The properties, around this area, are within the PGA West Resort and Zoned R-2. To the north are single family lots owned by KSL which were involved in Tentative Tract Map 28149 (Resolution 95-47). To the east, west and south is the Jack Nicklaus Resort golf course. Tentative Tract Map 28341 was submitted to the Community Development Department on March 25, 1996. This map proposes to create 56 single family and various other non-residential lots on 16.4-acres and is a reduction of 73 units from previous land division applications. Lot A is planned for a pool/spa for this Tract. The project density is 3.4 dwellings per acre. The lots vary in size from 60-feet in width by 148-feet in depth (0.2-acres) to approximately 78-feet in width by 167-feet in depth (.29-acres) or larger. The single family lots front on private streets and back up to the existing golf course (Attachment 4 - TTM 28341 Reduced). The applicant strp.77p, Reso195p, condap152p is proposing access to the tract via Southern Hills. Future houses planned for these lots are Heritage and Ryder units. This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 15, 1996. All affected property owners within 500-feet area were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by Title 13 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Staff sent a copy of the applicant's request to all public agencies and City departments on April 5, 1996. No negative comments were received. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the PGA West Specific Plan in 1984 (SP 83-002). The City Council certified this document on May 1, 1984. Subsequent amendments have been permitted and certified by the Commission and Council. Therefore, this site has received prior environmental consideration and we deem no further considerations warranted. Based on the provisions of the General Plan, SP 83-002, Zoning Code and the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13) the following overview of the project is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency/PGA West Specific Plan (SP 83-002) The City's General Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing. The specific plan is consistent with the existing General Plan and its internal elements because only 5,000 homes are allowed in the PGA West development along with other commercial resort amenities. The proposed single family subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code as designed. The adopted Specific Plan for this community outlines its long term development pattern for this mixed -use project. Its text includes a land use map and narrative describing all land uses in the area. The proposed tract map is in a residential district area of the Plan. In 1995, KSL began filing subdivision maps for properties they purchased from the RTC in the PGA West Resort. One issue that surfaced was the number of common pools and spas needed for each tract or phase of development. The last map to be processed in the area was TTM 28149 (to the north of this area) in 1995. The prior Strp.77p, Reso195p, condap152p subdivider, the Sunrise Company, had proposed six common pools and spas. KSL reduced the number to four based on their plans to provide detached single family houses instead of airspace condominiums. The Commission and Council, after receiving comments from the abutting residents and PGA HOA, required four common pools and spas after taking into consideration the applicant's request to change the housing unit types and reduction of 56 units from the subdivided area (Le, a ratio of one pool/spa per 21 houses). In this application, KSL proposes 'oniy one common pool/spa per 56 houses. In order to be consistent with Tentative Tract 28341, staff is recommending 2 pools/spas be constructed to maintain the same lot/pool ratio. Conditions 52 and 53 are proposed to ensure that common facilities are built for the future resident in this area which will be part of PGA West HOA #2. In 1996, staff began processing an amendment to SP 83-002 (Amendment #3) with the understanding that KSL would be actively involved in the preparation of a new Specific Plan to assist development in PGA West in the coming years because many of the original policies or graphics are outdated and not consistent with KSL development plans. The revision would help staff and future PGA West developers better understand their obligations and requirements. KSL is still working on their submittal material and application, therefore, no hearing dates have been established at this time. We anticipate that this document will be before the Commission in the next few months. Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Private streets are proposed for this subdivision map as required by SP 83-002. Access to the site will be from existing Southern Hills and future Brae Burn streets. All streets will be a minimum width of 36-feet as established by the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and SP 83-002. No flag or irregular lots are proposed. Street and other infrastructure improvements are required for this project. The recommended conditions will ensure that all on -site work is consistent with City standards. Issue 3 - Environmental Consideration An EIR was prepared for the PGA West Resort in the early 1980s. The City Council certified the EIR and approved this master planned development request in May of 1984. The plan allowed 5,000 single family homes, golf courses, a resort hotel(s) and other related resort facilities (i.e., a commercial site at Avenue 54 and PGA West Boulevard). Subsequent amendments permitted 350 additional hotel rooms in 1988 (Amendment 1). The project is exempt from further environmental consideration because no changes are proposed greater than that which was planned or approved between 1984 and 1988. Issue 4 - Health and Safety As mentioned above, all necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are either installed or will be constructed as required by the attached Conditions. This Strp.77p, Reso195p, condap152p includes water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. All electric services will be undergrounded and will meet all requirements of the service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). The property owner's request is a logical use of the site because Specific Plan 83-002 permits housing units in this area. Our General Plan also identifies this area for single family homes based on the L©R designation. The site is next to other residential areas to the north and northwest and the applicant has proposed new street improvements that will interconnect their project with existing condominiums on Southern Hills and Laurel Valley. The tentative map, as conditioned, is consistent with the existing golf course and private recreational facilities in the immediate area. No physical constraints prevent the development of the site as planned. MaiGIN161-:1"11 4Ii3 Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to City Council conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 28341. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. PGA West Exhibit 3. TTM 21643 4. TTM 28341 Exhibit (Reduced) 5. TTM 28341 (Large Exhibit - Commission Only) Prepared by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planrling Manager Strp.77p, Reso195p, condap152p RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 16.4-ACRES INTO 56 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS ON PROPERTY IN THE PGA WEST RESORT GENERALLY SOUTH OF SOUTHERN HILLS AT LAUREL VALLEY AND ALONG THE EAST AND WEST SIDE SIDES OF BRAE BURN, A FUTURE PRIVATE STREET CASE NO.: TTM 28341 APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORP., A DELAWARE CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of May, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and recommended conditional approval of a 16.4-acre site with 56-lot single family and other common lots, generally on the south side of Southern Hills at Laurel Valley and on both sides of Brae Burn in the PGA West Resort, more particularly described as: Lots 10-12 of Tract Map No. 21643, Book 203 of Maps, Pages 37-50 inclusive, City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, Sate of California 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), in that the Community Development Director has determined that the original Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan) approved by the City Council in 1984, and as amended in 1988, is still valid and binding on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; 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 Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify recommending said Tentative Tract Map 28341: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The project is in a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the 1992 General Plan Update; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element (Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract Map 28341 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Specific Plan 83-002 provided conditions contained herein are required to ensure among other things consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan). Reso.195p/conaprv1.52p/Strp77p Resolution 96- The site is zoned R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) which permits single family developments. All plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and Specific Plan in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Specific Plan 83- 002 and the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2). All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards of the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -site streets are private (e.g., 36-feet wide paving area) and will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Access for the single family lots will be provided from internal private streets in the PGA West Resort. C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division and is part of two other previously approved subdivision maps (i.e., TTM's 26139 and 25500, Amend. #1) approved by the City in 1990. The original development plan will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were required during the grading of the site by Landmark Land Company and The Sunrise Company a few years ago. Dust control measures shall be required during any further on -site construction work as required by Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Health and safety concerns were addressed in 1984 and 1988 during consideration and approval of the master planned PGA West Resort. Mitigation measures were imposed to reduce noise, traffic and other environmental concerns under Specific Plan 83-002. The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. Recreational amenities (e.g., pools, spas and restrooms) shall be provided for the residents and on -site landscape gardeners pursuant to the policies and practices of previous development applications. Staff is recommending two pools for consistency with City Council direction as to the number of lots to pools ratio. xeso.195p/conaprv1.52p/Strp77p Resolution 96- E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed private streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family Dot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. 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 Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby reconfirm the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (as amended) since its original approval in 1984; 3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 28341 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Reso.195p/conaprv1.52p/Strp77p Resolution 96- TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Reso.195p/ co naprv1.52p/Strp77p PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28341 - KSL LAND CORPORATION MAY 28, 1996 GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28341 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 approval shall expire and become void within two years of the City Council approval unless extended based on the provisions of Chapter 13.12.150. 3. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Coachella Valley Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 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 an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan. Condap152p/Reso 195p/strp77p 5. 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 6. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver of a final map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 7. The applicant shall dedicate and improve the private street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Dedications and improvements required of this development include: A. Brae Burn - 37 feet wide internal street 8. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties. 9. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 10. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 11. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 12. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish the City, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer, accurate computer files of the map(s) as approved by the City's map checker. Condap152p/Reso 195p/strp77p IMPROVEMENT PLANS 13. 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 the 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. 14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate computer files of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in a program format acceptable the City Engineer. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 15. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a 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. CondaplKp/Reso 195p/strp77p 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 improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 18. 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. 19. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. 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. 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 21. The applicant shall conduct a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering investigation and shall submit the report of the investigation ("the soils report") with the grading plan. 22. 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. 23. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within this development, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. Condap152p/Reso 195p/strp77p 24. 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 25. Stormwater falling on the site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained in accordance with the approved hydrology study and drainage plan for the PGA West development. UTILITIES 26. 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 27. 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. 28. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS-DE-SACS 1) Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (buildings on both sides). 2) Collector (>300 homes or 3,000 vpd) - 40 feet wide. Main entry streets and interior circulation routes, bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and/or other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths, raised medians or other mitigation measures as determined by the City Engineer. 29. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters CondaplKp/Reso 195p/strp77p approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. Street right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 33. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping. 34. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The applicant shall submit mix designs for road base and pavement materials, including complete testing lab results, for review and approval by the City. Paving operations shall not be scheduled until City staff approves the mix design. 35. 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. LANDSCAPING 36. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. CondapMp/Reso 195p/strp77p 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. 37. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 38. 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 private streets. 39. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 40. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. QUALITY ASSURANCE 41. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 42. The applicant shall employ or retain 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. 43. 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 44. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. 45. The applicant shall provide an executive summary maintenance booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the CondaplKp/Reso 195p/strp77p facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES AND DEPOSITS 46. 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 DEPARTMENT 47. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2.5" X 2.5") will be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 500-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any frontage more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 G.P.M. for a two-hour duration at 20 PSI. 48. Before recordation of the final map, applicant/developer will furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the 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." 49. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MISCELLANE US 50. The provisions of Specific Plan 83-002 shall be met including sideyard setbacks prior to issuance of building permits. 51. Prior to issuance of building permits Preliminary single family architectural plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission unless the previous approved prototype houses under Plot Plan 95-552 and Plot Plan 95-565 (KSL Model Homes) are constructed on these lots. 52. The recreation amenity package shall include two pools/spas. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to building permit. issuance. The recreational facilities shall be built before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential houses unless the map is phased. CondaplKp/Reso 195p/strp77p 53. Restroom facilities shall be provided at the common pool and spa complex. Separate restroom facilities shall be accessible to the golf course maintenance workers and gardeners during their normal working hours as approved by the Community Development Department. 54. Golf cart easements (i.e., Lot B) as shown on the map exhibit shall be conveyed during acceptance of the final map by the City. 55. If during grading archeological or prehistoric remains are found, all on -site work shall be stopped and a qualified archeologist shall review the materials and determine their cultural significance. The Community Development Director will be notified and consulted before site work is resumed. CondapMp/Reso 195p/strp77p MAY 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENTS FOR TTM 28341 ATTFORM6A VICINITY MAP o TTM 28341 ATTACHMENT 1 � a 52nd AVENUE 53rd AVENUE 0 z 54th AVENUE o TRACT NO. 28341 Z AIRPORT BLVD. rn 58th AVENUE vK*M ruin NOT TO SCALE Fire-- ( --] ref ocated)-- - Station County Park 0 Open 0 Space,. G) 10 0 0/ 1 58th Ave. Jefferson St. ATTACHMENT 2 54th Commercial Center WZY1,91—dam Residential Residential Village )0 Core O 0 ,1 Residential 8 W F OF 0 3 9 e'golf course tunnel 54th Avgnue_- Ir I t'• : r, ' , i • ,� ') o. i' a: r Locati ors of Tract Map 28341 ATTACHMENT 3 ,ARAL POTS - ' .- 7 r•�', , •w�� 1 ... ry . `�. L 'cnr�nvt rnwtt uA► wo V441 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 28341 1 PGA WEST _®+'•f � .' ',� � mtict wr i�r. ueelorArtw,: n' '"_" ' ATTACHMENT 4 ..wrYi�f ta+�• A al• • • • • • • . 4;P r. 'IRAC1�er.�rlb� i0Y 'o. r Now no w •r•• rl•• No. � ��ld .41NY�•@B� . PON • ,/\-__fit\ ,�� • •ram `' o .1. •4� V_ �i• • "•.i '�`;,1 r anri .. 1. r �: :r ; V �' • • *;�I _ •�ti �- 41D • " �, V Pa 41 • 1 '1 r r � ►AMMAr ' wn..w •noioMM� , � � r r ,t� • . a91 a� . Z ' • • . fr f�.x iWl'IwIgY MM�rMr . _ .?-,i r • .r,f �1• 1 t . oa •® �w \ �. r�..� Aw ram•• - N. IM WNVK I M IA6 WK A YIA11Mt MIL �Q, u f �M np o�Oem®IM' �•M -M w ® LAtm CmmRmw 'I�j�`►�p pgr MM WAMM M' -Mw //■ okw�1 -IMI�L a M•Q YI q. r•MU N. 1Mlrmtl Ioo M•i0 w•• o0.w 1• 9.0ft CA "M w Me "s-4w �— mow OIIMw � /� •►.ir W IM UR 1�i�o !!�� !! �a � .OmAI 11• \Mwl 0F'f ■Mr m = aD mM rr — w•m w —Won PR$ Lw NNW Jot Agwd At* Aw AMw IM - T.ir r r- aw w 7AF-Aw __••__ w o a rm rm •is w a•m •rM Si�'iaai r1dome be- •sew MGM, M �d'iAdt ® II.M ►A Er M-10 co" al �M �w 1FM/ o•M O• P. ftmft M.M ok ® wwaft kw OL Ow SILMIN = = 0. +�i•s II pA1• •��Iit s/wr �Mm AIML r, nM BI #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 28, 1996 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 14TH) CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 96-341 REQUEST: TO APPROVE A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BOGAN VILLAS COMMERCIAL CENTER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.160 (SIGN ORDINANCE) OF THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE LOCATION: 78-120 CALLE ESTADO APPLICANT: MR. GERALD H. BOGAN REP: MRS. LUCIA MORAN SIGN CONTRACTOR: SIGNS BY MEL (MEL WACHS) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ZONING: COMMERCIAL VILLAGE "THE CORE" BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: May 14th Commission Review On May 14, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed the Master Sign program for the Bogan Villas commercial building at 78-120 Calle Estado. The Commission discussed staff recommended comments which included removal of the second story signs from the south building elevation, reduction in the size and relocation of the sign placards for the tenant spaces. A copy of the draft minutes is in the Commission's packet. The use of directory identification signs was also discussed. Most of the Commissioners supported a permanent building identification sign on Calle Estado because customers would use this street to find the building. Additionally, the Commission stated that the signs should be architecturally integrated with the building's design features. Discussion followed regarding allowing larger sign placards than recommended by staff on the wood beams (i.e., STPT.85-P 16-inches wide) and multiple signs for tenants that have more than one lease space in the building. The Commission, on a 7-0 vote, moved to continue this item to May 28, 1996, for further discussion based on testimony taken at the meeting. Proiect History On June 14, 1994, the Commission approved this two-story commercial building (approximately 6,800 sq. ft.) at the northwest corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive under Plot Plan 94-522 (Revised) by adoption of Minute Motion 94-016. The City Council accepted the Commission's approval of the case as conditioned. The construction permit for the project was issued last year, and the building was recently finished. The reduced site plan is attached (Attachment 1). The lower story is for retail or office uses, and the upper story is for office uses. The Commission approved a 39 square foot building identification sign during approval of the plot plan application in 1994. The sign is to be painted on the south side of the building facing Calle Estado reading `Kogan Villas" in stylized print (Attachment 2). Village at La Quinta Specific Plan The City Council approved the Village Plan (SP 87-009) under Ordinance 88-7 on February 2, 1988. This property is in the Area 92 of the Plan which encourages "retail uses on the ground floor and office uses above. Apartments, artists studios and workshops should also be considered as second floor uses." Chapter 6.5 (Signs) of the Village Plan describes the characteristics of the type of signs that are encouraged in the Village. The context of this Chapter is to encourage signs that are not internally illuminated and the information on the business sign is limited to the name only. A copy is attached (Attachment 3). Applicant Request On April 11, 1996, staff received a request by Mr. Bogan to establish a sign program for his commercial building at 78-120 Calle Estado. The applicant/owner requests that the Commission permit non -illuminated, flush mounted building signs for each lease space of the building (Attachments 4 and 5, Building Elevations). The 2.5-feet by 4- or 8-feet sign placards consists of a compressed wood product (Medex) with painted sign copy. The background color for each placard is tan with blue lettering and black trim. A color sample will be provided at the meeting. The signs vary in overall size from 10 to 20 square feet depending on the tenant space (Attachment 6, 7 and 8, Sign Placards). Proposed signs will be placed on the first and second floor levels of the north (facing the parking lot) and south (facing Calle Estado) building elevations. Mrs. Lucia Moran, representative for the applicant, said that the elevation drawings presented with signs would reflect the leasing program at this time. The 8' long signs are for each tenant space, and additional 4' signs are used if the tenant has more than one lease space. Specific signs for their first two tenants are included. Multiple signs are proposed for the La Quinta Antique store because the business owner leased more than one lease space on the first floor of the building. STPT.85-P Staff Comments In accordance with Section 9.160.90.M.1.3. (b)(Planned Sign Programs), of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: a. The sign program is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter; b. The sign program is in harmony with and visually related to: (1) All signs within the planned sign program, via the incorporation of several common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type or sign shape. (2) The buildings they identify. This may be accomplished by utilizing materials, colors, or design motif included in the building being identified. (3) Surrounding development. Implementation of the planned sign program will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure adjacent conforming signs. These findings combined with the sign criteria in the Village Specific Plan, Chapter 6.5.1 of SP 87- 009, are addressed as follows: The sign program is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter; The Commission and Council recently reviewed revisions to City rules and regulations for signs, and on April 2, 1996 the City Council passed Ordinance 281 establishing new sign regulations for the City. (The Sign Ordinance became effective on May 3, 1996.) The pertinent provisions for this application are: Building Mounted Signs (Table 9-3) - One flush mounted sign plus one under canopy sign per tenant frontage along a street or along common -use parking lot with no direct street frontage. The maximum sign height is eight -feet. The maximum sign area of a flush mounted sign is one sq. ft. per lineal foot of lease frontage up to 50 sq. ft. (i.e., aggregate size). An under canopy sign of 3 sq. ft. is also allowed. Identification signs are not permitted for tenants above the ground floor in buildings with only interior access above the ground floor. The remainder of the findings in the Sign Ordinance are combined with the Village sign criteria as follows: The colors, materials and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. Signs on glazed tiles with indirect lighting are to be encouraged. Back lit (box or can) signs are to be discouraged, directly illuminated signs shall be limited to individual letters. Exposed bulb or garish neon lighting is prohibited. Response: The signs are non -illuminated which is consistent with the Village Plan. The selected colors for the signs (tan, black and blue) will accent exterior white building and blue building doors. STPT.85-P Recommendation - Staff supports the sign program colors and sign placard design as submitted. 2. Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates. The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to a minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. Re ons : The preliminary sign copy provided by the applicant is consistent with the Village Specific Plan because logos and business names are used without other miscellaneous copy (i.e., excluding the three signs proposed by the Antique store). The sign placement recommended by staff in the above section would create a unified sign program for the building whereas the proposed sign locations are not architecturally compatible with the building facades. Recommendation - Staff is recommending all signs should be no greater than 1-foot in width nor exceed 8-feet in overall length. Staff recommends that all signs be either mounted on the lower level support beam between the vertical columns and hung from the under side of the support beam for the upper level tenants on the north side of the building. Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. Response: Calle Estado Elevation (south building elevation) - The signs have been placed on the facade to reflect the lease spaces proposed for this multi -tenant building. The signs are vertically centered between the different building elements (e.g., between the windows and beams building elements, etc.). Neither signs for the second floor offices nor this design layout are consistent with other previously approved sign programs. Village Core upper level offices do not have independent building mounted signs. Directory style signs are normally used to direct tenants to upstairs businesses (i.e., La Quinta Executive Office Building on Calle Estado). Additionally, the wall mounted signs are too large for placement on the building. Signs placed immediately above the Calle Estado pedestrian arcade and the second floor windows disrupts the architectural elements of the building facade. The placement of the signs, centered above the second floor windows (or offset) creates visual confusion on this primary building elevation because the building elements are symmetrical. The Commission required symmetrical building elements during the approval of the project. In the past, the Commission has supported maintaining equal distances between the sign and adjacent building elements. Additionally, the previous ID sign planned for the building solved this problem since no tenant signs would be allowed on the facade. One problem that this sign proposal may create is a disjointed program for placing signs on a building elevation based on allowing various sign sizes that do not have a proper relationship to the other building elements. STPT.85-P Recommendation - Staff is recommending mounting the first floor level retail business signs on the structural support beam for the upper level of the building between the vertical columns of the pedestrian arcade to reduce sign clutter on the building facade. Under canopy signs would have been recommended but the vertical clearance between the sidewalk and the bottom of the beam is too small for hanging 30" wide signs (i.e., 7-feet high). Secondly, staff is recommending that the second floor signs be deleted because pedestrian access was not provided from Calle Estado to the parking lot thus upstairs advertising is not critical for the future office use tenants based on the design of the building. The original building identification sign would be allowed as a supplement to the sign needs of the tenants especially the upstairs tenants. North Building Elevation (facing, the parking; 1W - The City's recently adopted Sign Ordinance does allow signs for the upstairs office tenants if access to the upstairs area is gained from exterior stairwells. This project has two outdoor stairways on the north side of the building abutting the parking lot that would permit upstairs tenants to have signs. There is a need to provide signs on this side of the building to help patrons find the upper level tenants than exists on the other side of the building. However, the proposed signs detract from the stair -stepped nature of the roof parapet, a significant feature of this building. Again, so as not to detract from the Southwest architectural features, it would be better to integrate beam mounted or under canopy signs if adequate vertical clearances can be provided. These changes would conform with the sign policies contained in the Village Plan and the newly adopted Sign Ordinance. Recommendation - Staff recommends the upper floor office uses be allowed to hang signs under the second level to identify the location of their business provided the width of each sign is uniform. This program would be similar to the existing sign program at the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center on Highway 111, west of Washington Street. Lower level tenants could have a beam mounted signs that would be consistent with the signs recommended for the front of the building, facing Calle Estado. The draft Conditions of Approval define the allowable limits of signs for this building (Condition #3). 4. Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. Identification signs of a prototype design and corporation logos shall conform to the criteria for all other signs. Response: Many existing buildings on Calle Estado either were built in the last few years or are more than 20 years old. The adjacent building, which houses Anchovies' Pizzeria, was built approximately four years ago. This single story building has an approved canvas canopy on the front of the building with painted sign copy on the front of the canopy with back lighting on the underside of the canopy. The multi -story building to the west of Anchovies' that houses the La Quinta Library has wood sandblasted signs with painted copy on the sign placard for lower level businesses. Due to the stairway access on Calle Estado signs are permitted on the second floor. The other buildings in the area have painted signs on the building or wood signs with painted sign copy. STPT.85-P Recommendation - Staff supports signs made of wood or other durable materials that are flush mounted to the building surface (i.e., a support beam) or hung on the underside of the second level on the north building elevation. These signs are designed to be consistent with other existing business signs for the shops along Calle Estado, as modified. Staff Comments on May 14th Meetin¢ At the May 14th meeting, staff recommended reducing the number and size of the signs because the site is not on a major arterial street where vehicle traffic is passing through the area at speeds of 50 mph (e.g., Highway 111) and needs larger signs. Commercial businesses along major arterials should be allowed to have signs that can be visible from the street on which they are located. However, Calle Estado is a local street in the La Quinta Village which is planned as a pedestrian friendly area with commercial and office businesses setback from the street only 10-feet for lower level retail businesses and on the property line for upstairs office tenants. A sign program allows flexibility in not only maintaining compatibility with adjacent businesses but also in developing an innovative program that architecturally compliments the building design. Staff recommends the following changes: For lower level Calle Estado signs, sign placards shall be 16-inches in width and not exceed 10-feet in length (i.e., 15 sq. ft.). 2. Tenants that have more than 60-feet of lease frontage on one side of the building (two or more lease spaces) shall have two building signs not to exceed an aggregate 20 sq. ft. CONCLUSION: By limiting the number of signs on the building, the building's architectural features will not be diminished thus enhancing its character and overall relationship with the other. downtown businesses. The sign modifications recommended by staff will enforce the policies and goals of the Village Specific Plan which encourages a pedestrian environment. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 96- , approve the Bogan Villas Master Sign Program under Sign Application 96-341, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments 1. Site Plan 2. Original Sign Exhibit - Bogan Villas 3. Chapter 6.5 of SP 87-009 (Village Plan) 4. Calle Estado Building Elevation (Front) 5. Parking Lot Building Elevation (Rear) 6-8. Sign Exhibits STPT.85-P Prepared by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner ' Submitted by: p 'Ole Cori di lorio, Planning Manager STPT.85-P CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPLICATION 96-341 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR BOGAN VILLAS MAY 28, 1996 FINDINGS: The Master Sign Program is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a), Class 11 which allows placement of minor accessory structures to existing commercial facilities (i.e., on -premise signs, etc.). 2. The Master Sign Program (SA 96-341) for the Bogan Villas commercial center as conditioned is consistent with the provisions of the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan (SP 87- 009) and Sign Ordinance (Chapter 9.160) in that the proposed signs limit how much copy information is provided on each sign placard to the name and/or logo of the business. The graphics and colors are consistent with other existing signs along Calle Estado provided the following Conditions of Approval are imposed. CONDITIONS• That the approval of this request shall be subject to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, as amended. 2. That before issuance of a Building Permit for installation of the signs, the property owner/leasing agent for the center, shall review and approve the sign exhibit for each tenant space to insure compliance with the approved sign program. Permits for signs shall be consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code in effect at that time. The Community Development Department shall approve all final sign exhibits. 3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the following modifications shall be made to the Master Sign Program for the center: A. Exterior exposed signs for second floor office tenants shall be limited to the north building elevation. All second floor level signs shall be bracketed to the under side of the structural support member of the covered walkway. If upper level signs are not installed, a directory sign can be installed for these tenants if the property owner deems it necessary (See Table 9-3 of the Sign Ordinance). B. All signs for first floor retail business tenants shall be mounted on the horizonal wood beam which supports the cantilevered portion of the two-story building. All tenant signs will be centered between the vertical support columns along the pedestrian arcade. Cond.341-a C. The business identification signs shall be reduced to 16-inches in width and not exceed 10-feet in overall length. D. One business identification sign shall be permitted for each tenant space. Tenants that have more than 60-feet of lease frontage on one side of the building (two or more lease spaces) shall have two building signs not to exceed an aggregate 20 square feet. Accessory under canopy signs along the Calle Estado arcade are also permitted per Subitem F. E. No signs are allowed to face toward Desert Club Drive. F. Pedestrian arcade signs (under canopy signs) are permissible provided the sign matches the design style/color of the main sign(s) and does not exceed three square feet. The height of the sign from the ground to the bottom of the sign placard is T- 6". These signs shall be placed perpendicular to the storefront. 4. The placard material (Medex) shall be sealed and painted as required by the manufacture to withstand the climatic conditions of this area. The Planning Commission shall review any future amendments to the Master Sign Program proposed by the property owner as required by Chapter 9.160.090(M4) of the Municipal Code. 6. The revised document shall be stamped approved by the Community Development Department and filed with this case and Plot Plan 94-522 (Revised). Cond.341-a 3,1111 (pal fb< z NMI -�j�i\6 33j$$kky fs QQ IIt k�.0 t1 pry_ �6o S5�' 9�iidti I !ATTACHMENT 1 0 I�YI kI �I dI'I �I Drive 9w� -- — I w F+ q...� Z►pp—,, •r W !V 96 O Z � Or 0 b °• �oo r, U [*j co U r �X'l ❑ x1 �I ❑ i rx ❑ Ally 1 Ix F� I .ay.rs .ostiw � a�+k WE I ell 1 �1 11 D000 O 00 000 ATTACHMENT 2 P uV ATTACHMENT 3 6.5 Signs - Village Plan 6.5.1 Building Signs - Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. -• Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates. •- The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. - Signs on glazed the with indirect lighting are to be encouraged. - Back lit (box or can) signs are to be discouraged, directly illuminated signs shall be limited to individual letters. Exposed bulb or garish neon lighting is prohibited. - The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to the minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. - Accessory signs shall be given the same careful consideration of approval as that given for main signs. - Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. - Identification signs of a prototype design and corporation logos shall conform to the criteria for all other signs. OOK STORE FBOUT=i RESTAURANT I QQ4 Mom] ATTACHMENT 4 I ACH-N4ENT 5 0 Ul 4- R3 ATTACHMENT 6 OR ATTACHMENT 7 011. iv) ATTACHMENT 8 A a ntRoquaR -+. r 30 is sca fe : j it= j a F�-Ij MAR, MEMORANDUM DATE: May 24, 1996 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Bogan Villas sign program alternatives Planning Commissioner, Paul Anderson, sent the Department design alternatives for Bogan Villa's sign program. Please find the graphics attached. an am am am am= MWO amMl, OR :mm am= low! INNS, INN ANN INS! INN �15AVIAN!, ISO I wool won l loss ogo a MW-5-1 il[LVMNE§k-r- I I aLO r14 N None: [maxim BI#2 DATE: CASE NO.: REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANT: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 1996 STREET VACATION 96-029 DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH PROPOSED STREET VACATION. STREETS WITHIN TRACT MAP NO. 25154 — VIA MELODIA, RIO ARENOSO, CASA DEL RIO, AND RIO SECO. T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to State law', prior to street vacations or public easements being vacated by the City Council, the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the Planning Commission. The street improvements within the proposed vacation area, Tract No. 25154, were completed to the satisfaction of the City, and accepted by the City Council on July 26, 1993. The completed street section comprises a right of way width of 60 feet, with 40 feet of paved travelway (3" asphalt concrete pavement over 4" Class II aggregate base), and 5 foot sidewalks. Additionally, underground utilities were installed and accepted by the respective utility companies for maintenance and operation. Government Code Section 65402 F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-029\96-029.WPD Page 1 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The petitioner of this street vacation, the Rancho La Quinta developer, desires to convert Via Melodia, Rio Arenoso, Casa Del Rio, and Rio Seco to "private" streets, to be maintained by a homeowner's association (see Attachment 1). The petitioner intends to combine this tract with the Rancho La Quinta development. There are two existing access routes into this tract, Rio Seco and Via Melodia (emergency vehicles only). The petitioner proposes to construct a private gate entrance at the Rio Seco entrance, approximately 163.44 feet east of Date Palm Drive. In the future, the Via Melodia entrance, which connects this tract to Parc La Quinta (Tract No. 21555-3), may be walled off and no longer be used as access for emergency vehicles. A second access route into this tract is planned over one of the lots adjacent to Rio Seco along the northerly boundary of the tract. When combined with Rancho La Quinta, a future street will be constucted to connect to Rio Seco across an existing lot within the tract. This access route will not be gated; it will be an open extension of existing and future streets within Rancho La Quinta. In this way, there will exist two access routes into this tract, both of which will be utilized by residents and emergency vehicles alike. Currently, this tract only has one access route available to future residents. As generally indicated on Attachment 2, the point of beginning for the street vacation of Rio Seco is shown, as well as a preliminary plan for arranging the private gate entrance. As can be seen on this attachment, access to parcels within the adjacent Parcel Map No. 27681 has not been affected. 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 March 20, 1996, staff mailed notices to all public agencies, informing them of the proposed vacation. Several utility companies responded with requests for 24-hour access and easements to operate and maintain their existing public utilities. Other than the easement reservations, no negative comments have been received to date. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed street vacations will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, because ultimately the planned use of these rights of way will not change; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will have no physical environmental effect. F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-029\96-029.WPD Page 2 of 4 2. The segments of street right of way proposed for vacation are local residential streets, not identified as components of the La Quinta General Plan, its Circulation Element, or any adopted specific plan. 3. The street vacations will not impact public utility agencies, provided 24-hour access is allowed and easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion adopt the findings that the vacation of the street right of way easements are in compliance with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Fan, and that the City Council consider for inclusion in the vacation resolution those conditions outlined within Exhibit A. Prepared by: DAVID M. COSPER, Public Works Director Submitted by: t CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planni g Manager M F/mf Attachments: #1 — Street Vacation Case No. 96-029 - General Vicinity Map #2 — Rio Seco Proposed Gated Entrance F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-029\96-029.WPD Page 3 of 4 Exhibit A Conditions Proposed for Inclusion in Vacation Resolution 1. Two points of access into Tract No. 25154 shall be maintained at all times. If the petitioner intends to wall off the Via Melodia access point, then the petitioner shall first provide for, plan, and construct an alternate access point to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. 2. An improvement plan for the Rio Seco gated entrance shall be submitted to the City for approval by City staff. The plan shall include landscaping and the arrangement of the perimeter and landscaping walls, as well as the arrangement and configuration of the gates, card key pedestal, and associated equipment. 3. Application for the merger of Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 25154 shall be submitted by the petitioner if access from Lot 1 to the public street portion of Rio Seco is prohibited. 4. The Resolution of Vacation shall be invalid if the underlying rights to the vacated street rights of way are not granted, conveyed, or transferred to a Homeowner's Association. 5. The City shall retain unto itself easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of required improvements which are located contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-029\96-029.WPD Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 0 W g p o '�a - ' v wg O fA = a o NNN kk$$J a w o 00 � Q O •O oe� , ?2�4 e:4G N 0028'2S"w 558.a1' few r.+.u/,swt—.------- N 0021r25" W — — — — — 7f ol, — — — — — — — — — 3d 31 ;x� I ( �aa osroes) ,88'089 M ..SZ ,8Z 0 N fill I 31rd� I'" N N n T-- w o@ v 1 1 n o �j to I IL N to^ rn n n O I W c d N P d% 1 I n, ;I n r O I oa C •� p n 0 In O y J IP + h vi lot N n o o ^Z• Jj m 00 ball a N ^_ m 00 » 5 �, ° 00 N , w to in kn o •cam N O m m / to 'Q I/ �1 _ Ct �• 0, h m m m m 6n tO N m M fA to a a in ah Cd to m m h to to to Ln W v In to to n in IN ,� N °+ v �I� to w CP ,I13 0 3av la N \ In t, vi0 o vl n o m m h to » v ? be, m` Z g eiif! el T 1 coal o.e arcs/ e,L9 ES9 00•TL9 _ L��>fZST 1 .SZ.O N ./ \` / I I yl im.9Z i i ! / 4Q; I I gm ZT 'ON Au 11 I f 11��' 1-SSS Z-9991Z'ON d N ill S-SSSTZ 'ON 21.1 91-11 I II I ATTACHMENT 2 SCALE : f" = 60' p TRACT No. 21555-3 PROPOSED MERGER LOTS 1 k 2 1 BEGINNING OF STREET VACATION O 2 PROPOSED GARDEN WALL I/ SAGEBRUSH 16co _ T• AVE. .� 1C �RCE I w PAR, 25 I 26 I w PAR. AA c W". W- 74-lo El PAM SJf,E .3 PHONE (6,Y) w-um/sm--out A/ t C g, PROPOSED 10, GATES PROPOSED 6' GARDEN WALL l___ STEPPED WALL TO 30" HIGH PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA REMAINDER PARCEL IIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PROPOSED GATED ENTRANCE TRACT No. 25154 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 14, 1996 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 Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. B. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - General Plan Amendment 96-052 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050; a request of the City for certification of the Environmental Assessment, approval of the General Plan Land Use Element Text Amendment, and update of Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and a recommendation to repeal various Municipal Code Chapters. 1. 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 a fax had been received from the Building Industry Association addressing five items they still have a concern with. As the fax was received late, staff has not responded to the concerns. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff, there being none, the public hearing was opened. PC5-14 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 3. Mr. Robert Kuhl, Monroe Street, stated he was still concerned about the Equestrian Overlay. It was his opinion that the City was attempting to legislate a situation that is not evident. There has been no problem with the zoning except for this one neighborhood dispute and it is taking a toll on the entire equestrian area. This dispute needs to be handled in the court, not by the City. He would recommend that staff reconsider some of their changes. 4. Mr. Sonny Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson, La Quinta, stated he agreed with Mr. Kuhl that his area should have a special equestrian zoning rather than involving the entire community. His requests were not meant to affect all the equestrian facilities. No accommodations have been made to address his concerns. Why couldn't a more flexible zoning be placed next to his approved residential tract? The requirement for an inner fence, which he believes is the most crucial, is still not addressed. Is the City prepared to share the increased exposure to injury and liability on his fence? Now they are facing the issue of lights and loud speakers and as it is not addressed in the Equestrian Overlay District, staff states that it cannot be denied. Again not enough time or effort has been spent to address all the issues. The lights should have netting on the west and east facing properties to maintain the Dark Sky Ordinance. Weekends should be declared free zones with no equestrian activities so they can enjoy their lifestyle. If this is allowed all seven days there is no relief for him. Loud speakers have not been addressed. This could hav;, been controlled through the conditional use permit process that would require this equestrian facility to be conditioned. 5. Mr. Marvin Roos, Building Industry Association, apologized for responding so late to the changes that had been made since the last meeting and thanked the Commission for their patience. He felt there were only a couple of areas still to discuss. 1.) The areas of major concern have to do with the increased setback requirements. Sideyard setbacks on small lots, cul-de-sacs in particular, would be difficult to construct, especially for two story units. They would suggest leaving the existing 5 yard setback for lots less than 10,000 square feet. There is ambiguity of how an irregular lot is defined on the rear setback. The restrictions on gate widths, limits the property owner on how he can access his property. A thirty-six inch gate does not allow certain types of equipment to pass through. 2.) They are also concerned with the requirement for additional parking. A four bedroom home has a 5-1/2 parking requirement. In reference to Table 9-11 for guest parking, they would like to know what supports the differences in the number of spaces required. The number stated seems too high. They would suggest eliminating the requirement for additional parking for four bedrooms and up; guest parking be limited to 2.5 spaces per unit; support the reduction in PC5-14 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 parking for shopping centers and hotels; and entitlements should be allowed to continue. Cost factors regarding the parking requirements do add to the development costs at a time when the industry is trying to find a combination that will be financially viable. The General Plan changes regarding development intensity make the General Plan weak when the General Plan references the Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance and not the reference. The General Plan should be first and have strength and be able to stand up in a court of law. Currently there is Director approval of compatibility when a tract is submitted and now it is Commission approval. This should remain with the Director. 6. Mrs. Louise Tyler, 44-215 Villeta Drive, stated her concern regarding recreational vehicle parking that is being allowed. Currently in her neighborhood, there are 46 violations of current City Codes of various natures, involving RVs. There are 34 assorted trailers parked at homes in various locations. The new Code requirements allow an RV to be parked in a driveway for 72 hours. How will staff be able to enforce this new code? The allowing of habitation in trailers for seven days for guest parking is causing their neighborhood to turn into a trailer park which is unattractive. Zoning Code revisions should be addressed with enough foresight so that revisions are not needed in the future. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 8. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a number of comments and criticisms of the new Code, especially regarding the RV requirements, and if they were allowed to remain he could not vote in favor in it. 9. Commissioner Newkirk stated he had no comment. 10. Commissioner Gardner stated that from the comments that had been made, people are of the opinion that the Ordinance as it is being written is set in concrete. The local level of government is flexible, and even though a lot of time has been spent revising this document, it is a document that can work and be changed if necessary. 11. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with Commissioner Gardner. 12. Commissioner Barrows stated she had no comment. PC5-14 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 13. Commissioner Anderson stated there had been some very good points raised. He thanked staff for the amount of work that had gone into the document. He would, however, like to address, in detail, some of the questions that had been raised. 14. Chairman Abels reiterated that this document is not set in concrete, but it is a document that can be used to allow the City to move forward. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Resolution 96-012 recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 96-318 prepared for General Plan Amendment 96-052 and Zoning Ordinance 96-050. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Staff asked to make a recommendation that the setbacks on Table 9-6-Non Residential Development Standards Section 9.90.040, for the minimum perimeter landscaping setbacks, be changed to be consistent with the General Plan Policy 3-4.1.11. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Resolution 96-013 recommending to the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment. 18. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about allowing the seven day habitable RV parking and emphasized that seven days could be a burden on the neighborhood. He would like to amend the motion to state that, Article 9.60.130.C.2. "that the use of recreational vehicles for habitation be temporary only and shall not exceed three days....". City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that his issue and the staff s issue of setbacks, would apply to the resolution adopting the Zoning Ordinance and not the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC5-14 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Resolution 96-014 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050 relating to the Zoning Code, replacing existing Title 9 and deletion of Chapters 5.36, 5.37, 5.64, 5.68, and a portion of Chapter 5.72 and Section 6.08.105 per Exhibits, with modifications to Table 9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Policy 3-4.1.11 of the Land Use Element and Article 9.60.130.C.2 be amended to read "...that the use of recreational vehicles for habitation be temporary only and shall not exceed three days...". 20. Commissioner Tyler stated he had major concerns regarding Section 9.60.130-Recreational Vehicle Parking. It is difficult to interpret and regressive by allowing things that previously were banned by City Codes, such as parking in the front yards. Section 9.100.210-Noise Control in Residential Areas has been made the same as industrial zones and not defined in laymen terms so the individual resident can interpret the document. Finally, Section 9.170-Communication Towers. This section needs to be reviewed and updated by a competent authority to afford adequate protection from and compliance with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, as the newest member to the Planning Commission, he did not want to be an obstruction or unduly delay the adoption of the proposed changes, however, he could not vote for revisions for key areas that he is not comfortable with and therefore he would vote no. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Tentative Tract 26768; a request of Dietrich and Ingrid Werner for approval of a one year time extension for the subdivision of 20 acres into 21 single family and amenity lots on the west side of Monroe Street, one quarter mile north of Airport Boulevard. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler questioned Conditions #41, a word has been left out does this mean the existing power lines along Monroe Street would stay in place. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell explained that the existing high voltage lines would remain unless they can be undergrounded by Imperial Irrigation District. In addition, Condition #46, requires a 22 foot maximum building height, where another tract to be reviewed tonight requires a 20-foot PC5-14 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 building height. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell explained that these conditions were made in the late 1980's and at that time, tracts did have different height requirements based on the surrounding heights of existing houses. Commissioner Tyler stated that Condition #47 appears to have a word left out and should read "all homes with sloped roofs shall have clay or concrete tiles". Condition #50 is in contradiction to itself. Landscaping is required to be installed and then in the last sentence a security deposit is allowed. Associate Planner Greg Trousell explained it was to allow the property owner the flexibility. Commissioner Anderson suggested combining the two sentences and make it obvious that it is either/or. Commissioner Anderson questioned Conditions #55 and #48. The existing tract calls for 21 lots consisting of minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet. Currently the existing tract has lots below the minimum required, therefore is it conceivable that they can get 20 lots no less than 20,000 square feet. Is it staff s intention is to have the map reworked to incorporate 20 lots instead of 21 by increasing the size of the lots. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated this would allow them flexibility, but they cannot exceed that number. Discussion followed regarding the arrangement of the lots and amenities that could be allowed. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated that this was being reviewed by the City Council for removal of the Rural Overlay. If this is approved, are they back to 21 lots. Staff stated this was true but it would depend on what the Council determines. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Dietrich Werner, applicant, stated they had no objections to the conditions. 6. Commissioner Anderson stated that one of the Conditions of Approval required that there would be no more than 20 lots. If the extension is approved, the project could have no more than 20 lots. Mr. Werner stated he had no objection. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to adopt Resolution 96-015 recommending to the City Council approval of a one year time extension for Tentative Tract 26768 (First Extension) to allow a 21-lot single family residential land sales subdivision on approximately 20 acres, subject to the amended conditions. PC5-14 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked for clarification on Condition #50 that it was the Commission's intention to combine the condition for readability purposes only. The Commission concurred. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Tentative Tract 27899 (Extension #1), a request of Century -Crowell Communities for approval of a one year time extension for a subdivision of 30.3 gross acres into I I I single family lots. 1. 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 Tyler asked staff to identify the location of the retention basin. Staff explained that the drainage would have to be provided whether or not it was on site. 3. Commissioner Anderson asked if the drainage to the basin was to be surface drainage. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the drainage is via the streets until it collects at a catch basin near the cross street adjacent to the retention basin. Staff went on to explain the flow of the drainage. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Brian Esgate, Esgate Engineering representing the applicant, stated they had no objection to the conditions as recommended by staff. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was the ability to create enough fall in the street to create surface drainage. Mr. Esgate stated that all three tracts were designed incrementally and each additional tract was designed to have the drainage flow to the one large area. The streets were designed to adequately handle the run-off for a 100-year storm. Discussion followed regarding the construction of the drainage system. 6. Commissioner Tyler questioned the location of Victoria Drive. It appears that there is no room for this street without running through the houses. Mr. Esgate explained that the street lines up with INCO's main entry. PC5-14 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 7. There being no further discussion, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to adopt Resolution 96-016 recommending to the City Council approval of a -first one year time extension for Tentative Tract 27899 to allow a I I I -lot single family residential land sales subdivision on approximately 30+ acres, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Sign Application 96-341; a request of Mr. Gerald Bogan for approval of a master sign program for the newly constructed Bogan Villas Commercial building. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Newkirk asked staff to identify the location of the signs on the building. 3. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was to be a flat sign with no relief. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated it was his understanding they were io be flat and painted. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked what the size of the signs for the pedestrian arcade along Calle Estado were anticipated to be. Staff explained they would be less than half the size of the other signs and would be hung by chains. Commissioner Tyler asked about the directory signs being located in the rear instead of the signs on the second floor. Staff stated there was a provision in the Sign Code for directory signs for two story buildings. Discussion during the study session indicated the possibility of having directory signs instead of signs on the second story. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mrs. Lucia Moran, leasing agent for Bogan Villas, stated that the original sign approved for Bogan Villas had been changed from a single sign identification building to individual tenant signage. She further stated the signs were originally designed to go on the stucco portion of the south elevation, but staff changed the location to the wood beam along the pedestrian arcade. Their current tenant, La Quinta Village Antiques, did not want a single large sign, but rather three signs identifying the store and what they sell. The additional four foot sign is to be PC5-14 8 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 used for the retail stores downstairs. The exhibit shows the sign program to be flush on the white stucco wall with a black border. If the signs are to be placed on the wood beams, they will not be seen, they are designed for the white stucco. She believes the Library building next door has signs on the upstairs units. As to the exact placement of the signs, they have no objection, but the upstairs offices need to be seen from the street. The owner of the building does not want the upstairs signs lowered to the pedestrian walkway. He is willing to remove his Bogan Villa sign in order to allow the tenants to identify their businesses. If they are allowed to only have a one foot high sign with two rows, the letters will not be large enough to be seen from the street. 6. Commissioner Anderson clarified that staff s recommendation is not for the materials, but the manner in which they are hung. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the owner not wanting to identify the building which would make it easier to identify and locate a business. Mrs. Moran stated that most people will not even see the front of the building. It was her belief that most patrons would be entering from Desert Club and would enter to the north of the building as there were no stairwells to the upstairs on Calle Estado. 8. Commissioner Newkirk asked what the address would be for the tenants on the second floor. Mrs. Moran stated the numbers for the downstairs would be Suites 101-104 and the upstairs Suites would be 201-208. The addresses would be hand painted on 4"X 4" tiles that would be placed next to the entrance of each door. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the addresses for the second floor would have a Calle Estado address. Mrs. Moran stated they would. Discussion followed regarding the addresses and how patrons would gain access to the building. 9. Commissioner Anderson asked how many tenant parking spaces would be allowed. Mrs. Moran replied that the number of parking spaces was determined by square footage. Commissioner Anderson asked how many tenants could ultimately be allowed in this building. Mrs. Moran stated that if the building were broken down to 250 square foot offices, they could have 16 businesses. However, this is not what the clientele is looking for. Commissioner Anderson asked how many parking spaces existed. Mrs. Moran stated she believed there were 27. Commissioner Anderson stated the Commission should be considering what the ultimate number of tenants could be. They need to determine what the total amount of allowable signage could be. Discussion followed regarding different sign combinations that could be applicable. PC5-14 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 10. Commissioner Tyler asked Mrs. Moran if the Planning Commission required the signs to be placed on the wood beam, could the color scheme of the signs could be changed to allow hanging them on the wood beam. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated that if they chose to change the color, staff could approve minor changes. Mrs. Moran stated that if the sign is to be on the wood, one foot in height for the sign would not be adequate. If the Commission is going to require the signage on the beam, which is 24-inches, they would request the entire 24-inches for signage. 11. Chairman Abels asked how much deviation from the Sign Ordinance they were requesting. Mrs. Moran stated that as she interpreted the Ordinance, they would not exceed the square footage allowed. 12. Commissioner Butler asked if the signs were to be illuminated. Mrs. Moran stated they would not be illuminated. She further stated the staff report did not allow for any type of sign except the name of the business. For example, La Quinta Antiques is the name of the business, but they sell antiques and collectibles. 13. Commissioner Anderson stated he thought the signs were determined by the size of the store frontage. If a tenant has leased three tenant spaces they could have three signs. Staff stated the Ordinance only allows one actual sign for each business unless they apply for and receive a sign adjustment. 14. Commissioner Anderson stated he was very opposed to this sign program in the Village. It would be a travesty to "lick and stick" these signs on the buildings He agreed with staff, that no signage should be allowed on the second floor on the south elevation. The stores that have access on the south need their signage on the south. He would not be opposed to placing the second floor tenants on the wood header on this elevation. This would lets the building stand and not clutter the facade. Most patrons looking for the building will travel down Calle Estado and look for the building identification sign. There should be a directory sign on the stair towers on the north elevation where it is appropriate, and small individual tenant signs at each tenant door applied to the wall. The Commission needs to respect what is wanted in the Village. Signage that is applied to the south elevation should be on the wood header. Keep the clutter to the minimum. 15. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Anderson. PC5-14 10 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 16. Commissioner Gardner stated he also agreed. The building creates an image and they would be diminishing the quality of the building by adding signs all over the place. He was opposed to the signs as proposed and was not opposed to the recommendations of staff. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he too was concerned about the location and size of the addresses to be placed on the building. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated originally it was to be on the signs. He also thought that if the signs were to be placed on the wood header the Commission might negotiate on the size between 18 and 24 inches. 18. Commissioner Barrows asked about the size of the sign. Commissioner Newkirk stated that he would not be opposed to a larger size. Commissioner Anderson stated he too would agree with 16 or 18 inches. Discussion followed regarding the size of the sign. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 96-019, to approve Sign Application 96-341, subject to staff s recommendations and findings and conditions with an amendment to Condition OC allowing the business identification signs to be 18 inches in height and not to exceed 8 feet in overall length. Commissioner Butler asked if additional signs would be allowed by a 'tenant leasing multiple spaces. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if the Commission wanted to allow additional signs, they would need to amend the motion at this time. Staff suggested a condition be added stating that if a tenant leases more than three units, it is the option of the tenant to have one additional sign 18-inches by 8 feet. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated that the finding would be that the Commission required the signs to be placed on the beam and the beam is limited in width to where the sign could go therefore by allowing the additional sign it would qualify for a sign adjustment. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned about setting a precedent. If a tenant leases additional space there should be an allowance for ancillary signs, but as he is unsure how it could be handled, they shouldn't act quickly. Staff suggested the project be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Gardner suggested amending the motion to state that if a tenant leases additional units, he would be allowed an additional sign or signs, but the total signage could not exceed 12 square feet. Commissioner Barrows asked what the size of the sign would be. Commissioner Gardner stated it would be 18 feet X 4 feet. Commissioner Anderson stated it appeared that the Planning Commission was trying to approve a sign program that had been submitted PC5-14 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 and changed so dramatically during the course of the meeting from what had been submitted. He was prepared to make a motion to approve a sign program that is entirely the opposite of what was submitted. The motion before the Planning Commission however, is to approve a sign program that he is opposed to. Chairman Abels suggested that due to the confusion, the best option would be to withdraw the motion. Commissioner Barrows withdrew her motion. Commissioner Gardner stated that as the maker of the second on the motion he was very reluctant to withdraw his second, but would do so in the interest of harmony. Unanimously approved. 19. Mr. Gerald Bogan, owner of the building, addressed the Commission regarding comments contained in the staff report. He stated he did not want to have a building identification on the building as it was gaudy and didn't impress him. Under applicant request, it appears that staff is using the La Quinta Executive Office building signage as an example of how the Village signage should be. There are a variety of signs throughout the Village area and he was concerned about the harmony of these signs as compared to what is being proposed for his building. He has no problem reducing the sign from the 30-inch height to 24-inches and placing them on the beam. He did not agree that one tenant who is leasing more than one space should be allowed to have additional signs. If that tenant moves out and the one unit again becomes three, he would need a sign for each. He was therefore requesting one sign over each space whether a tenant takes one or three spaces. Staff's recommendations should be based on the requirements of the Code, not what staff wants. The owner should have some say as to what is allowed on his building. He was concerned that second story signs will not be allowed on the south elevation. The only way to find the business is to drive down the alley to see who is occupying the second floors. Calle Estado is the main street and signs should be allowed on the second story to identify who is occupying the space. 20. Chairman Abels asked if Mr. Bogan had spoken with staff regarding their recommendations. Mr. Bogan stated he had not received the staff report until two days earlier. He was willing to work out these problems, but he was tired of someone else running his building. Staff was not citing Code sections to justify their recommendation, but stating what they wanted. 21. Commissioner Butler asked if the owner was asking for signage on the south and north sides. Mr. Bogan stated yes, a small sign above the walkway to identify the suites upstairs. The downstairs did not need signage on the north as they will be identified by their physical number. The second story only needs signage on the south elevation. PC5-14 12 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 22. Commissioner Tyler stated it was unfortunate that Mr. Bogan had missed the first part of the meeting as most of his comments had been raised and discussed earlier. Commissioner Tyler stated Mr. Bogan no longer wanted the building identification sign, there currently is no address on the building to identify it, and he had a problem with the rationale that a sign is needed to state what businesses are located within the building. Most businesses are conducted by referral. Mr. Bogan stated that referrals could be a major part of a businesses success, but he did not feel it was fair to the tenant to have to depend on all his business coming from referrals. The Bogan Villa sign was gaudy in his opinion, so he dropped it, but he may bring it back if it does not detract from the tenant signage. 23. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed with Mr. Bogan's opinion of the other signs in the Village. Of the examples presented by Mr. Bogan, there was no example of what the Commission wanted in the Village. However, he is opposed to the proposal because it also is not a good image for the Village. He is opposed to the sign clutter on the building, and disagrees that the success of a business is due to the signage. Staff has tried to reach a compromise between the sign program submitted and something that would be acceptable to what the Commission's views are for the Village. The building owner should have the right to do what the Code requires, but then there would be no need for the Planning Commission. The Commission is here to approve a sign program and lend their expertise to improve the process. Mr. Bogan stated that if he was asking for more signage than what was allowed, then the Planning Commission should intervene. He was not, however, asking for more square footage than what is allowed by the Code, but disagreeing with the location of where staff is recommending the signs be placed. He had a problem with the size recommended by staff. He prefers 24-inches for the height of the signs on Calle Estado, each suite having the option of having a sign, and the upstairs businesses having a sign on Calle Estado to identify their business. Staff should not make the determination as to where the sign is located. Commissioner Anderson stated that staff has the option to bring all aspects of the proposed project to the Planning Commission for their approval. Mr. Bogan stated it should not be the decision of the Planning Commission to determine the location of the sign. He is trying to make the sign program fit within the Sign Code and be harmonious with the Village. He is trying to stay within the Code and other businesses are not being required to comply with the Code. Commissioner Anderson stated that the part Mr. Bogan is not understanding is that the Planning Commission does have a say regarding the entire sign program process. PC5-14 13 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 24. Chairman Abels suggested this item be continued. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission has to consider the total number of tenants that will be allowed. Mr. Bogan asked that the Planning Commission not continue the application, but vote yes or no. He would like to take it on to City Council. 25. Chairman Abels stated that due to the amount of added information given at this meeting the Planning Commission needs to reconsider the information. 26. Commissioner Anderson stated there is a provision in the current sign regulations for temporary signage to be installed until a sign program is approved. Mr. Bogan stated he had one sign manufacturer and he wanted all signs for the building to be the same. 27. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify Condition #3.D. which states each tenant would have one business identification sign. Staff stated that as the Sign Code reads, one identification sign is allowed per business. 28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Gardner to continue Sign Application 96-341 to May 28, 1996 to allow the Planning Commission time to review the proposed changes to the sign program. Unanimously approved B. Sign Application 96-344 ; a request of the La Quinta Car Wash for approval of three signs for the La Quinta Car Wash requiring three modifications to the One Eleven La Quinta Center sign program. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. James Jarnigan, applicant, stated he wanted to give La Quinta the best car wash he could. The building is so large that 24-inch high letters for the signs, as recommended by staff, would be lost. The Car Wash sign is what is important and if the total amount of square footage is what is important, then he would remove the "La Quinta" wording and ask for the 30" letters and 50 square feet. On the south elevation he offered the Art in Public Places the option of placing a mural on the 16 X 30-foot frontage. He was not asking for anything that is not already allowed in the Center. Mr. Jarnigan proceeded to give examples of existing signs in the Center. PC5-14 14 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 3. Commissioner Barrows asked if the applicant intended to remove the wording "La Quinta" from all elevations. Mr. Jarnigan stated he would like to have them all the same. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not believe anyone would mistake this building for anything except a car wash if the signs were not giant in size. Mr. Jarnigan stated his previous experience has proven they would. Discussion followed regarding the signs. 5. Commissioner Anderson stated he liked the "La Quinta" being a part of the sign, however he is not prepared to go beyond the allowed 50 square feet. Thirty inch letters are not necessary. He would consider dropping the "La Quinta" and just have the "Carwash" sign. No problem with the lettering of "La Quinta". He would rather have the "La Quinta" on the sign and reduce the size of the sign. The "exit only" sign should be located in front of the driveway. Mr. Jarnigan stated there was a long planter to prevent any entrance at this location. 6. Commissioner Barrows stated she also liked the "La Quinta" on the signage and maybe on the north elevation it may be a possibility to keep it. 7. Commissioner Butler stated that since the "La Quinta" was not illuminated, he had no objection to the sign as submitted by the applicant. Since it was not illuminated it would not detract. 8. Commissioner Gardner stated he went along with staff's recommendation. 9. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Butler. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he also would like to see the "La Quinta" retained and he had no objection to the applicant's request. 11. Chairman Abels stated he also had no objection to the applicant's request. However, he would like to see the signage at the Center controlled. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 96-016 to approve Sign Application 96-344, as submitted. The motion carried on a 5-2 vote with Commissioners Anderson and Gardner voting no. PC5-14 15 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 23, 1996. There being no corrections to the Minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Barrows to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meetings of April 30, 1996 and May 7, 1996. B. Department update - no report VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Anderson to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on May 28, 1996. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:59 P.M. Unanimously approved. PC5-14 16