The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 03 27 PCT4t!t 4 4 " Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.lawww.lag uii ta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California MARCH 27, 2007 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2007-013 Beginning Minute Motion 2007-007 CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 13, 2007. B. Approval of the Minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Community. Services Commission of March 13, 2007. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW, Aoc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. 3 Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-577, SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-074 AMENDMENT #1, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34642 Applicant......... Trans West Housing, Inc. Location........... West of Madison Street, east of Monroe Street, and South of Avenue 54 Request ........... Consideration of an amendment to the Specific Plan to increase the clubhouse from 8,000 square feet to 21,204 square feet and a d ith Tentative Tract Map to provide an additio 190 sin a family lots and ±7 acres of landscaped, rec al open space to the existing residential development. Action .............. Resolution 2007- BUSINESS ITEMS: None. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of March 20, 2007 ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on April 10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer; Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, was posted on the outside -entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, March 23, 2007. DATED: March 23, 2007 BE Y W ER, Exece Secretary City o a Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc LA QUINTA COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MINUTES March 13, 2007 A joint meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission and Community Services Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by. Chairman Quill Chairman Quill led the Pledge of Allegiance. PLANNING ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Jim Engle, and Chairman Quill ABSENT: None COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Leidner, Long, Sylk, and Chairman Weber ABSENT: Commissioners Gassman and Sylk Staff Present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Community Services Director Edie Hylton, Golf and Park landscape Manager Steve Howlett, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed STUDY SESSION A. Presentation by Karen Badalamenti Greenplay LLC on the La Quinta Community Attitude and Interest Citizen Survey prepared for the Community Services Master Plan. 1. Ms. Badalamenti reviewed the following areas of the Master Plan: Review of the Mission Statement, Public Involvement, Tour and Inventory, Community Demographics, California Recreation Trends, National Recreation Trends, Statistically Valid Survey Executive Summary, Administrative Benchmarking and Key Measures, and GRASP mapping. 1. 2. Commissioner Leidner asked if commercial acreage was taken into consideration. Ms. Badalamenti stated it included the commercial acreage. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked for .examples of where there were loop walks. Ms. Badalamenti stated these were walks within a park versus a Community Services Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting March 13, 2007 loop on a trail system. Community Services Director Edie Hylton stated they were at the Fritz Burns Park, La Quinta in the North, Adams Park. At the larger parks which allow people to walk the perimeter of the parks and they are used quite heavily. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked if recommendations would be coming forward. Ms. Badalamenti stated through the Community Services Commission they are working on the formal. plan. What has been presented is a fine job. 5. Commissioner Barrows asked if there were additional recommendations and whether there were any 'recommendations for community trail systems. Ms. Badalamenti stated they are looking at options such as the Whitewater Channel, regional and local loops, working with future developers to have connectivity, and downtown corridor creating a walking district. They are looking for linkages. 6. ChairmanWeber stated he had attended the .CVAG Transportation meeting and this issue came up in regard to the increase in vehicular traffic which is affecting the surface street. Also, a regional trails plan has been discussed. All this should help La Quinta to reach its goals both locally as well as regionally. 7. Commissioner Barrows agreed there have been missed opportunities and she would be interested in seeing that trails is encouraged and expanded upon. 8. Chairman Quill noted the different type of bicyclists and the type of lanes they use. There are those who use the sidewalks and yet the mountain bikers want the mountain trails. He would hope that both areas of interest are being studied. He commented that many families are not comfortable riding their bikes on the bike routes on streets. They preferred to see more recreational bike routes. 9. Commissioner Alderson stated the horse trails need to be addressed as well. Ms. Badalamenti stated it was not listed in the top priorities and would not be included in the first phase. It should be looked at in the next phase. 10. Chairman Quill stated the Master Plan linkage between the trails should be a high priority. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated one of the challenges for off -roadway bike trails it would be difficult to obtain regional funding. CVAG did a study a number of years ago and 2 Community Services Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting March 13, 2007 found that all the funding for bikeways needs to be in the street. This did not please some cities because they already had miles of Class I bikeways. The other challenge is that if that are labeled formal bikeways then you are into the CalTrans design standards from the engineers standpoint which is a difference between ten or 12 foot widths. Our parkway widths do not accommodate those widths. It involves a lot of different issues that would need to be discussed. 1 1 . Chairman Quill stated he understood there was. funding for the purchase of additional right-of-way through TUMP and Measure A if you needed to widen access. They would fund the construction of the eight -foot 'on - street bike path, but they would only fund the purchase of additional right-of-way and not the construction. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it is a challenge to go back and retrofit. The City has been reviewing trail and parkway widths to see what can be done. 12. Commissioner Barrows asked if grant monies were available for bikeway trails. Ms. Badalamenti stated that in the Master Plan it is recommended what funding sources could be looked at. 13. Chairman Webber thanked the Planning Commission for their time to review the presentation. It was moved and seconded by Commission Members Sylk/Leidner of the Community Services Commission to adjourn the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson to recess this meeting to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted by, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta 3 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 13, 2007 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Jim Engle and Chairman Paul Quill. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of February 13, 2007. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Envi 2006-579 2006-865; a request of CNL Desert Resorts, L. P. for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a signature pool facility, for the property located on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately 150-feet south of Avenida Fernando, within the La Quinta Resort. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit. Staff reviewed the revised conditions. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 ` 2. Chairman Quill asked if the date palm grove had a designation as .Open Space. Staff stated the Specific Plan designated it as Tourist Commercial. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if additional parking was needed would it require the removal of the palm trees. Staff stated it might require the removal of some of the trees. 4. Chairman Quill asked if there were any more questions of staff. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Paul McCormick, Hilton Hotels Manager for the La Quinta Hotel, reviewed the project proposal. Mr. David Urban, CNL Resorts, gave a review of the concessions and conditions that had been Worked out with staff. One of their concerns is water uses. If they were to add additional rooms, the rooms would use more water than the pool. Mr. Bill Markenson, Loss Prevention Manager for the Hotel, spoke in regard to loss prevention, traffic and parking related issues. He reviewed the new prevention measures that have been put into place at the Resort.In addition they will be hiring a traffic control manager to oversee all vehicle access into the Resort, along Avenida Obregon and Avenida Fernando as well as the loading dock area. He is also reviewing the additional measures that will be put into place to address the concerns raised regarding traffic and safety concerns. Chairman Quill noted that he had a conversation earlier today with Mr. McCormick and asked that one employee speak on behalf of the Resort. 5. Commissioner Alderson asked if the applicant had agreed to all the condition changes. Mr. Urban stated they have agreed. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Madeline and Roger Lolley, 77-317 Avenida Fernando, objected to the fact that they .had not seen the display of the rock formation transposed on a site plan. The view from their house. She addressed the sound levels that will be caused by the Pool. The noise levels should be taken from an actual water park and not what they anticipate them to be. They will be going out and measuring the noise level at Soak City to obtain the actual noise levels from a water park. 7. Mr. Bill Bresnahan, 78-425 Calle Felipe, stated he is retired from the U. S. Secret Service and is concerned with .security issues. Currently, there is poaching on the pools, tennis courts and fitness /_.\\A,Onn/`C1 OI^ I:n.ennOnn7w 11 m Ann 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 center from people outside the Resort. How do they intend to improve on their security that they cannot do now. 8. Mr. Ed Mittelbusher, 77-333 Calle Mazatlan, stated he had heard that if the noise level of the pool exceeded 80db it would be shut down. Staff stated that if it exceeded the City's Ordinance it, would be shut down as staff will enforce the City's Ordinance. Mr. Mittelbusher asked if this applied to the noise from the construction. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the answer is no, construction noises will exceed the noise levels and are not a part of the operation of the facility. Staff will be adding this information to the Council report. Mr. Mittelbusher stated the City is then allowing violation of the La Quinta Noise Ordinance. 9. Mr. Philip Maschka, 77-213 Calle Mazatalan, stated he is opposed to the water park because it is a dumb idea.to have a water park in the desert. 10. Mr. William Puget, 77-600 Avenida Fernando, stated he was confused about the process. He understood. Council directed the applicant to meet with the homeowners to work out the issues. He heard the applicant stated they had met with the homeowners, but he did not meet with him or Mr. Davis, so why is this matter again before the Commission. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated Council did direct the applicant to meet with the homeowners and the interpretation was for them to meet with the HOA and staff was directed to attend those meeting and he did. The purpose of the meeting he attended and there was a lot of dialog between the homeowners and the applicant. The applicant will have to answer as to who they specifically spoke with. Mr. Puget asked why this application is again before the Commission. Chairman Quill clarified this application is the Conditional Use Permit which is different than what was reviewed before. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston clarified this application refers to the Conditional Use Permit only. The Municipal Code prohibits an application be resubmitted in substantially the same manner again within a year. Mr. Puget asked about the hotline to call for complaints. When the Resort has its tent events they have to use generators which run long beyond the 10:00 p.m. time limit. He has gone to the hotel and asked that the generators be turned off. He was told they should have known such activities will take place when they bought their home. He bought his home before the hotel began its expansion. If Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 this is the response they will get on a hotline, he would suggest it will not be effective. Regarding the remote parking, where they will be shuttling people back and forth. This shuttle requires traveling on Avenida Fernando which is a private street subject to an easements and the easement applies to certain benefited property and a remote parking is not a benefited property. What incentive does the Hotel have to turn away guests? They will have to turn down revenue and alienate guests. How can they self regulate this important issue. They continue to strongly object to this project. . 11. Mr. Steve Davis, 77-500 Avenida Fernando, went over an example of what happens on a daily basis in front of his house verbally and with pictures. He has been taking decimal readings in his yard to see what noises are being generated by the delivery trucks. He stated the noise generated by the trucks well exceeds the City's Noise Ordinance. They are as high as 89 decibels. He does not believe this road was permitted to allow deliveries. He then read into the record a letter submitted to the Resort documenting the events on Sunday, November 15, 2006 starting at 6:15 a.m. as to what happened on that day in regard to the delivery trucks. 12. Ms. Gloria Dodd, 48-690 Via Sierra, stated the quality of life will be reduced with the approval of this project regardless of whatever conditions are placed on the project. There is no condition that can be placed on this project that will increase their quality of life if this project is approved 13. Ms. Mary Jane O'Connor, 77-343 Avenida Fernando, stated nothing has been stated in regard to who is going to protect the adjoining property owners from any seepage from this water park. She would also like to know what type of safety features will there be for children using this pool. 14. Mr. Frank S. Hill, 49-921 Avenida Vista Bonita, stated this is an attempt to shove through a water pool over the objections of the local residents. The statistics given by the developers can be challenged by other consultants. There is no accounting of the loss of revenue from the termination of the tennis courts. Why does Hilton want to jeopardize this world class tennis facility by installing a splash pool? 15. Mr. Richard Fredericks, 49-875 Avenida Obregon, stated there is not a street within this project that meets the Zoning Code 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 requirements. Avenida Fernando should be 50 feet wide and it is 36 feet. Avenida Obregon should be a 40-feet street and it is 20 foot fire lane. How can you control impact on health and safety, when you have the traffic disaster that currently exists when the Resort cannot control or regulate what is there. What happens when a two mile an hour car runs over a child because you have back out parking? All the parking spaces are back out parking. Every parking facility does not comply with'the Zoning Code. You do not have back out parking spaces on a fire lane. He asked that the Notice of Dangerous Condition that he filed with the City is submitted into the record. He almost killed a child on a roller blade jumped out in front of him and he banged his head on the steering wheel when he was traveling ten miles an hour. Need to make legal findings that the CUP complies with zoning as well as CEQA findings. The foundation for this project was built on an EIR done in 1975. You do not even know the impacts of all the water that will be going into the ground. Finally, what will be the impacts on the surrounding residents. Follow your heart or follow the law. 16. Ms. Jennifer Jenkins, 49-385 Rancho San Francisquito, spoke on behalf of the 1,600 employees of the La Quinta Resort. These employees live and support the City of La Quinta. The previous expansions of the Resort were a benefit to the City and drove the economy of the City. Increased occupancy will only increase the number of employees the Resort can employ as well as TOT for the City. They have over 2,500 memberships and it is expected that less than 18% have children under 23 and will use the facility. Few of their members will ever use the Pool. Regarding tennis, they opened the courts at PGA West if members were unable to get a court. They are now building a fitness center, pool and tennis courts at The Citrus. All this will alleviate traffic from the Resort. The Resort has been a large part of the City and they would like to request the Commission consider approving this request. 17. Mr. Carl Geist, 50-062 Avenida Vista Bonita, stated he is one member of the Club who does not approve of this project. He understands why the Resort and City are interested in approving this project for the revenue it will generate. It was his understanding that other locations were discussed for the Pool that would not have an impact on the adjoining residents. The quality of life will not be enhanced by this project. He does not understand how the Hotel can promote this project. O.\\�Ipnn!`C\O!` ne:e...nH onn'Ta I n9 d-- 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 18. Mr. Joe Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, sated he was confused about what the CUP is compared to what the City Council reviewed. Is the intention to consider the operation of the project? Will this go forward to the Council or is it to be approved at this meeting. Staff stated the Council will hold a hearing on all three applications at their next meeting. This meeting is to consider the CUP only. Mr. Broido asked if the condition regarding the landscaping along Eisenhower Drive and the Bear Creek Bike Path and the maintenance facility would be considered during this permit as well. Chairman Quill thanked Mr. Broido for reminding the Commission of this condition and they will address it in their motion. 19. Mr. Wayne Guralnick, 74-399 Highway 111, Palm Desert, representing the interests of the Tennis Villas, Enclave, The Etados and Mountain Estates HOAs, stated the City Code requires the Commission to make four findings. Three are consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Code as well as compliance of CEQA requirements. The last finding requires compatibility and not injurious with the surrounding residents. The staff reports just states the conditions will mitigate any issues. This approval absolutely essential to the Resort for the summer and shoulder seasons. However, there is nothing said about this being an entertainment center. This is not to be annexed to a conference center. In Condition No. 24 they are talking about 1,500 people within 15 feet of the Tennis Villas up to 10:00 p.m. at night for several kinds of events creating all kinds of noise. This will be injurious to the adjacent residential use. If they want a water park, then condition it appropriately for a water park and eliminate the convention center. In Condition No. 20 it states it shall be used from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Except for the formal pool, it should not be midnight, it should be 10:00 p.m. as it now exists. Right now they have a formal pool that is used till 10:00 p.m. and is in that same range of location. Let them use that area for the convention facilities, but do not put it in the same location of the activity island adjacent to the homes. Strike out where it says 10:00 p.m. and make it 6:00 pm and strike out where it says midnight and make it 10:00 p.m. and the restaurant hours would be closed from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Condition #24 a similar change needs to be made that the outdoor, meetings shall be held within the formal pool and not the active feature water feature. Same on line five where the active water feature is used they are asking that the formal pool area. Therefore, the outdoor activities after 6:00 p.m. would be limited to the formal pool area. Condition „� ,,� 11 ,,, 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 #22 regarding the movies, put the movies shall end at 10:00 p.m. and shall only be shown around the formal pool area. Noise is an issue and how do you monitor noise without having a noise monitor going around telling people to be quiet. In Condition No. 27 they are asking that it be changed to read the active water features causing the noise shall be deleted and the areas and activities causing the noise or violations should be closed. Whatever is causing the noise should be closed. Condition No. 27.C. they are asking that the active water feature have no active or amplified music in the formal pool area. On the noise issue, the City's Noise Ordinance states for noise sensitive areas which this is, for the receiving area not the area causing the noise, it provides that it be 60 dba from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. They are requesting a condition be added that there be no public address system, no exterior lighting except the landscaping areas. Deny this application or add the condition requested. 20. Ms. Ruth Utti, 76-946 Calle Mazatlan, stated she is opposed to the application. They bought their Tennis Villas with no anticipation the Hotel would ever make this type of expansion. This will destroy their quality of life and view of the mountains. The residents do deserve respect and listened to. She encouraged the Commission to deny the project. 21. Mr. Jake Baden, 77-471 La Vista, stated good intentions are one thing, but the reality of what goes on is different. He has been reviewing water park magazines lately and what the impact of the water is on surrounding neighbors. 22. Tom Overty, 48-805 Via Linda, stated he was told by someone that lives at the Legacy Villas that they have membership but do not pay dues. They have the right to use the Hotel but do not pay membership. Chairman Quill noted this is not an issue before the Commission. 23. . Ms. Lee Charles 79-820 Cetrino, stated she does not understand how the construction activity can take place at the same time the Hotel is operating. Chairman Quill recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. 24. Mr. Rick Zeilenga, attorney for CNL, stated he would respond to some of the issues raised. In his aerial he noted that most of the r •�,n,onnrc�o� nu... .....�onmw 11 no d-- 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 properties mentioned were as far away as 1000 feet. What needs to be concentrated on tonight is the Tennis Villas and the impacts on those units. The noise consultant they hired studied the three closest areas with 50% of the children screaming nonstop for an hour. This report was not conservative. The study considered the location of where the noise will be received. It then considered the City's Noise Ordinance and it was found there would be no significant increase. In addition to this the noise study considered external noises as well as the internal noise elements. He also considered the pools would be open when they will be closed; the equipment was considered to be open and it will be enclosed; and finally the wave height was reduced and the lazy river recessed. The hours of operation were also not considered at the reduced time limits. They have also agreed to additional conditions to reduce any potential impacts. In regard to the construction noise, construction activities are exempt from the noise concerns raised. Traffic reports have been taken during the prime season of the Resort. The report also showed no increase in traffic. The grove area is being reserved as a safety in case there are any parking concerns. They implemented the new program at the event held this last weekend and the program worked. He went on to review parking, Avenida Obregon pedestrian safety issues, and comparison to other water parks. The landscaping maintenance issues along Eisenhower Drive would also be added to this application. 25. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff or the applicant. Commissioner Barrows asked about the parking issues raised by Mr. Davis and whether this is a Code Compliance issue. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it should be reviewed by the Code Compliance Department to make that determination. If the applicant does not respond to complaints called in at the time they are called in, then the problem is not solved and appropriate actions should be taken. Commissioner Barrows asked if the delivery hours are covered in any of the conditions. Mr. McCormick stated 7:00 a.m. is the starting time as well as delivery truck sizes have been relayed to their vendors. Problems arise when their vendors contract with others for deliveries. 26. Chairman Quill asked who should be called at 4:00 a.m. when there is a problem. Mr. McCormick stated it should be their loss prevention person who should respond to the site to solve the problem. They have 24-hour/seven days a week security to /]�\1A/OnnrC\Or 9A;n -11nn910 11 n' Ann 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 handle these problems. Chairman Quill asked that a condition be added to handle this traffic/noise problem on Avenida Fernando specifically in regard to delivery trucks in the Parking Management Plan. 27. Commissioner Barrows stated she appreciates the Resort addressing the landscaping issues on Eisenhower Drive regardless of whether or not this project is approved. Mr. McCormick stated they have already started the implementation process to repair this area. What this project proposes is to expand and enhance the landscaping all the way from the bridge on Eisenhower Drive wrapping down to the maintenance facility which includes ground cover down to the other end and adding a ground cover mix along Eisenhower Drive down to Calle Tampico. 28. Chairman Quill asked that a condition be added to this CUP that a comprehensive landscaping irrigation and fencing plan to resolve problems and improve the appears be prepared for Eisenhower Drive frontage and southern perimeter adjacent to the Bear Creek Bike Path for review and approval by the Planning Commission and encompass all the exterior landscaping to the entire maintenance facility wall. This will include the berm adjacent to the facility and the roadway frontage to the facility along the Bear Creek Path. Mr. McCormick stated they will address the issue. 29. Commissioner Daniels stated his concerns are directed toward the impacts on the surrounding communities. What meetings were held with those communities? Mr. David Urban stated they have met with Mr. Guralnick and the five HOAs. In regard to Mr. Puget and Mr. Davis they are in litigation and are restricted from talking with them because of the lawsuit. Commissioner Daniels stated he is impressed with the plans they have laid out, but is there some assurance the Hotel is capable of self regulations. Mr. Markson stated he reports directly to Mr. McCormick and they do have some training issues and need to add additional personnel. Training is needed to bring their staff to the level needed. Commissioner Daniels asked how Mr. Davis' concerns can be resolved. Mr. McCormick stated they have reduced the hours of deliveries and added people to help manage the deliver trucks. Commissioner Daniels asked about damage caused by seepage from the pools. Is there monitoring required. Mr. McCormick stated they have 22 pools on site and have had no occurrence to date. Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, stated all the facilities with this project will be constructed in compliance with all Building ,,, Ann 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 Code, structural and civil engineers. Swimming pools typically do not seep. Splashing water is not seepage. This may occur in the retention basins, but they are off -site on the golf course. The infiltration of the Pool water is self contained on site in a septic system and pumped away from the site and clear water is infiltrated back into the ground. 30. Commissioner Daniels asked about alternative sites for the pool. Mr. David Urban stated that the problem with the alternate locations is that it will greatly increased cost and displaces rooms back into this area which would be a greater impact on traffic, view and same kind of noise concerns. In evaluating the alternative site, the cost was greater than the return. Commissioner Daniels asked about what events are currently occurring. Mr. McCormick stated they have been holding events up to 1,500 persons and there have been some complaints about the music, but the events are shut down by 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Daniels asked about changing the times and moving the events to the formal pool area. Mr. Urban stated this was discussed and determined it was not an option they could agree to. They would be amenable to shutting -.down all functions at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Daniels asked about the elimination of music and outdoor lighting. Mr. Urban stated their concept of this project includes music distributed throughout the site on small speakers to contain the noise generated from the music. They have implemented numerous measures to contain the music/noise on the site. 31. Chairman Quill asked if the existing tennis courts in this area are lighted. Mr. McCormick stated some of they are lighted and are lighted till 9:00 p.m. 32. Commissioner Daniels asked about the sale of the Hotel. Mr. Urban stated that CNL Hotels and Resorts is being purchased by Morgan Stanley. Any of these obligations they are entering into would be bound by the entity purchasing the Hotel. 33. Mr. Puget stated he is not in litigation with the Hotel and would be available to hold discussions with the applicant. 34. There being no further public comment Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked for Commission discussion. p.,AlpnnrC\Dr nn1... .....\onn�\n 11 n7 dnn 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 35. Commissioner Engle stated he believes this is a good project and believes with the strict conditions imposed, he is in favor of the project. 36. Commissioner Daniels stated that between the staff report, minimizing the impacts, he is satisfied with the answers received from staff and the applicant, he supports the project. 37. Commissioner Barrows asked where a condition could be added to the revised Condition No. 7.C.1.a. and e. addressing loading, shipping and other related activities and any third party is bound by this condition. What is the enforcement side of this; whose responsibility is it? Staff stated the applicant is to undertake this responsibility and if not done, the City can revoke or modify the CUP. Commissioner Barrows asked about Condition No. 11 to clarify whether it is "logs" or "reports" (highlighted in blue). Staff stated they would fix the condition. Commissioner Barrows asked about Condition No. 20 to adjust the hours to 10:00 p.m. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the applicant's intent is that the formal pool area operates from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He does not believe they want to limit the hours of the restaurant to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Barrows asked about Condition 22 in regard to the movies should it state what months in the rest of the year movies can be shown. 38. Chairman Quill asked that the Condition regarding Eisenhower Drive shall be approved by the Planning Commission and the maintenance facility and berm should be added. 39. Commissioner Alderson reiterated the direction given by the Council and he believes that direction was followed by the applicant and staff. To him it does not make sense that this is a good business move; however, if it fails, what would happen to this "white elephant" and it has been proven to him that this company is a viable company that would resolve the problem. He went to Arizona and visited the site and found that their employee rate stayed higher and the occupancy rate was increased. The customer base was from the citizens of the area who took their children there for the entertainment. This has put to ease a lot of his concerns. He does not agree this will add traffic to the site as people will walk to the pool and not drive. Having a backup traffic study being done after the fact will not resolve anything. He initially did not support this project, but based on his review and the cooperation of the applicant, he will support the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that regarding the City's Noise Ordinance (Condition No. 27) the City's Noise Ordinance is not specific to any part of this project. The HOA attorney raised the point that the active water feature causing the noise ordinance violation. The CUP should not restrict the noise ordinance to apply to only parts' of the project. Staff would recommend activities as suggested. City staff will enforce problems according to whatever is causing the noise. 40. Chairman Quill stated he too believes the applicant has gone a long way to mitigate the impacts and believes there will be other projects demolished and replaced with different things similar to this as time goes on. 41. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Engle to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-011 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-102, as recommended and amended: a. Condition Added: That a comprehensive landscaping, irrigation and fencing plan to resolve problems and improve the appearance shall be prepared for the Eisenhower Drive frontage and southern perimeter adjacent to the Bear Creek Bike Path and maintenance facility on Avenida Carranza for review by the ALRC and approval by the Planning Commission as a Business item. The plan shall be implemented and completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Signature Pool facility. b. Condition No. 7.C.1.a amended: Traffic flow, loading, shipping and other related activities and parking control on Avenida Fernando. C. Condition No. 20 Amended: Operating hours for all outdoor uses, features, and activities not defined as an Active Water Features, shall be: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., except for the formal pool, which shall operate: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The restaurant hours shall be 7:00 a.m. to midnight daily. d. Condition No. 22: There shall be no evening movies between the Monday following Thanksgiving and the 2nd Thursday of March of each year. When permitted, the movies shall end by 10:00 p.m. 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Engle and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. General Plan Consistency Finding; Consideration of a finding of General Plan conformity for the City of La Quinta's potential acquisition of property for approximately 29.9 acres of land for the construction and operation of affordable housing and that a portion of the property would be developed for commercial/retail uses for the property located on the south side of Highway 111, east of Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Quill opened the Public Hearing. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the staff report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-012 finding General Plan conformity with the acquisition of the property located on the south side of Highway 111, east of Dune Palms Road, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Engle, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Daniels stated he would not be able to attend the next meeting. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson to excuse Commissioner Daniels. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Engel to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on March 27, 2007. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:44 p.m. on March 13, 2007. Respectfully submitted, „I,,, 113 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2007 Betty Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 27, 2007 CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-577, SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-074 AMENDMENT #1, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34642 APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC. REQUEST:, CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 21,204 SF CLUBHOUSE; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34642 TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 90 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ±7 ACRES OF LANDSCAPED, RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. LOCATION: WEST OF MADISON STREET, EAST OF MONROE STREET, AND SOUTH OF AVENUE 54 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-577 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-074 AMENDMENT #1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34642 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. ZONING: RVL (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY GENERAL PLAN:' VLDR (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)/ SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-074 SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL / MADISON CLUB / LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: RL / PRIVATE RESIDENCE/ PGA WEST NORMAN COURSE / LO ESTATES / LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: MONROE STREET / CITY LIMITS /.RURAL FARMLAND WEST: RL / PGA WEST / LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: Formerly the property surrounding the existing estate of Mery Griffin, Griffin Ranch was originally approved by the City Council on January 4, 2004 by means of multiple submittals. Specific Plan 2004-074 and Tentative Tract 32879, the existing residential portions of Griffin Ranch, were approved for 303 single-family lots over approximately 199 acres. The adjacent Saddle Club facility, Conditional Use Permit 06-099 and Site Development Permit 06-866, was approved by the Planning Commission on September 29, 2006. A Site Development Permit application for the project's clubhouse has been submitted and will be brought forward pending Council approval of this Amended Specific Plan. As an equestrian -oriented community, Griffin Ranch was designed with its own private riding trail system and has access to the City's multi -purpose trail system. The property is located within an existing Equestrian Overlay District (EOD) and has internal connectivity to the adjacent Saddle Club. PROJECT PROPOSAL The applicant has acquired ±45 acres to the east of the existing Griffin Ranch . Tract 32879 and intends to provide an additional 90 single-family lots and ±7 acres of landscaped, recreational open space to the existing residential development (Attachment 1). Project density will remain under two single-family dwelling units per acre. The new 90 lots will be served by an additional gated entry (for a total of four) and will have direct gated access to the Saddle Club. The applicant also intends to develop a 21,204 SF clubhouse, which is 13,204 SF larger than the 8,000 square foot building the existing Specific Plan allows. The clubhouse is proposed to be located on Lot C at the previously identified site near the Madison Street entrance. In order to accommodate the 90 additional lots and larger clubhouse, the applicant is requesting to amend the Specific Plan (Attachment 2). PROJECT LAYOUT The proposed 90 lots will be accessed via the existing portion of Griffin Ranch and a new unmanned gated entry on Monroe Street. Access from Monroe Street will have full turning movement and is conditioned to require a traffic signal should future conditions necessitate. Gated access to the Saddle Club will also be provided. Lots will be similar in size to the existing subdivision, ranging from 21,741 to 10,990 square feet. At the center of the project will be 5.38 acres of landscaped park area with a pond and walking path. This park area will also serve a dual use for drainage retention. The proposed street pattern will integrate with existing Griffin Ranch streets and have a circular curvilinear pattern around the central open space. A half -acre CVWD well site will be provided at the northwest corner of the project site. Multi -purpose trails will be integrated into the existing internal and external trail network and are expected to be accessed primarily via the Saddle Club. LANDSCAPING, WALLS, AND MULTI -PURPOSE TRAILS Griffin Ranch landscaping designs previously approved by the Planning Commission will be applied to Tentative Tract 34642. Perimeter landscaping, multi -purpose trail and wall designs were approved under Site Development Permit 2006-848 on January 24, 2006. Individual residential unit landscaping and interior multi -purpose trail designs were approved under Site Development Permit 2006-876 on November 14, 2006. The proposed amended Specific Plan is consistent with these Site Development Permit approvals and includes their approved exhibits, including plant palates, wall, and trail details. The upcoming clubhouse landscaping is identified in the Specific Plan under Exhibit 37 on Page 66. The applicants are proposing a combination grassy pasture/retention basin detail consisting primarily of turf with desert landscaping along the perimeter. Although the clubhouse design and site plan is identified in the Amended Specific Plan, landscaping and architectural design will be brought forward for approval via a separate Site Development Permit. The landscaped recreational open space at the center of Tentative Tract 34642 known as "Lot B" is the other remaining item of landscaping which has not been approved. The Site Development Permit for "Lot B" will be brought forward with the Clubhouse. The applicants are proposing a series of ponds linked together with small waterfalls, surrounded by decorative turf, a walking path, and desert landscaping around the perimeter. The design is identified under Exhibit 36 on Page 65 of the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map 34642 The addition of 90 lots to the Griffin Ranch project will be a seamless addition to the existing ;and approved portions of the project site. Prototypical residential units will consist of those models already approved by the Planning Commission. Landscaping, gates, color palate, building materials, and wall designs will be identical to the existing portions of the project along Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The Monroe Street entry at Firenze Gate has been conditioned to include an applicant -funded traffic signal if conditions are met (per California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD). All landscaping has been conditioned to be consistent with the previously approved Site Development Permits. Staff has no objection to the clubhouse standards identified in the Specific Plan. Design details regarding the clubhouse will be brought before the Planning Commission for approval. Because perimeter and interior landscaping, model home architecture, wall design, and trail details have all been previously approved, staff has primarily been concerned with a seamless integration of the proposed additional homes. With the recommended Conditions of Approval, the design of Tentative Tract Map 34642 achieves this goal... Amended Specific Plan The proposed amended Specific Plan is generally consistent ,with the original. Key differences include accommodation of the 90 lots, allowance of the larger 21,204 SF proposed clubhouse (an increase of 13,204 SF), a reduction to the minimum livable area from 2,800 to 2,500 SF in order to accommodate the previously approved Castilla product line, and a modification to allow the Community Development Director to administratively consider deviations of up to 20% of a given development standard with an appeal to the Planning Commission. Staff has no objections to these changes with one exception regarding deviations and substantial conformance. Staff is recommending the applicant reduce and modify the proposed 20% substantial conformance rule referenced on Page 36 of the Specific Plan because it does not allow due process before the City Council or Planning Commission. The following is a breakdown of the substantial conformance rules regarding alterations to the Specific Plan: P.36 "Amendments" Current Rule Proposed Rule Staff Recommends Director Determination: 5% or less 20% 10% or less Planning Commission: 5% to 10% As Needed 10% to 15% City Council: Greater than 10% Not Referenced 15% or Greater With this change and the revision of a handful of pages in order to fix typographical errors and better reflect the appropriate development standards, the proposed Amended Specific Plan is consistent with previous approvals and proposed Tentative Tract Map 34642. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 17, 2007 and osted on City Public Hearing information boards. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. At the time of the filing of this report, staff has not received any letters or phone calls from the public regarding these proposals. As per SB-18 (2004) consultation requirements, information regarding the proposed Amended Specific Plan was forwarded to those tribes referenced on the tribal consultation list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Of the ten tribes notified, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Cahuilla Band of Indians responded to the consultation notice. The. Agua Caliente ,deferred to other Tribes and had no further comments. The Ramona Band had returned a letter recommending that a Native American monitor be present during grading and that they be contacted in the event of any findings. The Cahuilla Band (of Anza, CA.) requested consultation last November and was forwarded a copy of the Cultural Resources Report; no further correspondence has been received. Staff has followed up with all Tribes requesting information or consultation and placed their recommendations for monitoring in the Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2006- 577. 2. Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending approval of Specific Plan 2006-074 .Amendment #1, pursuant to the Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 3. Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 34642 pursuant to the Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Tentative Tract Map 34642 2. Specific Plan 2006-074 Amendment #1 *A vicinity map and supporting exhibits are all available in Attachment 2 Prepared by: C A EW J. MOGENSEN Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GRIFFIN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074 AMENDMENT #1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34642 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-577 TRANSWEST HOUSING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 271' day of March, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Transwest Housing to recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 2006-577, prepared for Specific Plan 2004-074 Amendment #1 and Tentative Tract 34642, known as Griffin Ranch, located generally on the south side of Avenue 54, east of Madison Street, and west of Monroe Street, more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 15, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2006-577) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be adopted; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council adoption of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2006-577. P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC RESO EA 07-577.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Environmental Assessment 2006-577 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch Adopted: March 27, 2007 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or, animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Development of the site has the potential to impact cultural and paleontologic resources. However, the mitigation measures included in the project approval will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. The site does not contain significant biological resources. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The addition of 90 residential units to the existing project will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated. with General Plan buildout. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and development of the site will generate PM10; however, several mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality have been incorporated into the project approval. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC RESO EA 07-577.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Environmental Assessment 2006-577 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch Adopted: March 27, 2007 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2006-577 and said reflects the independent judgment of the City: 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d►. 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 2006-577 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2006-577 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27`h day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC RESO EA 07-577.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Environmental Assessment 2006-577 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch Adopted: March 27, 2007 ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SPNPC RESO EA 07-577.doc Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Specific Plan 2004-074, Amendment #1, Tentative Tract Map 34642, Griffin Ranch 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Andrew Mogensen, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: South side of Avenue 54, between Madison and Monroe Streets. APN 767- 320-007, -009, -014, -015. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Trans West Housing 47120 Dune Palms Road, Suite C La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Specific Plan Amendment proposes the addition of 45 acres to approved Specific Plan 2004-074, which is currently under development. The addition would provide design standards and guidelines for the development of 45 acres of land into single family residential lots, as well as lots for open space and streets. The parcel will be integrated into the balance of the Griffin Ranch Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment will permit the enlargement of the clubhouse to a range of 20,000 to 35,000 square feet. The Specific Plan amendment also includes the modification of lot size minimumsfrom the previously approved 12,000 square feet to 11,000 square feet. Lot sizes under the amended Specific Plan will range from 11,000 to 40,000 square feet. The amended Specific Plan will result in the construction of up to 393 single family residential lots on 244 acres. The Tentative Tract Map implements the Specific Plan amendment by subdividing the land into 90 single family residential lots of at least 10,990 square feet, as well as lots for storm water retention, open space, streets and landscaping areas. The adopted Specific Plan, and associated applications, were analyzed under Environmental Assessment 2004-526, which was approved at the time of Specific Plan approval. Subsequent review and approval, under Environmental Assessment 2006-574, was undertaken for the approval of an, associated equestrian facility, approved earlier this year. That Environmental Assessment is the basis of this document. Mitigation measures included in the original document, and still germane based on the analysis contained herein, are maintained in this document. Throughout this document, cumulative analysis is provided. That is to say that the impacts associated with the project currently under consideration have been added to those in the original proposal, in order to assure comprehensive review. The original Specific Plan 1- proposed 303 single family residential lots ranging in size from 12,000 to 40,000 square feet. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Avenue 54, single family residential and golf course South: Existing single family home, lands in agriculture East: Monroe Street, agricultural lands West: Madison Street, single family residential and golf course 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: -s- Mificant effect on the red. ;nificant effect on the )ecause revisions in the onent. A MITIGATED i the environment, and significant impact" or nment, but at least one t pursuant to applicable rres based on the earlier AL IMPACT REPORT addressed. gnificant effect on the ) have been analyzed I pursuant to applicable to that earlier EIR or ition measures that are 3- Z 2 Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead, agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect, from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect t6 a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVH, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit X 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The project site is currently partially developed as the construction allowed on the approved Specific Plan is under way. Madison Street and Avenue 54 are designated Agrarian Image Corridors in the General Plan. As such, the project is required to provide enhanced landscaped parkways along both streets to meet the standard of this designation. The proposed addition to the Specific Plan will continue the landscaping and trail proposed along Avenue 54. On Monroe, a 20 to 45 foot wide landscaped parkway, to include a trail, is also proposed along the entire property boundary. The proposed project will include single family homes of up to two stories in height. The size of the lots (from 10,990 to 40,000 square feet) and the limitation of single story development within 150 feet of Madison or Monroe Streets or Avenue 54 will limit the potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project. The residential, low intensity character of the project, and the enhanced parkway and trails provided on the perimeter of the site, will serve to limit visual impacts associated with the project site. The overall impacts associated with development of the site are expected to be less than significant. There are no significant scenic resources on the site. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. d) The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Further, residential lighting is generally limited, and of low intensity. The City standard, combined with 52 the nature of the land use proposed, will assure that impacts are less than significant. 0 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 f£) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The project site is located adjacent to single family residential development and golf course on the west, north and portions of the south boundary. Portions of the amendment area, lands to the southeast, and lands to the east have been or are in agriculture. The site is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of the City, and is not currently under Williamson Act contract. The loss of the 45 acres of agricultural use within the project site will not be significant. The proposed project will not prevent the continued use in agriculture of lands to the southeast and east. However, in the long term, this area of the City is expected to develop according to the General Plan land use designations assigned to the property, and to build out in residential developments of varying sizes. Overall impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected to be insignificant. . Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X ` contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial, Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) M. a)- c) An air quality analysis was prepared for the proposed project. The analysis included both the amendment area and the cumulative impacts of the Specific Plan plus the amendment area. The analysis found that the proposed project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds of significance for construction or operational and source emissions at project build out. The study did find that during construction, depending on the amount of construction not only on the project site but on other sites in the area, thresholds of significance could be exceeded, and mitigation measures, as shown below, were recommended. The study also included carbon monoxide hot spot analysis, which found that project build out would not result in hot spots. In order to reduce potential cumulative impacts associated with air quality, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1 "Griffin Ranch SP 2064-074 Amendment 1 and Tentative Tract No 34642 Air, Quality Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, July 2006. 10 1. A Fugitive Dust Control Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 2. The project proponent shall comply with all SCAQMD Rules, including but not limited to rules 403, 1108 and 1108.1, and 1113. 3. Earth moving activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 4. Building construction shall conform to Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 5. Landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible after the completion of grading activities. 6. Maximum vehicle speeds on unpaved construction roads shall be 15 mph. 7. Where feasible, low emission building materials should be considered for construction materials. 8. Construction specifications will include measures to prevent excessive air pollutant emissions, as detailed in the air quality study. Implementation of these mitigation measures will.ensure that impacts associated with air quality are mitigated to a less than significant level. . III. d) & e) The project is not expected to generate objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. The project will be located adjacent to a commercial stable (the associated Saddle Club), which is expected to have the potential to generate odors which could impact the residents of this project. The Saddle Club was reviewed under EA 2006-574. The analysis, contained in that document, and associated mitigation measures, found that with implementation of a fly spray system, a minimum separation between project facilities and adjacent homes of 80 feet, and the regular removal of manure from the enclosed manure storage building, impacts associated with odors will be reduced to less than significant levels. -9- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -10- IV. a)-f) Biology studies have been prepared for the previously approved Specific Plan, and the amendment areal. The combined studies included the entire property, with a particular focus on those areas which are native desert lands. In the amendment area, approximately 65% of the land has been disturbed by agricultural activities. No listed species were found on the any portion of the project site. Surveys for desert tortoise and burrowing owl were negative on all portions of the site. No riparian or wetland habitat was identified on the project site. The study further found that the site does not occur within the fee boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and that no fee is therefore required. The site is also not considered a conservation area under the draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant. 2 "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Griffm Ranch," and "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis for the proposed 40 acre La Quinta Residential Development, prepared by James W. Comett, August 2004 and March 2006, respectively. -11- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in'l5064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V.a)-d) Both Phase I and Phase H cultural resources studies were completed for the approved Specific Plan area, and a Phase I cultural resource study was completed for the amendment area3. The study for the approved Specific Plan identified and recorded six potentially significant cultural resource sites within the project area, CA-RIV-7521 through•-7526. These sites consist of ceramic scatters and groundstone fragments which require further evaluation in order to determine whether they are significant. In order to determine their potential significance, a testing program was developed and implemented. This program involved the re -surveying, mapping and collection of materials at the recorded sites. The survey of the amendment area found no resources on the site, and determined that no additional investigations were required. The potential impacts associated with the cultural resources at the site have therefore been mitigated to less than significant levels with the recovery effort conducted on the previously approved site. In addition, the City will require, as a condition of approval, the monitoring of ground disturbing activities, to assure that no buried resources are disturbed without appropriate recovery. V. c) The proposed project site lies within the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancient lake Cahuilla. The study conducted for the amendment area found freshwater snail shells on the project site. As with the balance of the site previously approved, in order 3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Griffin Ranch Project," prepared by CRM Tech, September 2004; and "Archaeological Testing and Mitigation at Griffin Ranch," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2004; and "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-009," prepared by CRM Tech, April 2006. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-009," prepared by CRM Tech, April 2006. -12- to assure that potential impacts associated with paleontologic resources are mitigated, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. A paleontologic monitor shall be on -site during ground disturbance of all areas likely to contain paleontologic resources. The monitor shall be empowered to redirect activities, and shall quickly salvage fossils where identified. All resources recovered shall be properly documented and curated. A report of monitoring activities shall be provided to the Planning Department within 30 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts associated with paleontologic resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake. Fault Zone. The site, and the City in general, is located in a seismically active area, and will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. -14- A geotechnical analysis was completed for the approved Specific Plans. Conditions on the adjacent amendment area are expected to be the same as those found on the Specific Plan area. The study found that development of a residential project on the project site is feasible, with the implementation of standards already in place at the City. The study included borings, which did not encounter water at a depth of up to 50 feet, indicating that the site is not subject to liquefaction. The site is not located adjacent to rock outcroppings or hillsides, and is therefore not subject to landslides or rock fall. The site is not located on expansive soils. The single family units on the project site will be connected to CVWD sewer systems, and will therefore not require septic tanks. Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Griffin Ranch Residential Development," prepared by Sladden Engineering, August 2004. 15- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use trap) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X 9011 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan" land use map) VII. a)-h) The development of the site is likely to result in the storage of cleaning materials for household use. These materials, however, are not expected to be hazardous, and are not expected in large quantities. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area6. The project has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. No impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected. 6 "Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Griffm Saddle Club Addition," prepared by Proterra Consulting, February 2006. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. II1-187 ff) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) g) Place within a I00-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental -18- Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a)-g) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service use in the offices, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant is proposing a series of open space/retention areas on the approved portion of the project site which will be used to retain storm water in the event of a storm. For the amendment area, storm water will be conveyed through the streets to catch basins, which will lead to storm drain pipes, which will discharge storm water to retention basins in the center and southeast corner of the amendment area. All basins have been sized to accommodate the projected storm flows. The hydrologic and hydraulic calculations associated with this system will be approved by the City Engineer prior to the approval of grading permits for the project site. These existing City standards will assure that the proposed project will meet the City's requirements for flood control. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 IX. a)-c) The amendment area is currently vacant, and its development will not divide an established community. The Specific Plan as amended, is consistent with the Very Low Density Residential designation applied to all properties within the Plan area. The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. 20 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. dAe Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local, general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X ' increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. t 11 fi:) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) A noise impact analysis was conducted for the approved Specific Plan. A separate noise analysis was conducted for the amendment area$. The studies analyzed the potential noise impacts associated with the development of all lands covered by the Specific Plan, as amended. The studies found that the development of the project will 7 "Griffm Ranch Specific Plan and Vesting. Tentative Map Air Quality and Noise Impact Study," Endo Engineering, September, 2004 8 "Exterior Noise Analysis Tract 34642 — Griffin Ranch" prepared by BridgeNet International, July 2006. -22- result in both short term (construction) and long term (operational) noise impacts which could be significant without mitigation. The studies found that the noise levels associated with vehicular traffic adjacent to the project site have the potential to exceed the City's standards for residential land uses without mitigation on Madison, Monroe and Avenue 54. On Madison Street, the noise level without mitigation is expected to exceed 65 bBA CNEL at a distance of 186 feet from the centerline; on Monroe, noise levels will exceed 65 dBA CNEL at a distance of 113 feet from the centerline; and on Avenue 54 the 65 dBA CNEL is expected to extend to 66 feet from the centerline. The lots located with back yards abutting these streets will therefore have exterior noise levels in excess of the City's standard of 65 dBA CNEL, without mitigation. The project will generate noise associated with construction on the project site which will exceed City standards for a short period of time. In addition, noise generated by later phases of construction, including the amendment area, has the potential to impact residents within the project. In order to assure that the potential impacts associated with noise are adequately mitigated, the study recommends several mitigation measures, which are summarized below. 1. Construction on the project site shall occur only during the hours prescribed by the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and mufflered, and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. 3. Stockpiling and staging areas, as well as servicing and fueling of equipment, shall be located as far away from existing residential structures as possible. 4. A six foot wall on a one foot berm shall be constructed on Madison Street. A six foot wall shall be constructed on both Monroe Street and Avenue 54. All walls shall be of solid construction, without breaks or openings. 5. A final noise analysis shall be completed when final lot layout and pad elevations have been completed to assure that the wall requirements are sufficient to meet the City's standards. 6. An interior noise analysis shall be completed when building plans for individual houses are submitted, to assure that all residential units shall have interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air strip. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) Development of 393 single family homes within the boundaries of the Specific Plan, as amended, will result in up to 983 persons residing in the Specific Plan area. This is consistent with the land use designation for the property, and will not generate substantial population growth, but will rather be absorbed by existing growth rates in the area: The amendment area is currently vacant, and the implementation of the Specific Plan will not displace substantial numbers of persons. No impacts are anticipated. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X _ Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities?. (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XHL a) Build out of the amended Specific Plan will have a less than significant impact on public services. The project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Build out of the project will generate property tax and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will continue to contribute to the construction of future public safety facilities through the City's Developer Impact Fee program. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. The project will provide some on site recreational facilities, and will also be required to pay the City's park fees for development of off site park facilities. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will include on site recreational spaces/retention areas, and will also contribute park fees for off site park development. No impacts are expected. -26- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause.an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR; p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) Traffic Impact Analyses were prepared for both the original Specific Plan, and the SpecificPlan amendmen?. The studies found that the original Specific Plan will generate approximately 2,900 average daily trips (ADT), of which 223 would be 9 "Griffin Ranch Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Map 32879 Traffic Impact Study," and "Griffin Ranch SP 2004- 074 Amendment No. 1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 34642 Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, September 2004 and November 2006, respectively. -27- during the morning peak hour, and 292 during the evening peak hour; while the amendment area will generate 940 trips per day, of which 72 will occur during the morning peak hour and 97 during the evening peak hour. In total, therefore, the Specific Plan area will generate 3,840 daily trips. The studies also found that with development of the project site, and surrounding development, studied intersections will operate within the City's established levels of service, with the implementation of planned improvements and on -site improvements. In order to assure that project impacts are adequately mitigated, the study includes several mitigation measures, which are summarized below. 1. Monroe, Madison and Avenue 54 shall be improved to their build out half - width with development of the proposed project. 2. A Class II bikeway and golf cart path shall be located on Monroe, Madison and Avenue 54. 3. A left turn pocket shall be constructed in the median on Madison Street at the project entry to allow for deceleration. 4. A right -turn deceleration lane shall be constructed on Avenue 54 at the eastern access on Avenue 54. 5. A left turn pocket shall be constructed on Avenue 54 at the eastern access on Avenue 54. 6. Lane geometrics shall be as shown on Exhibit 5.1 of the traffic studies. 7. The project proponent shall contribute their fair share to signalization of Jefferson Street and Avenue 54, Madison Street and Avenue 54, Monroe Street and Avenue 54, and, if warranted, Monroe Street and Firenze Gate. Theproject does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. With implementation of these mitigation measures, overall impacts to traffic are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. -28 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wJ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ti) c) Require or result in the construction of X new stone water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -29- XVI. a)-g) The Specific Plan and amendment area are currently served by CVWD for sanitary sewer service. CVWD's treatment plant has sufficient capacity, and has the ability to expand its capacity as demand rises. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the District has sufficient water supplies, or plans for addition to its water supplies, to serve the proposed project and other projects in its service area in the long term. The proposed project's hydrologist has designed storm drainage on the property to retain the 100 year storm, as required by the City. The City Engineer will review the plans to assure that storm flows are adequately contained, prior to the issuance of grading permits. Domestic waste will be collected by Burtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burtec currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed -project. -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X 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 X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The development of the Specific Plan has the potential to impact paleontologic resources. The mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will provide a variety of housing types to future City residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, as the Specific Plan as amended still proposed fewer units than would be permitted under the Very Low Density Residential land use designation. -31- XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measuresprovided in this Initial Study reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. -32- XVIII. 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. Environmental Assessment 2004-526 was used in the preparation of this Initial Study. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the .earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 11c19s F a av U � a V V Y V V Q Y Y a 0 y ou ❑ eo Gi eo [i ao � ao ri G brn do A A W A w C7 on Aon Ato Aon Ato ao wSu q G to q q q C to F iY W U m m m pn m y z O w Rw a ° >, ^� -o U A co \ \� ■/ 2 § § § § / a a f f; § ] $ $ ( ( ( to m . ) ) / / . ); z. 22 ` \ \ \ * to to \ / / d ) ] ) k z » \ ) \� \� £\ / .. )\ ) k) \ƒ }. �� \ ` in. \ ]\g f±( f !) \� .. �§ \§ � § E e § § § — Q u « § § § § - k ) k ) §z { \{ §§ ) ] \2 ) 209 § ) k () (� to PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE,.CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN FOR GRIFFIN RANCH. CASE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: TRANSWEST HOUSING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27' day of March, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider a request by Transwest Housing for approval of .amended development principles and design guidelines of a Specific Plan to provide an additional 90 lots and ±45 acres to the existing 303 lot, ± 199 acre subdivision, permit a larger clubhouse, and update the existing development standards to include previous Site Development Permit approvals, on property located south of Avenue 54, east of Madison Street, and west of Monroe Street, more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF THE NORTH 112 OF SECTION 15, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2006-577, and has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Amended Specific Plan: Y. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Amended Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General 'Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the project is compatible with the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Land Use designation, as applied to the property under General Plan Amendment 2004-103. 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed project will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2006-577, and no significant health or safety impacts were identified for,the proposed project. 3. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed Amended Specific Plan will continue the existing land use of the Griffin Ranch development and, in terms of M Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Specific Plan 2004-074 Amendment #1 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch March 27, 2007 surrounding land uses, is similar in nature to other residential projects being developed in the immediate area, such as lower density residential uses with country clubs, and equestrian amenities. The proposed project is consistent with the existing Griffin Ranch development and will incorporate the existing rural design theme with equestrian amenities in an area that is considered transitional between Low and Very Low Density rural, agrarian and equestrian uses. The VLDR designation provides, for an appropriate transitional land use. 4. Property Suitability: The proposed project is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, in that it is located in an area considered Low and Very Low density country club communities, transitioning to equestrian and agricultural uses to the east. The project continues the existing transition between urban low density uses and more rural, residential/equestrian or agricultural uses. The Amended Specific Plan can be served without adverse impact by all necessary public services and utilities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Amended Specific Plan; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2004-074 Amendment #1 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 271h day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC RESO SP 04-074 Amdi.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Specific Plan 2004-074 Amendment #1 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch March 27, 2007 ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC RESC SP 04-074 Amdi.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074 AMENDMENT No.1 TRANS WEST HOUSING / GRIFFIN RANCH MARCH 27, 2007 Specific Plan 2004-074, Amendment No.1 (SP 2004-074 Amd. #1) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, and the approved Specific Plan document. In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SP 2004-074 Amendment No.1, these conditions shall take precedence. 2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Specific Plan 2004-074 Amendment No. 1 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Tentative Tract Maps No. 32879 and 34642 Site Development Permits 2005-848, 2005-853, and 2006-876 Environmental Assessments EA 2004-526 and EA 2006-577 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 4. No signage is permitted with this approval. Signage shall be reviewed under separate permit. SPECIFIC PLAN 5. Page 36, Perimeter Walls, second sentence shall include language to state: "These walls may be up to 8.5' in height from adjacent curb with masonry block and smooth stucco finish." 6. Page 36, Amendments to the Specific Plan, last paragraph on page 36 referencing deviations shall be rewritten to the following: "The Director of Community Development shall have the authority to determine substantial conformance with the provisions of the Specific Plan, when the changes are RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074 AMENDMENT No.1 TRANS WEST HOUSING / GRIFFIN RANCH MARCH 27, 2007 less than 10%; the Planning Commission shall review changes that vary between 10% and 15%; and the City Council shall review all changes greater than 15%." FXHIRITS 5. Within 30 days of City Council approval, applicant shall provide five copies of the Final Specific Plan document to the Community Development Department. The Final Specific Plan shall include all project related final Conditions of Approval and correct any typographical errors, internal document inconsistencies, and/or minor amendments deemed necessary by City staff. In addition the following amendments shall be made and submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director: (a) Exhibit 10 on Page 26 shall be revised to add and identify street improvements for Avenue 54 and Monroe Street as part of Phase 4 Phasing. (b) All references on Exhibit 16 of Page 39 shall be for 8-foot meandering sidewalks instead of 6-foot meandering sidewalks. (c) Exhibit 18 on Page 41 shall revise the Title from "Trails Exhibit" to "Equestrian Trails Exhibit." (d) All sidewalks on Exhibit 25 of Page 54, Exhibit 27 of Page 56, and Exhibit 35 of Page 64 shall be revised to identify 8 foot meandering sidewalks instead of 6 foot meandering sidewalks APPENDIX ONE, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATIN ELEMENT (e) In Appendix One, the first sentence of Program 2.8 of Page 3 shall be revised to read: "On Local streets, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 250 feet." (f) In Appendix One, Page 3, the last sentence for Traffic and Circulation Goals, Policies and Programs, shall revise "54th Avenue" to the correct name "Avenue 54."' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 34642, AN ADDITIONAL ±45.0 ACRES DIVIDED INTO 90 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS FOR THE GRIFFIN RANCH DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34642 APPLICANT: TRANSWEST HOUSING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of March, 2007, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing, to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract Map 34642, a request to subdivide ±45.0 acres into 90 single-family residential lots, one ±5.3 acre recreation lot, one well site, and other common lots, located generally on the south side of Avenue 54 and west of Monroe Street, more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 15, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2006-577, and has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract Map 34642: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 34642 is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended, with the implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide for adequate storm water drainage, street improvements and other infrastructure improvements. The project is consistent with the adopted Very Low Density Residential land use designation of up to two dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 2004-103. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- Tentative Tract 34642 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch March 27, 2007 2. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map 34642 are consistent with the City's General Plan, with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval to ensure proper street widths, perimeter walls, and timing of their construction. 3. As conditioned, the design of Tentative Tract Map 34642 and type of improvements, acquired for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision will not conflict with such easements. 4. The design of Tentative Tract Map 34642 and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2006-577, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. 5. The site for Tentative Tract 34642 is physically suitable for the proposal as natural slopes do not exceed 20%, and there are no identified geological constraints on the property that would prevent development pursuant to the geotechnical study prepared for the subdivision. 6. The proposed design for Tentative Tract 34642 is consistent with the existing portions of the Griffin Ranch residential development and is consistent with existing rural and equestrian -oriented developments in the vicinity. Provisions have been made for procuring the necessary right-of-way and construction of off -site improvements associated with this parcel, as required under the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures specified by Environmental Assessment 2006-577, prepared for Tentative Tract Map 34642; 3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 34642 to the City Council, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and'subject to the attached Conditions of -Approval. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC RESO TT34642.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- Tentative Tract 34642 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch March 27, 2007 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of March, 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC RESO TT34642.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 34642 TRANS WEST HOUSING / GRIFFIN RANCH MARCH 27, 2007 GENERAL EXHIBIT "A" 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code §66410 through §66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"), Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 32879, Site Development Permit 2005-853, Site Development Permit 2005-848, Site Development Permit 2006-876, and the Griffin Ranch Specific Plan 2004-074, Amendment #1. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code and Engineering Handbook can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 4. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Fire Marshal - PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance] for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department (Mitigation Monitoring) • Riverside County Environmental Health Department Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit or revision to the existing Griffin Ranch permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI" ►, prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or his/her designer can obtain the California Stormwater PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Gr1ffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 11 Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 6. Permits issued under this .approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS & RIGHTS -OF -WAY 7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of access easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal by City staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to remove graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall establish the aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the development or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street rights -of -way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 9. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial - Option A, 1 10' ROW) - The standard 55 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total 110-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way dedication for a deceleration/right turn only lane at the proposed entry measured 63 feet west of the centerline of Monroe Street. The required right of way shall be for a length of 248 feet plus storage length and a tapered transition length of 150 additional feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 2) Avenue 54 (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane, 96' ROW) - 48 feet from the centerline of Avenue 54 for a total 96-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way for a deceleration/right turn only lane on Avenue 54 at the Avenue 54 and Monroe Street intersection measured 60 feet south of the centerline of Avenue 54. The required right of way shall be for a length of 132 feet plus a storage length and a tapered transition length of 120 additional feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 10. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street rights -of - way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 11. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Firenze Gate — Entry access road street :.width as shown on the tentative tract map unless additional width is required by the City Engineer as determined in plan check due to vehicular conflict movements with Lot 90 ingress and egress. 2) Damascus Way, Haflinger Way, Challedon Circle, Man-O-War Court, MacBeth Street (along Lot 85), and Ardennais Drive. - Private Residential Streets measured at gutter or curb flow line to gutter or curb flow line shall have a minimum 36-foot travel width for double loaded streets. 3) MacBeth Street (along Lots 79 through 83) - Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 32-foot travel width and on -street parking is prohibited on one side and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 4) Wedge curbs approved by the City Engineer shall be used on all private streets. C. Knuckle 1) The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revision as may be required by the City Engineer. 12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc - 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape . setback requirement. 13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights - of -way shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant shall grant the necessary.rights-of-way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights -of - way as follows: A. Monroe.Street (Primary Arterial) - A minimum 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Avenue 54 (Secondary Arterial) - A minimum 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 17. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street and Avenue 54 from lots with frontage along Monroe Street and Avenue 54 are restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall 6 PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc ,. Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 19. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 21. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses). Off -site street improvements shall be completed before the issuance of the 181h building permit has been reached. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial — Option A,,110' ROWI: Widen the west side of the street along all frontages, adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') west of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Project's Entry on Monroe Street. The west curb face shall be located fifty-one feet (51') west of the centerline and a length of 248 feet plus a storage length and a taper transition of an additional length of 150 feet. Other required improvements in the Monroe Street.right or way and/or adjacent, landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 7 t Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) Half width of an 18' - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map. d) Establish a benchmark in the Monroe Street right of way and file a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside. e) A 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Trail. The applicant shall construct a multi -use trail along the Monroe Street frontage within the landscaped setback. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. A split rail fence shall be constructed on the street side of the trail in accordance with designs approved under Site Development Permit 2005-848. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval. At grade intersection crossings shall be of a medium and design and location as approved by the Engineering Department on the street improvement plan submittal. 2) Avenue 54 (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane, 96' ROW): Widen the south side of the street along the southerly boundary of the Tentative Tract and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The south curb face shall be located thirty six feet (38') south of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Avenue 54 at the Avenue 54 and Monroe Street intersection. The south curb face shall be located forty eight (48') south of thecenterlinea length of 132 feet plus storage length and a tapered transition length of an additional 120 feet. Other required improvements in the Avenue 54 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. 8 PAReports,- PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 c) A 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Trail along the Avenue 54 frontage within the landscaped setback. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City and shall be constructed in accordance with designs approved under Site Development Permit 2005-848. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval. At grade intersection crossings shall be of a medium and design and location as approved by the Engineering Department on the street improvement plan submittal. Trail design shall accommodate future connections on the adjacent private estate and include warning signs to indicate "NOT A THROUGH TRAIL" and bollards, designed to the approval of the Community Development Department. The on -site sidewalk including curb ramp and multi -purpose trail alignments shall be separated when possible. Should at any point in time the adjacent private estate be redeveloped with a multi -purpose trail, on -site warning signs and bollards shall be removed by the applicant. d) An 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet: The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 3) When warrants are met inclusive of traffic signal warrants per the California MUTCD and particularly, Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System, the applicant is responsible for 25% of the cost to design and install the traffic signal at the Monroe Street/Avenue 54 intersection. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 25 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 4) When warrants are met inclusive of traffic signal warrants per the California MUTCD and particularly, Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System, the applicant is responsible for 100% of the cost to design and install the traffic signal at the Firenze Gate/Monroe Street intersection. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 100% of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit. The applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal if complementing cost share from a development on other side of street is available at time signal is required. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject intersection, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the signalization for the resulting "T" intersection. If, however, the applicant's development trails the progress of the development on the other side of the street, the applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the cost as previously stated. The applicant is not entitled for any DIF reimbursement for the traffic signal at the Firenze Gate entrance and Monroe Street. 5) Associated with the design and installation of traffic signals mentioned in Items 3 and 4 above, the applicant is responsible for the cost to design and interconnection improvements on Monroe Street from the Avenue 54 intersection to the Primary Entry and up to the southerly tentative tract boundary. The interconnection improvements shall be at a minimum to include conduit(s), wiring, and pull boxes necessary for the interconnection along Monroe Street .from Avenue 54 to the southerly end of the tentative tract. The applicant is not entitled for any DIF reimbursement for the interconnection improvements conditioned in item 5 unless future reimbursements are made available per the DIF Study in effect at the time of construction. P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 The aforementioned requirement for traffic signals (Item 3 and 4) shall sunset after 5 years from the date of recordation of the final map, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by both the City and the developer. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Construct full 36-foot wide travel width measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line within a 41-foot right-of-way where the residential streets are double loaded. 2) Construct a 32-foot wide measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line where on -street parking is permitted on one side and the applicant makes provisions for perpetual enforcement of the No Parking restrictions. 3) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. Additionally, as the street layout proposed creates inherent problems with vehicular conflict, the applicant shall submit driveway locations for approval by the City Engineer. D. KNUCKLE 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. E. ON -SITE MULTI -PURPOSE TRAILS. The on -site sidewalk including curb ramp and multi -purpose trail alignments shall be separated when possible. The design of multi -purpose trails including finished surface, geometry, curb transitions, slopes, sight distances, signing, and location shall be approved by the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department on the final landscaping plan submittal and shall be in accord with the designs approved under Site Development Permits 2005-848 and 2006-876. The applicant shall submit engineered drawings of multi -purpose trails for each phase with the on -site street improvement plans. The applicant shall provide a 4-inch concrete mow strip along both sides of the multi -purpose trail when applicable and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvements including multi -purpose trail street intersections shall include PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, and raised medians if required. 22. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 23. Entries having access to public streets shall be designed so that pavers are not constructed within the revised street right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and constructed as per City standards. Said street right-of- way requirements are per conditions of approval for this tentative tract map to include curb cuts and deceleration lane requirements at the Firenze Gate entry and as approved by the City Engineer. 24. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 25. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland, cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 26. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Monroe Street Primary Entry (Firenze Gate at Monroe Street):. Full turn movements in and out are allowed. 27. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 28. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. FINAL MAPS 29. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate mylars of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The Final Map shall be of a 1 " = 40' scale or as approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 30. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 13 PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 31. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1" = 40' Horizontal Note: A through shall be processed concurrently. D. Storm Drain Plans 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. Off -Site Street Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. G. On -Site Street Improvement/ Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. H. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. 14 PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc v - Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 32. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 33. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall submit mylars in order to reflect the as - built conditions. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 34. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 35. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quints, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 36. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on - site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 37. Depending on the timing of the development -of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall have all off -site improvements completed and accepted by the City of La Quinta prior to issuance of the eighteenth (18th) building permit for this Tentative Tract Map. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs.of such_, improvements. 16 P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 38. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 1 1" Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. r;RAnING 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 40. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 41. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 17 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 42. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized.with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 43. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches 08") behind the curb. 44. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 45. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 46. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 47. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map,the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 48. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 49. The footings of perimeter walls along abutting properties shall be designed to be within the Tentative Tract Map property and not encroach into the abutting properties. u DRAINAGE 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the, greatest total run off. 51. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report. with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 52. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 53. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 54. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 55. For on -site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin. 56. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 57. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 58. The development. shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 59. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 60. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 61. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 62. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27. 2007 all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 63. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 64. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the.City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION M. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 66. The applicant 'shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 67. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 68. The applicant shall submit "Lot B" and Firenze Gate final landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Community Development Director, however landscape plans for landscaped median on public streets shall be approved by the both the Community Development Director and the City Engineer unless specifically conditioned under separate Site Development Permit for approval by the Architecture P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 21 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 and Landscaping Review Committee. Final landscaping plans shall be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code and AASHTO site distance guidelines. 69. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Community Development Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 70. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Po/icy on Geometric Design of Highways and -Streets," 5th Edition or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right- of-way. 71. All landscaping, walls, fences, trail details, and gates shall conform to those designs approved under Site Development Permit 2006-853, Site Development Permit 2005- 876, Site Development Permit 2006-872, and Specific Plan 2004-074. QUALITY ASSURANCE 72. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 73. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 74. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 75. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shallfurnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. 22 PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 MAINTENANCE 76. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 77. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 78. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 79. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of- the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 80. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees based on their requirements.. --Fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance by the City. 81. Tentative Tract 34642.shall provide for parks through payment of an in -lieu fee, as specified in Chapter 13.48, LQMC. The in -lieu fee (sometimes referred to as the "Quimby Fee") shall be based on the fair market value of the land within the subdivision. Land value information shall be provided to the Community Development Director, via land sale information, a current fair market value of land appraisal, or other information on land value within the subdivision. The Community Development Director may consider any subdivider -provided or other land value information source for use in calculation of the parkland fee. FIRE MARSHAL 82. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. 'Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. Off -site hydrants are required at any entry and every 660 feet around the perimeter of the project. 83. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the P:\Reports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 23 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 84. If required, sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Area separation walls may not be used to reduce the need for sprinklers. 85. Any turn or cul-de-sac requires a minimum 38-foot outside turning radius. 86. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor of the buildings, as measured by outside path of travel. 87. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches in height, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. 88. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used. 89. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX) unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 90. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate. Water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for, approval. 91. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 92. All mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2006-577 are hereby included in this approval. 24 PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 93. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking purposes. 94. A permit from the Community Development Department is required for any temporary or permanent tract signs. Up -lighted tract identification signs are allowed subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Ordinance. 95. The Community Development Director shall cause to be filed with the County Clerk a "Notice of Determination" pursuant to CEQA Guideline § 15075(a) once reviewed and approved by the City Council. The appropriate filing fee shall be paid by the developer within 24 hours of Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map. 96. A master Minor. Use Permit for all casitas shall be secured in conjunction with the recordation of the Final Map, unless special arrangements are otherwise approved by the Community Development Department. A covenant and provision in the CC&R's shall be recorded informing all property owners of the Minor Use Permit and its conditions of approval. 97. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors and a Native American monitor shall be present during all ground -breaking activities. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for City notification and analysis. If prehistoric or historic resources are discovered during monitoring or the subsequent construction phase, the Community Development Department shall be notified immediately. 98. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates, including a program of the washing for micro invertebrate fossils. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving permit, or before any clearing of the site is begun. 99. The final report on all required monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for 25 PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 34642 March 27, 2007 residences within this phase of the project. 100. Collected archaeological and paleontological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, photographs, primary research data, and the original graphics. 101. Only lighting installed in accord with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance shall be permitted. Details of all perimeter landscape lighting fixtures and a photometric plan for the Firenze .Gate entry shall be submitted to the Community Development Department with the final landscaping plans to ensure conformance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. 102. Prototypical residential units constructed within Tentative Tract 34642 shall conform to those approved under Site Development Permit 2006-853. 103. The applicant shall be responsible for the daily removal of all nuisance manure including from the public right-of-way, equestrian trails, and landscaped areas. 104. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project. If Community Development Director determines City Attorney review is necessary, a deposit will be required for reimbursement of City Attorney review fees. 105. It shall be the developer's responsibility to coordinate with other developers in the area to acquire a power substation site for the Imperial Irrigation District. Expenses for the substation shall be the responsibility of those developers involved with the coordination and acquisition. 106. All applicable conditions or provisions of Specific Plan SP 04-074 Amendment #1 shall be in force and effect for Tentative Tract Map 34642. PAReports - PC\2007\3-27-07\Griffin Ranch TT 34642 & SP\PC COA TT 34642.doc 26