The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 01 23 PCi to, Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page (@ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California January 23, 2001 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2001-002 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-003 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on January 9, 2001, B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA ,� 0 I ] 9 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... CONTINUED - MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 2000- 066 - TITLE 8, BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Amend Chapter 8.13, Water Efficient Landscaping Action ............... Resolution 2001 Continue to B. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-402, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-071, ZONE CHANGE 2000- 069, AMEND THE VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINE BOUNDARY, AND VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-004 Applicant........... Chapman Golf Development, LLC and the City of La Quinta Location............ Northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive and the west side of Eisenhower Drive between Calle Tampico to Avenida Montezuma. Request ............. 11 Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) amend the General Plan and Zoning Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial and from Medium Density Residential and Cove Residential to Village Commercial; 3) amend the Village Design Guideline boundaries; and 4) allow development plans for a 16,222 square foot restaurant. Action ............... Resolution 2001-, Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001-_, Resolution 2001-, Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-649 Applicant........... Country Club of the Desert Location............ North side of Avenue 54 between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street Request ............. Review of architectural and landscaping plans for a. clubhouse, main entry guard house, and golf course maintenance facility within Country Club of the Desert. Action ............... Resolution 2001 PC/AGENDA V.- () U ^. ,L D. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000.406, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050, VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-005, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29909 Applicant........... Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC. Location............ Calle Tampico between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas Request ............. 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, review of design guidelines and development standards for a 15.25 acre commercial center; 2) development plans for a six story 145 room hotel; and 3) creation of 11 lots ranging in size from .4 to 6.2 acres. Action ............... Resolution 2001-_, Resolution 2001-__, Resolution 2001-_, Resolution 2001- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2001-528 Applicant ......... Riofine Neon for Jiffy Lube Location .......... West side of Adams Street, immediately north of the La Quinta Car Wash, within the Highway 1 1 1 La Quinta Shopping Center Request .......... Review of two internally illuminated individually mounted channel letter signs Action ............. Minute Motion 2001- Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of January 16, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA 003 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 9, 2001 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to excuse Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Associate Engineer Brian Downs, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Chairman Robbins informed that at the Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 2000, Environmental Assessment 2000-396, General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000- 045, and Site Development Permit 2000-677; a request of Evergreen Devco-Walgreens was continued to this meeting. Inadvertently, this matter was left off the agenda. The Planning Commission will therefore take no action at this time. The item will be re -advertised and re -noticed to all appropriate property owners as required by law, prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. Iv. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 12, 2000. Commissioners Tyler asked that Page 3, Item #10, be corrected to read "Assistant City Attorney"; Page 8, Item #4 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Tyler noted that a water main is to be installed along Washington Street, between Delaware Street and Fred G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01 .wpd 1 �, 00 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 Waring Drive.... and the City declined the opportunity". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. C. Planning Manager Christie di lorio introduced Associate Engineer Brian Downs, who would be representing the Public Works Department on various cases. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-687; a request of Lyons, Warren and Associates, Inc. for review of plans for a one story Jack in the Box restaurant with a drive-thru located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Depot Way in the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if modifications would be made to Depot Way for access to the drive-thru. Staff explained the circulation pattern and discussion followed. 3. Chairman Robbins stated the plans does not show what the limits of their improvements will be. Associate Engineer Brian Downs stated they have been conditioned to go off -site to make the improvements necessary. Depot Way is currently paved and is used as a permanent access to the site. 4. Chairman Robbins asked what method the City has to ensure that the developer maintains the landscaping around the restaurants. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated this is an on -going issue with this development and staff has been working with the Code Enforcement Department to resolve this issue, but other problems have taken precedent. Some improvements have bene made to the Home Depot frontage. As projects are proposed the site, it is G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01.wpd 2 'j-" (10 J Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 an opportunity to bring these issues to light and place conditions on the projects to bring the landscaping into compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Robbins noted the problem existed at other centers as well. Staff stated this is an on -going issue with Code Enforcement. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Planning Commission could use Code Enforcement concerns as a rationale for rejecting or significantly modifying a subsequent approval. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated they could use it to modify an approval particularly when it sounds like this is an on -going issue that has arisen contrary to prior conditions of approval imposed. His recommendation would be in respect to this application, that the Commission take this option rather than denying the project because this applicant is not contributing to the problems. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked which document took precedent in regard to conditions being met. Staff stated the Specific Plan and Home Depot is the property owner and responsible for meeting the conditions. 7. Chairman Robbins stated that with no malice toward this applicant, does the Commission have the ability to deny further expansion of the project because the property owner has not met his obligations. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he was not prepared to render an opinion at this time. Certainly the Commission has wide latitude and discretion with respect to imposing conditions and certainly with respect to on -going code enforcement matters that can always be a factor with respect to how the Commission further tightens conditions. He would review the matter and report back to the Commission shortly. 8. Commissioner Butler stated that before issuing final inspection on this site, the Commission could require these prior conditions be resolved. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated yes, they could. Commissioner Butler stated that way they were not stopping the project, but allowing it to go forward and still requiring the master developer to meet the prior conditions. 9. Chairman Robbins asked if they wanted to go to the extreme to have the entire Highway 1 1 1 landscaping replaced, they could do this. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the extremes are the difficult ones. He would have to review the issue further. G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01 .wpd 3 0.. 110 S Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 Some sort of nexus issue on that level may be needed and he does not have the background to answer the question adequately. If the Commission wants further advice on the issue at this meeting, he could quickly review the issue to provide the Commission with an answer before the end of the meeting. Chairman Robbins pointed out that the Commission's purpose is to get the property owners attention and have some mechanism to resolve the issues. They do not want the developer to continue to expand if they are not going to meet the conditions imposed on them regarding the landscaping. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated this type of anecdotal discussion is useful to the extent it is utilized in code enforcement actions that may occur in the future. Staff noted that Condition #32.A should be changed to make "A" Condition #48 and state "...prior to final inspection". 10. Commissioner Butler asked staff to identify where the applicant would be expanded the site for the street improvements. Associate Engineer Brian Downs explained on the site plan the location to be expanded onto. 1 1 . Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign was a national logo. Staff stated yes. 12. Commissioner Butler stated he had no objection to the second menu board as it does assist in speeding up the ordering; why was staff requesting the removal. Staff stated because there were too many signs and other establishments have been restricted to one. 13. Chairman Robbins asked the size of the signs. Staff stated 5-feet by 5-feet on the tower elements and staff would reword Condition 41.B. to allow the applicant to determine where he wanted to place the two signs. Staff was also requesting the addition of a condition requiring a monument base on the menu board sign. 14. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #32.B. as to why the Olive trees were not being used and the only reason given was that they do not match the trees being used by Home Depot; why was staff denying the Olive trees. Staff stated for compatibility throughout the parking lot. Commissioner Tyler suggested removal of the Crape Myrtle as it grows so slowly. Staff stated they would remove it. Discussion followed regarding the trees recommended. GAWPDOC S\PC1-9-01.wpd 4 -a.- ` r10 f Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 15. Commissioner Kirk stated the sign program does allow national tenants, or is there some type of sign regiment for the center; some sort of consistency in terms of colors, materials, etc. Staff stated not in regard to colors, but materials and channel letters. 16. Chairman Robbins stated the first time this project was proposed there was a problem with slope protection problem; has that problem been resolved? Staff stated the entire phase had been protected. 17. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated that in general they would need to look at Phase II of the Specific Plan with the possibility of amending and tighten up the conditions. There is also a Development Agreement that may help to resolve the issue and he and staff would be reviewing it to that end. Chairman Robbins stated there must be a way to reach the developer to address this issue. 18. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Steve Schneider, representing the applicant, stated they would be closing escrow once the approvals have been attained to build the building. In regard to how far they are going to make street improvements, he explained on the site plan where they would be making their improvements. On the two building signs their preference would be to have them on the east and west elevations. The final item, or the two menu boards, they would like to request the second as it does improve the speed of the drive -through. As the menu boards are on the interior to the center and all the illumination is pointing interior to the center which ultimately will be developed as a shopping center building significantly behind them. The menu board staff is requesting to be eliminated is completely screened from view by their trash enclosure. So from the public right of way, it is virtually impossible to be seen, but it does benefit them significantly from an operational standpoint. In regard to the landscaping on the street frontage, they have no control over this, but will be maintaining their own landscaping. They will be addressing the Commission's concerns with the property owner of the center. 19. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked how much of the landscaping would be in turf. Mr. Schneider stated it is minimal. Staff stated it was in the rear of the building. Commissioner Kirk asked what G\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01.wpd 5 �•" �I Q p Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 the purpose was for the turf. Mr. Schneider stated it adds color. Commissioner Kirk stated it was an odd location for turf. Mr. Schneider stated they would work with staff to use some other material. 20. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had any other concerns regarding the conditions. Mr. Schneider stated no more than what had been raised. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the entrance to the drive - through there is a 12-foot canopy; is there anything that can be done to dress it up. Mr. Schneider stated it was a standard canopy and a necessary evil. They would welcome any suggestions. 22. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 23. Commissioner Tyler stated he had no objection to allowing the applicant to determine where the signs would be located. In regard to the menu boards he had no issue with having two. 24. Commissioner Butler stated he thought there were others that had two menu boards and he had no objections to allowing two. Staff noted they would survey the fast food restaurants to determine the standard. 25. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not have any strong concerns regarding the two menu boards. He did not like fast food restaurants as they do cause sign clutter nor the auto orientation. They do however, need to stick with whatever the precedent is, if there is one. Maybe the Commission could go with staff's recommendation, but if the survey determines that other restaurants have been approved with two signs, then give this applicant the same opportunity. The other point is the suggestion of the monument base for the menu boards whether one or two, and the idea of sending the message to the master property owner regarding the landscaping. Condition 32.A., in his opinion, does not do the City justice. They need to see that the master developer meets the conditions of the Specific Plan for the landscaping along Highway 111. He would change the condition to require all the landscaping on the project site and not just Highway 111 Corridor. The applicant can work with staff to find a less water demanding ground cover. G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-Ol.WDd 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 26. Chairman Robbins stated he had mixed feelings regarding the two menu boards, as he does not like sign proliferation either, but he can understand the need for both. He wold agree with Commissioner Kirk that if other restaurants have two, they let them have two, if not leave it at one. 27. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Resolution 2000-001, approving Site Development Permit 2000-687, as conditioned with the following changes: a. Condition #32.A: Changed to Condition #48. Existing landscaping in the Highway 111 parkway and on site shall be repaired or replaced prior to final inspection. b Condition 32.B.: One of the three building mounted signs shall be deleted. C. Condition #41.C.: Dependent upon other fast food restaurants, only one freestanding menu board is permitted and the sign(s) shall include a monument base. d. Condition 32.H.: Replace the turf areas north of the building with less demanding water use materials. 28. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff could get a report back to the Commission letting them know that Home Depot has complied and Jack in the Box has received their final inspection, just to keep them informed of what has happened. Staff stated will keep the Commission informed as to the progress. If the landscaping is approved by some other means, prior to Jack in the Box final inspection, staff will let the Commission know. 29. Chairman Robbins stated they did not want to put too much a burden on this developer, but on the master property owner of the center. 30. Commissioner Butler stated he would rather let them build it and then not allow occupancy unless the landscaping is done. This is a stronger message. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. D.- 0 1 0 G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01 .wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Master Desi n Guidelines 2000-013; a request of DGH Development Corporation for review of one prototypical floor plan for development in the Cove Residential Development to be built on various lots in the Cove. 1 . Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked staff what they were asking for in regard to Model A and B. Staff stated they were recommending that front door, garage door and window designs be varied between the two elevations. Commissioner Butler stated there does seem to be a difference between the two and he did not see the need. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were required to use roll up doors. Staff stated no, but the setback would change regarding which door they used. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to see the square footage of the houses and the pages numbered on the submittal. 5. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurred with Commissioner Tyler and asked if the applicant had been given a copy of previously approved Guideline submittals and told what the Commission wanted. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk stated that if these two elevations were shown to people and they were asked what the different was, the only obvious thing would be the vents. These homes are almost identical and it is not the intent of the Master Design Guidelines. If we are going to do this, we should do this right or get it off the books as he is going to continue to vote his conscience on this and the way he believes the Ordinance is written. In his opinion, this is not nearly enough variation. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jeff Heusinkveld, representing DGH Developers, stated that with variation on garage doors, there is a limited amount they can change on the windows. They are looking to do G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01 .wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 whatever is necessary to be able to pull their permits as they have four in plan check and ready to go on six more in the next three months. 7. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to see variations in the roofs, gable versus hip; variances in terms of floor plans, setbacks; staggering front elevations; greater difference in terms of how the surrounds and window elements are used; arches and other details that really distinguish the plans. Mr. Heusinkveld stated that to change roof lines it could require re -engineering the plans. Commissioner Kirk stated he understands the costs involved, but the way City was concerned about exactly what he was suggesting doing, that is one plan and put it in six or seven locations throughout the City. This, however does not meet the intent of the Ordinance. There has been some discussion regarding changing the Ordinance and perhaps allowing this in the future, but as it is written currently, it is not allowed. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked if the home in the picture in the Guidelines was built. Mr. Heusinkveld stated yes on Avenida Rubio, it was the second one built and there is currently one under construction on Avenida Navarro. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff where the Zoning Code update stood in regard to changing this. Staff stated the changes were being drafted and this section should be eliminated and ready for public hearings in February. Staff went on to explain how the Ordinance currently reads. 10. Chairman Robbins asked what would replace it. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the current Code requires that we review all building elevations within a 200-foot radius to ensure they are not similar. 1 1 . Chairman Robbins asked with the proposed changed in the Zoning Code would the variances in these two units be sufficient for staff to approve them next door to each other. Staff stated they would be allowed. 12. Commissioner Kirk asked if the changes to this Ordinance were requested by the City Council, or staff initiated. Staff stated it is being initiated by staff. Commissioner Kirk asked why. Staff G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01 .wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 stated four can be built before they are brought to the Commission for review and approval before they can build any more. That means there are already four of the units built in the Cove. What is the difference if four are built? After their approval they can not build as many as they like as long as the same plan is not within 200 feet of each other. 13. Commissioner Butler stated these are cosmetic changes and we need more design elements rather than popouts and vents and six panel garage doors. In his opinion, there is a difference between the two houses proposed, but does the Commission have any discretion for the future to require different changes that makes a bigger impact on the architectural design. 14. Commissioner Kirk stated more discretion is required now than the future if staff's recommendation is approved. Staff stated staff will review them in the future instead of the Commission. Commissioner Kirk stated staff would approve these two units side by side. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked what is wrong with the Master Design Guidelines process now. Staff stated all the information is given to the builders who are required to submit for Commission approval and staff still cannot always get the information required before Commission. Commissioner Kirk stated that the last one submitted was pretty good, after two tries. 15. Chairman Robbins stated this presentation is better than some and if the word gets out that the Commission is not going to approve a poor Guidelines submittal, then they will get what they want. Staff stated another problem is that once a company receives four approvals, they will change their name and get four more houses, and then change their name again. Another problem is that there is one designer for all the builders, which limits the designs. Chairman Robbins stated he understands there is only so much you can do on a 50-foot by 100-foot lot. 16. Commissioner Kirk stated they had approved one Guidelines that had an excellent presentation with about six different elevations. Staff stated not all developers build that many houses. Commissioner Kirk asked if the process had increased the diversity of the housing stock. Staff stated there is some diversity. It is better now than before. The problem is that the builders are finding ways around the system. Commissioner Kirk stated a G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01.wpd 10 a C13 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 short term solution would be what they have done before, the Commission could approve this plan for two or three homes and require them to come back with a new set of elevations when they reach four, five, or six homes. The Ordinance may change before they come back for a second set of elevations and the developer may be required to do something else. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not think it appropriate to come down on this developer as this Ordinance may be revised, or eliminated. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-001, approving Master Design Guidelines 2000-013, for the next four homes and if the requirement is still there at the completion of these four homes, the applicant is to submit new designs at that time. Unanimously approved. B. Sian Application 2000-526; a request of Mark and Dorothy Hastings for review of a freestanding monument identification sig for the under construction First School of the Desert located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue. 1 . Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked how staff measured the square footage with all the geometric shapes. Staff stated the sign area on the rectangular block was measured. 3. Commissioner Butler stated that if the area was correct, he had no objections. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-002, approving Sign Application 2000-526, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. G:AWPDOCSVPC1-9-01.wpd 11 II Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2001 VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Staff informed the Commission about the League of California Cities Planners Institute and asked that they let staff know what their plans were in regard to travel arrangements, etc. B. A video was shown to the Commission regarding livable streets using traffic calming devices. C. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of January 2, 2001. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held January 23, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. on January 9, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 01 G:AWPDOCSVPC1-9-01.wpd 12 "'� PH # A Tiht 4 *P Q" MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JANUARY 23, 2001 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #A - AMEND CHAPTER 8.13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING This item is being continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 13, 2001, to allow staff additional time to work with Coachella Valley Water District in their presentation. a, 01!; PH # B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 23, 2000 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2000-071 CHANGE OF ZONE (ZC) 2000-096 VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2000-040 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) 2000-402 AMEND THE VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINE BOUNDARIES REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; 2) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL; 3) AMEND THE VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINE BOUNDARIES; AND 4) ALLOW DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 16,222 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT. LOCATION: 1) NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE, 2) ON THE WEST SIDE OF EISENHOWER DRIVE BETWEEN CALLE TAMPICO TO AVENIDA MONTEZUMA APPLICANTS: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, LLC CITY OF LA QUINTA LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) NORTH: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) EAST: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) WEST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) The currently vacant Chapman project site of 4.99 acres, is located at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 And Desert Club Drive. The site is adjacent and across Avenue 52 from The Tradition Club. The site is currently General Plan designated and zoned A:\PC 2nd.staff rpt VUP 2000-04.wpd Low Density Residential. The City request includes seven parcels located fronting on Eisenhower Drive, south of Calle Tampico. The seven parcels are currently General Plan designated Medium Density Residential and zoned Cove Residential. On December 12, 2000 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council approval these cases. (Attachment 1). Due to an error in the certified property owner's list the cases were re -advertised for Planning Commission action on January 23, 2001 and City Council action on February 6, 2001 in order to provide the required comment period for the CEQA process The applicant is requesting to amend the General Plan and Zoning Designation from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial and allow a restaurant at northeast Corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. The City is requesting to amend the General Plan and Zoning Designation from Medium Density Residential and Cove Residential to Village Commercial on Eisenhower Drive south of Calle Tampico to bring the into make the appropriate General Plan and Zoning designation recognizing the properties historic use. The City is also requesting to amend the Village Design Guideline Boundaries to include all referenced properties (Attachment 2). 2. Village U,9p Permit The project consists of a 16,222 square foot restaurant with outdoor dining and parking lot with 190 spaces on 4.99 acres (Attachment 3). The project will take access from Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive with a circular driveway entrance. A twenty foot landscape setback is provided along Avenue 52, a ten foot landscape setback along the north property line, and an abundance of landscaping at the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. Parking lot landscaping absorbs 5.99% of the total parking area. The Zoning Code standard requires 1 parking space for every 75 feet of gross floor area; this project needs 216 spaces to meet that standard. The project provides 190 spaces and the applicant prepared a Parking Study (Attachment 4) to justify a lower parking standard for this project. Variations to any parking standard within the Village Commercial District under 9.65.030. 3.a. can be approved. The Parking Study shows parking usage at five local "upscale" restaurants, parking required for this facility if were built in seven different California cities using their requirements, and consideration of absorbing the 26 spaces using a valet parking overlay strategy. The study recommends implementing the valet parking strategy and as an alternative modify the parking lot design to accommodate the spaces. A:\PC 2nd.staff rpt VUP 2000-04.wpd 4.. 01 S Architecture The architecture of the restaurant is reminiscent of an early California or Spanish structure and utilizes russet blend colored two piece mission clay tile roofing, white smooth hand troweled mission plaster walls, tan stackable concrete columns, brown wood sash windows and doors, precast stone veneer below some windows, and brown wood trellis'. The structure is irregular in shape and uses a variety of roof types and heights, with a maximum height of 22 feet at the tower entry to the restaurant facing the southwest. The balance of the structure varies from 16 to 20 feet high. A majority of the windows are shaded by the trellis' or colonnade. A gable tile roof porte' cochere is provided over the passenger drop off and valet area at the entry. A 800 square foot full basement is provided for a wine cellar and private dining near the center of the restaurant. The Landscape Planting Plan provides a pallette of plant material for shrubs, groundcover, and trees. At the access drive off of Desert Club, California Pepper trees provide a canopy entrance Mesquite trees line the perimeter of the project site along Avenue 52 and the north edge of the parking lot; and in planter areas throughout the parking lot. At the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club and surrounding the building and outdoor dining, shrubs, groundcover, and trees are integrated into a unique landscape golf experience concept. The landscaping concept enhances the building design and includes a putting green, lakes, and pedestrian paths with connecting bridges. Undulating mounding (3-4 foot) is provided in this area to buffer Avenue 52 and Desert Club; the mounding extends along Avenue 52 buffering the east portion of the parking lot. A water efficiency study has been completed and the project is in compliance with the code. Site lighting consists of eighteen 20-foot high square poles, located generally on the perimeter of the parking lot, with box luminaries with flush lenses directed downward. Poles have one 175 watt metal halide lamps. There is also landscape accent lighting including tree lighting and bollards. The photometric data from the illumination study shows light in the parking area is between one and two foot candles, and a 2.75 ratio of average light to minimum light in compliance with the Zoning Code (Section 9.150.80K). There are two individually mounted halo lit reverse channel letter signs proposed. The copy will read "Palmer's". Both will be located on the tower; one will face Avenue 52 and one will facie Desert Club Drive. The proposed letter size will be 4'-4 and 7/8" high and 2'-7 and 3/4" long for a total of 23.4 square feet. 0 AAPC 2nd.staff rpt VUP 2000-04.wpd (11 3 Proposed is one approximately 7' high and 3'6" wide monument sign, located at the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive, consisting of "Eldorado" stone veneer and aged wood reveals with a Spanish Terra Cotta tile roof to match the building. The total sign square footage will be 18.5 square feet. The letters are reverse channel letters that will back lit. One "Parking" directional monument sign, located at the parking lot entrance on Avenue 52, 2"-27/8 " high and 3' wide for a total of 3.0 square feet. The sign will consist of "Eldorado" stone veneer and aged wood reveals with a Spanish Terra Cotta tile roof to match the building. The "Parking " signature sign using 1 /4 " flat cut out letters will be mounted on both faces, this sign will not be illuminated. The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public agencies on September 25, 2000, requesting comments to be returned by October 11, 2000. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Deesn newspaper and posted on November 6, 2000. This case was re -advertised in the Dessert Sun newspaper and posted on January 1, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE' Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee unanimously approved the architectural and landscape plans as submitted on November 1, 2000. (Attachment 5, Excerpts from Minutes). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment 2000-402 for the project. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: All findings can be made for each application per the Municipal Code. There are no issues with this request and findings required to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached resolutions. a A:\PC 2nd.staff rpt VUP 2000-04.wpd i. 1111 1.�' �l Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-087, and recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2000-402) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-088, and recommending to the City Council approval General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2000-071 to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial at northeast Corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive, amend the General Plan and Zoning Designation from Medium Density Residential to Village Commercial on Eisenhower Drive south of Calle Tampico; and 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-089, and recommending to the City Council approval of a Zone Change 2000-096 to change the Zoning designation from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial at northeast Corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive, amend the General Plan and Zoning Designation from Cove Residential to Village Commercial on Eisenhower Drive south of Calle Tampico; and 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-090, and recommending to the City Council amending Village Design Guideline Boundaries; and 5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-091 recommending to the City Council approval of Village Use Permit 2000-04 to allow development plans for a 16,222 square foot restaurant with outdoor dining, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1 . Excerpts from the December 12, 2000 minutes of the Planning Commission 2. Site Location Map 3. Plan Exhibits 4. Parking Study 5. Excerpts from the November 1, 2000 minutes of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee AAPC 2nd.staff rpt VUP 2000-04.wpd ��1 Prepared by: C:A44 Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner Sub itted by: I Christine di lorio 1 Planning Manager 4 f'l�) d A:\PC 2nd.staff rpt VUP 2000-04.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-071, CHANGE OF ZONE 2000- 096, VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AND VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA DESIGN GUIDELINES AMENDED BOUNDARIES CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-402 APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23'd day of January, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to rescind Planning Commission Resolution 2000-087 approved at a Public Hearing held the 121' day of December, 2000, and to consider Environmental Assessment 2000-402 for General Plan Amendment 2000-071, Change of Zone 2000-096, and Village Use Permit 2000-04 herein referred to as the "Project' for Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C.; and, WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-402) to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1 . The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of AAPC RES02. EA 2000-402.wpd 023 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2000-402 January 23, 2001 California history or prehistory. 3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2000-402 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact upon the environment. 8. EA 2000-402 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 922253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2000-402 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department. A:\PC RES02. EA 2000-402.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2000-402 January 23, 2001 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23`' day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development uirector City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RES02. EA 2000-402.wpd a„, 02 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2000-071, Change of Zone 2000-096, Village Use Permit 2000-04 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City Quinta 495 CaQTampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: North side of Avenue 52, east of Desert Club Dr 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Chapman505 Golf DevelopmentLa Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Low Density p oposed Villaage CommeraResidential Commercial 7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential Proposed: Village Commercial B. 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.) Village Use Permit to allow the construction of an 16,222 square foot restaurant, outside patio dining and associated parking and landscaping on 4.99 acres. Since the land is currently designated Low Density Residential, a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are also required. The General Plan and Zoning map amendments include non contiguous lands adjacent to existing Village Commercial designations, located on Eisenhower Drive. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Currently vacant, designated for Village Commercial South: Existing single family residential and golf course East: Medium Density Residential north of Avenue 52; Low Density Residential south of Avenue 52 West: Currently vacant, designated for Village Commercial 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) �' 026 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 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed nroiect, nothing further is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance PACEQAchccklistEA 00-402.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to on -agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) Potentially Significant Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (General Plan EIR) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x 41 IX X 4tX X X X X X X IV V VI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR p. 4.69) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan FIR p. 4.65 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan EIR, page 4-77 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-77 ff.)- c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed boundary map, City of La Quinta) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, page 4-77 ff.) 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: X X EX X X X X X MX X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X 141 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan, page 8-7) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) X X X X X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) X X X X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY :Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality X standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) r 01 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Preliminary Hydrology Report, The Keith Companies, October, 2000) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Preliminary Hydrology Report, The Keith Companies, October, 2000) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Preliminary Hydrology Report, The Keith Companies, October, 2000) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a I00-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Application Materials) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) X X X i X X XIL XIII. XIV d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: X X X X X a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan FIR, page 4-126 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) 3 c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the Mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992 Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code 031 XVI. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) X g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ff.) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ff.) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ff.) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES. X X X X X X X EX X X Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. a.J 035 Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-402 a) & c) Avenue 52 is designated a secondary image corridor in the General Plan. This designation requires that particular attention be placed on parkway landscaping for the proposed project. The project has a low intensity o use, however, and provides more landscaping along Avenue 52 than would be typical. This will reduce the potential impacts to scenic vistas to a less than significant level. I. d) The project site is currently vacant desert land. The project proponent will be required to comply with the City's lighting standards. In addition, the bulk of the lighting will occur in the parking lot area, which is bordered to the north by commercial lands in the Village Commercial designation. No sensitive receptors are located adjacent to the proposed project. The site's lighting impacts are not expected to be significant. III. c), d) & e) Based on the restaurant land use proposed, the project can be expected to generate approximately 1,459 trips per day'. Based on this, as shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 45 mph 28.7 3 Daily Threshold 550 1.29 5.15 75 100 0.0 0.13 0.13 150 Based on 1,459 trips/day and average trip length of 4.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). Recent analysis by SQAQMD has determined that the Valley has reached attainment, and a redesignation is pending. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trips Generation Handbook, 6th Edition for quality restaurant oacocn�cn_n.V,lom_(`hnnman wpn 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM10 Management Plan by the City Engineer. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project site are not included in the analysis. P:\FRED\EA-Addem-Chapman.WPD (13 7 IV. a), d), e) The site has been impacted by development activity and is not located within fluvial deposit areas. Therefore, although shown in the General Plan EIR as being within the habitat range of the California ditaxis, its occurrence is not expected on the project site. As disturbed and isolated habitat, the project site is not expected to currently provide a high quality environment for any significant species. V. a), b) & d) As previously stated, the project site has been significantly impacted. Previous development and improvement of Avenue 52 and surrounding lands have caused significant disturbance. Recorded archaeological sites, however, have been recorded within one mile of the project site, including human cremation sites and artifact deposits. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1 . An archaeological monitor shall be on site during all clearing, grubbing and trenching of the project site. If any archaeological resources are observed all work activity shall cease in the area of the observation, until such time as the monitor can determine appropriate actions to be taken, and develop a mitigation plan for such find. V1..a) i) The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. The potential impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant. VI. a) ii) The proposed project occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City has adopted the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard. Construction of any structure on the project site will conform to these standards, and will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significant level. VI. b) & c) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, but is composed of Myoma fine sand, which can be unstable if not properly compacted prior to construction. The City's standards for site preparation shall be adhered to in all site preparation activities. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1 . Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the specific structures being constructed. 13AFREMEA-Addem-Chapman.WPD '• 63J VIII. a) The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on - site. The water will be retained in retention basins which shall be designed to meet the standards established by the City Engineer. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning devices when necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water quality standard to a less than significant level. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The District will require the installation of water conserving landscaping, as well as the adherence to building code requirements for water conserving fixtures within the homes. This will reduce the potential impacts associated with the proposed project to a less than significant level. VIII. c), d) & e) Any development proposal reduces the amount of natural terrain available for percolation, and changes drainage patterns. Construction of structures and parking areas will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The proposed project will direct surface runoff to retention basins located within the project. The City Engineer will impose conditions of approval to ensure that any drainage is properly treated, if needed. No significant impact is expected. VIII. fl The proposed project is located in a Zone AO flood zone, in an area subject to flooding in a 100 year storm. However, as a commercial structure, the project will not place residences in such a flood zone. The City Engineer will condition the proposed project to ensure that the building is safe from flooding as part of the building permit process. No significant impact is expected. IX. b) The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial. This represents a significant change in the proposed land use for the project site. The site is surrounded on the north and west by commercially designated lands, on the south by an arterial roadway, and on the east by Medium and Low Density Residential lands. The isolated nature of the parcel, as well as its adjacency to commercially designated lands, reduces the potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to a less than significant level. The change to the Village Commercial designation in this area is a logical extension of the designation. V 9 P:\FRED\EA-Addem-Chapman.WPD The General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone also include a parcel of land located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, south of Calle Tampico. A series of lots, currently designated Medium Density Residential, are proposed for Village Commercial. The proposed amendments include the modification of the district boundary and design guidelines boundary, respectively. The intersection of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower, which both currently carry considerable traffic, is the gateway to the Village area. Traffic on Eisenhower is expected to continue to increase, and make residential development more and more incompatible. The potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone on this area, therefore, are also not expected to be significant. XI. a), b) & c) The proposed project site is isolated, but does occur adjacent to residential development. Although noise contours at the project site from vehicular traffic are not expected to exceed those acceptable for commercial development, the residential lands to the east could be impacted by construction noise. In order to lower the potential impacts associated with construction on the project site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that noise is directed away from the eastern side of the property. 3. Construction staging areas shall be located along the western property line. 4. All construction shall occur during the hours allowed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XIII. a) The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential impacts for all public services. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to public services. All development has an impact on governmental facilities and services. The project proponent will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvements. The proposed project will be required to pay school fees in effect at the time of development to mitigate for the impacts to schools. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on services or facilities. XV. a) The proposed project was analysed as a Low Density Residential development in the General Plan. A 4.99 acre area could generate up to 25 residential units, which would result in approximately 250 daily trips. As previously stated, the II"9 P:\FRED\EA-Addem-Chapman.WPD proposed project will generate approximately 1,459 daily trips. The increase in traffic however, is occurring on a street which is expected to display acceptable levels of service at buildout in the area of the proposed project (17,000 ADT, with a capacity for up to 28,000 ADT). The increase in traffic caused by the proposed project is therefore not expected to be significant. XVI. b), d) & f) All development impacts utilities and service systems. The proposed project, however, will be required to meet the standards of the City and service providers in constructing facilities which are energy efficient and water conserving. The construction of the proposed project will have a limited impact on solid waste disposal. However, the restaurant operator will be required to participate in the City's AB 939 programs, which are designed to reduce the impacts to landfills. The overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant. P:\FRED\EA-Addem-Chapman. WPD 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GOLF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) TO ON APPROXIMATELY 4.99 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND SEVEN PARCELS LOCATED ON EISENHOWER DRIVE, SOUTH OF CALLE TAMPICO CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-071 APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of January, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to rescind Planning Commission Resolution 2000-088 approved at a Public Hearing held the 12`h day of December, 2000, and to consider the request of Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C. for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: 770-190-001, 770-181-002, 770-181-003, 770-181-004, 773-065-012, 773-065-13, 773-065-025, 773-065-024, 773-065-022, 773-065-021, AND 773-065-020, and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is an extension of the existing Village Commercial District. 2. The new land use designation is compatible with the similar designations within the City because the property is accessible from an arterial street . 3. The proposed Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land use does not exceed the height limitations, the floor area ratio standard for commercial zones. 42 A:\PC RES02. GPA 2000-071.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001 General Plan Amendment 2000-071 January 23, 2001 4. That the General Plan Amendment is within an area that will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Steve Robbins, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RES02. GPA 2000-071.wpd il13 �I ICIpej4S uo uiqs�%� a= O W L �U 0 4E ZU U s E �o UU aNi moo= UW Ow 2 LL 4'1 Y to O W w a E u W W Q ' N_ C U m J IL > J ' Z w w J W m U FE z 'L N W E mU C � CD — c m E �a c d Q a E O C N .a N O a O a ■IIIIf1i111 111111■1111 1■1111111■ 111111111111 111111111111 EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) ON APPROXIMATELY 4.99 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND SEVEN PARCELS LOCATED ON EISENHOWER DRIVE, SOUTH OF CALLE TAMPICO CASE NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE 2001- APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of January, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to rescind Planning Commission Resolution 2000-089 approved at a Public Hearing held the 12`h day of December, 2000 and, to consider the request of Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C. for a Change of Zone as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: 770-190-001, 770-181-002, 770-181-003, 770-181-004, 773-065-012, 773-065-13, 773-065-025, 773-065-024, 773-065-022, 773-065-021, AND 773-065-020 and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is consistent the General Plan being amended, in that the zone change category proposed are consistent with the with those goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan. 2. The Zoning Change is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is an extension of the existing Village Commercial District. 3. The new land use designation is compatible with the similar designations within the City because the property is accessible from an arterial street . 4. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. N A:\PC RES02. ZC 2000-096wpd.wpd JIJ Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Change of Zone 2000-096 January 23rd, 2001 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Zone Change request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Steve Robbins, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California AAPC RES02. ZC 2000-096wpd.wpd may`/ I I I I I 1 I \I I 1984 U01 U14sm m E U mE C p N UV V o .� U2LL Boom eee► � .eee ,.eee eee ` s r C d E O V C O m O t� L O N 0= N � C C9V O N> d O C O c. C m O v a 0 CL 0 N Wa` °'a`oa a L ; IJ ■eeeeeeeeee eee■eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee ■eeeee■eee a■■eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eeeee■eeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee ■eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eee■eeeeeee ee■eeeeeeee iei uiiiiiiiii '•1, '47 EXHIBIT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VILLAGE USE PERMIT FOR THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF A 16,222 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT FACILITY ON 4.99 ACRES CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of January, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to rescind Planning Commission Resolution 2000-091 approved at a Public Hearing held the 12`h day of December, 2000, and to consider the request of Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C. for a Village Use Permit as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: APN'S: 770-190-001, 770-181-002, 770-181-003, 770-181-004 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, at its meeting of November 1� , 2000, did review the architecture and landscape plans for the proposed project and recommended approval. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to jjustify said Village Use Permit 2000-04: A. Village Use Permit 2000-04 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan proposed General Plan Amendments are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the proposals meet General Plan Policy 2-5.1.1 and 2-5.1.3 which state: Policy 2-5.1.1 The VC category shall provide for the development of the Village area as the center of a year-round commercial, residential, recreational and community government center. The VC category shall allow specialty commercial, eating and drinking establishments, professional offices and neighborhood commercial uses, all located in a unique pedestrian - oriented atmosphere; and, A:\PC RES02NUP 2000-04.wpd 14. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Village Use Permit 2000-04 January 23, 2001 Policy 2-5.1.3 The City shall place a priority on facilitating the development of the Village within the context of real estate market opportunities and constraints. B. The design and development of the facility will be consistent with the City's Zoning Code provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2000-402. C. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the development quality in the area and accommodates site generated traffic. D. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and surrounding development in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area, provides adequate visual buffering with trees and mounding, and uses a high quality of plant materials. E. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that is a similar scale, massing and building height of other development in the area; the building materials will be high quality, durable and low maintenance, provided conditions are met. F. The architectural design of the project is consistent with the Village Design Guidelines in that land use and circulation considerations, scale, massing and building height the facility , and other provisions the Guidelines criteria are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Village Use Permit 2000-04 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 23`d day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: 4.. 049 A:\PC RES02.VUP 2000-04.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Village Use Permit 2000-04 January 23, 2001 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Steve Robbins, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RES02.VUP 2000-04.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. JANUARY 23, 2000 GENERAL 1 . Upon conditional approval by the City Council of this development application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 2. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 4. Permits 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 permits. A:\VUP00-04-COA2.wpd d' 052 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of this approval or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) AVENUE 52 (Primary Arterial) 2) DESERT CLUB DRIVE (Local) B. PRIVATE STREETS No additional dedication required. Additional 5-feet of dedication (for a 30-foot half -street). Dedication will be based on a 450-foot centerline radius. 1) Commercial: Minimum 24-foot width, with on -street parking prohibited. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the site plan are necessary prior to dedication of the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 11. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. v A:\VUP 00-04-COA2.wpd ��5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial): 20-feet B. Desert Club Drive (Local): None required. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned :setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved site plan. 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 16. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 17. The applicant shall file a Parcel Merger to incorporate all of the properties (Lot 90 of Tract 28470-1; APN 770-181-002; APN 770-181-003; and APN 770-181-004) into a single parcel. 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. 18. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified A:\VUP 00-04-COA2.wpd CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 19. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 20. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plains. PROVFMENT AGREEMEN 21. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels within this site and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this permit approval, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 22. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations A:\VUP 00-04-COA2.wpd a ) 055 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 required by the City prior to the issuance of any construction permits. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 23. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 24. If improvements are phased with administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 25, If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 26. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. A:\VUP 00-04-COA2.wpd 4, (lr�v CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 27. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. 28. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within the site, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the permit approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 30. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 31. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. 'For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 33. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the A:\VUP 00-04-COA2.wpd CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 34. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 21/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 35. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 37. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 38. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 39. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 40. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 41. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this project excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City ' A:\VUP 00-04-COA2.wpd i7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 42, The site shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on - site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 43. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 44. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 45. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 46. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 6-foot sidewalk. 2) Desert Club Drive (Local Street) - Improvements (including 5-foot sidewalk) will be constructed by the City under Phase VI Improvement District. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential: 24-foot travel width with on -street parking prohibited. The applicant is responsible for the installation of all driveway depressions, approaches, and sidewalk modifications required for compliance with applicable ADA standards. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus A:AVUP 00-04-COA2.wpd CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 47. 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. 48. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 49. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 50. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 51. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 52. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 53. 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 A:AVUP 00-04-COA2.wpd o CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 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. 54. The City will conduct final inspections of 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. 55. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Private onsite streets at Avenue 52 shall be limited to right turn movements only (both from Avenue 52 and onto Avenue 52)• B. Private onsite street at Desert Club Drive shall allow full turn movements. LANDSCAPING 56. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 57. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 58. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 59. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Avenue 52. The sidewalk shall meander within the 32-foot Right -of -Way and setback. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 61. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, A:\VUP00-04-COA2.wpd CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 62. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 64. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE MARSHAL 66. Show or provide there exists an infrastructure system capable of providing 2500 GPM with an actual fire flow of 1500 GPM available from any hydrant. This fire flow is based on type VN construction with a fire sprinkler system. 67. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2") located not less than 25-feet, or more than 165-feet, from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 68. Blue retro-reflective pavement markets shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 69. The infrastructure including water for fire flow must be installed and available before placing any combustibles on site. a A:\VUP 00-04-COA2."d (16,2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04 70. All buildings must be accessible by an approved all weather surface to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the building. The unobstructed driveway and road width shall not be less than 20 feet. The vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches. 71. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 72. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit two sets of complete building plans to the Fire Department for review. 73. Prior to Building Final, submit sprinkler and alarm plans as required) by the Fire Department. 74. Prior to Building Final, install a Knox Security Rapid entry System key box. Contact Fire Department for an application and mounting detail. A:\VUP 00-04-COA2.wpd A 063 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA DESIGN GUIDELINES VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA DESIGN GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23`d day of January, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to rescind Planning Commission Resolution 2000-090 approved at a Public Hearing held the 12`h day of December, 2000, and to consider a recommendation to amend the boundaries of The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines as depicted in Exhibit A. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-402); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Guidelines will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify amending the boundaries of said Guidelines: 1. The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines amended boundaries are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan being amended, as they incorporate the General Plan land use and design concepts as stated therein. 2. The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines amended boundaries will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as The Village area, under the Guidelines, will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards. A:\PC RES02. VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES.wpd ✓'% U g Resolution 2001- Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, Amended Boundaries January 23, 2001 3. Properties within the amended boundaries of Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines are subject to the guidelines contained within. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described request Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, Amended Boundaries for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Steve Robbins, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RES02. VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES.wpd '.. 06 MVIGG4s p�_ 0 mo m 0 o m Lao E o ZU ° E VV U O - U2a I ��■� • CID u , Olson No76 I • • 111111111111 111111�1/ 111111111■1 • • . • ■ • 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 IIIIIIIIi11 m11■II' �111 �111 s , �1�1111111 111111111111 11111111111 ��11�111 11111�1111 111111111111 ■111111111 11111111111 111■1111111 11■11111111 iiiil�■�i uiiii�iiii 111■11111■ 11111111111 ■1111111111 ��■1111111■ 11111111111 111111111111 J j 063 EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT #1 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 1. Staff requested a continuance of this item to allow additional time to prepare the staff report. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abets to continue this item to January 23, 2001. Unanimously approved. B. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2000-402, Genieral Plan Amendment 2000-071 Zone Change 2000-069 Village Use Permit 2000-004; a request of Chapman Golf Development, LLC and the City of La Quinta for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and development plans for a 16,222 square foot restaurant to be located at the northeast and southwest corners of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive and the west side of Eisenhower Drive from Calle Tampico to Avenida Montezuma. 1. Commissioner Kirk withdrew from the dias due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and requested the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Robbins asked why the southwest corner of Avenue 52 was included. Staff explained the expansion area and discussion followed regarding the boundaries. 4. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler stated under the Environmental Checklist - Section I. Aesthetics (La) "Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?", the box is checked for "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" and to him it is a vast improvement on the environment and appears to have the wrong box checked. Staff stated the consultant who prepared the Environmental Assessment was addressing a high tower that was in the original design. What. is before the Commission is a redesign and this could be a possible error. Commissioner Tyler questioned Section XV. Transportation (d) it appears the same thing has happened here, as there is no text to accommodate the designation. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned street widths under the Village Use Permit Condition #12.B. Staff stated Desert Club Drive has a minimum 10-foot setback. G:\WPDOCS\PC12-12-OO.wpd 2 �I� Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tim Bay, Keith Companies representing the applicant, stated he supported staff's recommendation and was prepared to answer any questions. 7. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Bay to explain how they reached the number of parking spaces proposed. Mr. Bay stated they prepared a parking study to show that the 190 spaces proposed will be adequate. 8. Commissioner Butler asked if golf carts could be accommodated in the future should the City pass such a plan. Mr. Bay stated it had not been addressed. 9. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated in regard to the question concern setbacks, the only setback is what is set by the City through the design review process. 10. Chairman Robbins asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this item. Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, Palm Desert, California, stated she disputed the proposed plan. Her lot is located within the affected area and she was not notified in a timely manner. All property owners should be notified to protect their property interest. The owner of this project should buy the commercial land that is already designated instead of buying cheaper land and rezoning it. In regard to the (rezoning of the land on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, she asked why is this residential land being rezoned to Commercial. Is it to increase their property value? Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he had confirmed that staff had complied with the notification requirements. 11. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Tyler asked staff why this rezoning on Eisenhower Drive was being proposed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it was an attempt to bring the zoning around the Cove into conformance and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. G:\WPDOCS\PC12-12-OO.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 13, Commissioner Tyler stated the is always concerned about parking in the Village and every restaurant currently has a severe parking problem; however compared to those, this is a major step forward. They do not have the opportunity for shared parking and he is comfortable with the project. 14. Commissioner Butler stated he is very comfortable with the project and believes it will be a benefit to the citizens of La Quinta. 15. Commissioner Abels stated he too believes it will be an asset as it is very well designed and the rezoning of Eisenhower Drive is also to the benefit of the City. 16. Commissioner Tyler asked if this property was originally a part of the Tradition project. Staff stated that was correct. 17. Chairman Robbins stated this could be the catalyst for the downtown area and he is glad to see it develop. He too is concerned about the parking and asked how the parking ratio at the Cliffhouse compared to this. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Cliffhouse restaurant was designed under a different parking requirement. He event on to explain how the parking spaces were provided. Chairmen Robbins stated he was concerned that this restaurant will have; the same problem with parking as the Cliffhouse currently has trying to find more parking spaces. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-087, recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-402 according to the findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-088, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2000- 071, as submitted. 4 G:\WPDOCS\PC12-12-OO.wpd Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-089, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2000-096, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-090, recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Village Design Guideline boundaries. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-091, recommending to the City Council approval of Village Use Permit 2000-04, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission ite Development Permit 2000 686; a request of Century Crowell Communities for review of ten single family prototype arc pans for a subdivision of 206 homes to be I on the west side of Jefferson Street, between F pd- wring Drive and Miles Avenue. Com ' ionei Butler excused himself due to a possible; conflict of Brest and left the dias. G:\WPDOCS\PC12-12-OO.wpd 5 TTACHMENT ro B m ad poils U01 U1ysm 55 U a E C p VV� `o 'u U2U- a QJJ1Z m� cyJ LL _ a� E E Ca 000 m �J a A CM _ CD 0 = o - 0 ° Z C. O C +L,, O t/� C.N Q C uaoa0CL m I UA 111■11111■ 111111111111 ■1111111111 1■1111111■ 11111111111 111111111111 r0 -,� 11 l l aL>F �P Jnrt 4 fijY: Q' � b � a < z y �'� n 4rs�cer G. ,, • III � � �� .V i_ r. � y S. F14F1� { { � y � �c��L' ,. a .� -� '� ��x .f `� �� i gar` ,�".� ��' ' .. � � ( ;; L RESTAURANT o1.F TRADITION/CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT rowso�ow�rvoFsvi nouwmc rens� � TACKAELE 5 COLUMN O r COMPONENT O _E A4 ,I IXMIS FOR Ba,e Wrle �J c2� ((\}(\)((( $� ±) y;§ [; ; 'R , / `\`\\/RRR/\§ 5 Sep In\} \( »»jam } N 2 RIN i 14 2 ddllldld�lA7- ®i�u�nfmd�lllll��dl�dfl�d9�NI�1111NR1�d1��Y{'��HMSdNIIdddN11O�11111�1 R WIT Mr nZ Fn rn 1540 Commorct 5t. #G, Cmml CA 92WO pH:909-734-z� FX-909-��9667 of Ft 11111#r111 , I . 077 FI .AQ ,�� N O� co V 9� A A V .lrrhil►.�r-� 7[il-111iC `uv -� 7GIIl�f�i1111Y11Y ' 08j i u '1UIllf1li1111? I11' �. V82 a „` 5E°BREEfFFf IEisE6dE9REFE� B��R�,�tf_l�tTfddddj+ddd F Iaeo•'a•env 9•"•n8^P I O GO 3 I1 / 1 \ (n 88q IM0n 6� A mmY "57 OO�yNi�A _ � � 1 a.. i v �wmnwm��rt. ...i...... mW t., or k � I' I. III � yi Ell F p�4 1 1I r I.< Sent n, =SPn ENK NEERiME n-N o,•-ea ._ :3Pn -^un�'iB2N 2la'3 -?s2 5na ::5� -age r`C�1P ,-ifi8 c S17P Y W Wag e e CC21P r--^'�M 11t„„•-- n Attent laeveaLS (CC series only) nraa - ufnlrlJRl me nelslny ill /... rs Clc "i four fan^arn ^, �,.•eer -Ofit "a"'m moth^_•. vmove �olyparpon9te SnrelQ 2^`)I nor ' mode o e nl ar 7III P i,ri. with ''-n Iran' . ml „ rn ,1"n. rl, 34 r C _l at Sr'.CSr3tI" �vi Photocell tt . 21" and 25' models), sosv or doe No _e -age I' Photopen neoePtacle: (2e" model only)- n 'n Moea oasguen aC O a �rvMA? If It ;I Houseside Shieltl: f1 T. 21' and 2T model Hdh iYPes IL nL or IV distributions only) -'.31 -mrnucin hvol s loll c: or 3nSd1-Pr m n9 i a Sira2Ulj, luck of ne a a 3'ir` ..uf^ (r. S ,ry ,nacres C relle I� ra,,. ..; is lam I 7 - d1_ 1 _ CC2sP a..a -CC29P "—� II 'e� 1 0, ?08 nib and certification: un!1erNntPra Izoc ra one 2p ana sap wen only) anp Canr,d,en 91anORfdi ;'a cation c9,'ilfud ` Vnit only i `;rr YJet locations. • nOs m,num.'CC series only: Three aoually ;psosd v ^. ir Housing: SOun alu y hOuslP,a to g , nirri frt On^Pth fit ,tt GFforO ry "p; `✓aii /7 roll pJaPEr, anA 4(3 f. e li n'eld or nStenlia lEv+211 a,✓ 3 R1aXtTum OTT m!7dulp �;n Inlemdi alumlrhrll 735iiM OfC ''Es •Or 7 r�iltnrhzC iuminun range Is nPTmiad mio hr ottcm pr nA.b., IJPGf for me Pn. ctor 1 ,rt r the n0u�ln. )Inge. n(;IJnflr9 J1 the 5 ctnCal T10GIJIF ano nuopr- c I alfaCnEd Lens Prame and yoke '' - p•rr Cst al,ll nu mu len„ far mn a -tal'l !0 �f. plarec rolled cfP hlnfj. _ "lda naIbtPc !ep lOSUfeofte In. ,iEbl =ffB`tn_ .and 7y marlc!d three f7rrn 7Pn 'Or IhE 't1 `IJr prO IIdP7 Or inP J Ir P,� tit dt Of- Iny R'.;d CI r a tr^A >fr 4 Tor 11Y TJCE t III : -r- ioG Win, IS rr VIr1EU n re{C IhP n rP41n;]IaI , --nspl ION yd "We 01 a ,If-Inp TIDY P f I�[ 15mP n- nF inr! ,P :df Pd IICbIIP $YPS u?R > rei?.I Pd n 'rafn? C/ .m' aolc dr.- O a1Rd ylE-'up- me na fr mP '.5 SUDGpr'al. .ti irur OnIfD; MIA Aluminum raded tUpulpr arn's t3dlEd In a =•3s` aiumlf`C^' nu0 Arrr _a weidEf 'rrly fr.m2, vnrj pP yr 'o the nuc .luny I'-'r n01t ciIl _ntaln°3 IPIfJ aDiICP Tf•1^m�=nt, '3 ..,.r ,u,r L Jm no, r: �r rP GCIIr,NIn J r71a adal;nmanr me9ns o, d:..N•afsd FM ,l 5hn.rr_a 3r1 y0ar Wr, rl'e r >,�., > syl6 Ool1 Nlihrt fireoGhr._ .DmOCr r-rulT P01 m,S[ naVE a _ion Jr y .rrolpn PT _;DDIs rc'unnr�rf cr" _ale too olio n', ;a' slew, H ni/1Nn� '_ -. ! 'pin rr tnl �p'Jle r:,, "rLSi JF -i. ^-p6?� at rnF 3er .I. _N ,: 9tI0 arbs a clm,nowe �11=2t'Or p.•Irn510n aluminl m OM Irr=,;1 101rUr1Q C fT r ,. hC2d 56' se,senli jonfamur"i ur �e�4 �- > > :>rn._iF-• r ,f" l . P 'S O..cGen If, Coo S "t,oe n12Len Pfie, tcf .. c �,n ]ai rn'e VEf 111r I_3k r Reflector Module - Jr .i1 D nP[5' moo fly =;ttm ^SG "unr n drlr ] nc yar: n AP. rJ of rl„ �Nifr sn?- x Ilnl , 0 ]nP DI.f /d r f!c r lln G r P rg ICTaJy ,. :II nnarFr,I 'r ' rr7f 11h7uW inPGi ni0 Pnc 9Jf 'h. n us' Saito:' no11C2! , h3mDer. ;+alle c 16 'r1a r rr�z,tgr.rt " tjlr j.i r nnen'r r .o J,cil� 13n j9 ^ ns hece ECJi -ry, Is n0-C,aGa m 90 rT .finFPld r7 ouster ur a 3rF U AKr 21 ntl 25-C , " 7nr Ad"SCUM a, {7wJ. 17, ec P ?9_kNfi mrrul rant yc., r2>n k !- :'oir In : ntr, T.,gU' ha I ,.lei K tL.r Tn.7�J11^ by "a / mowed III- LamP Vibration Res+stance nr' =G n-ohollpCI r Pt nn :. l7a dm(7 ii?h I Nn1T Ie VP! 3 Jln �nPn10iJ =IFS mCd EIS na,,,e 9llrlbf :9 verb n irce"s ,f 3 fair rJ pinry > aGl1i2_f Null:;'. hV 3'173 'lino 110 xe IL arc r P ref ognmeo• Etectricai Module /)l ?'G F rIr-I' ntl n�N P,� ,,th �_„ k�a I, on nert x ,n , arc tie 1.,r I PAll cal• mouet j 7n > H I�lug rvioaulr av' �e5 ns rF the how Jslnu' Re Jhoie .ot.. as"a are rile, COI d6Rr rat ] .Of -2f1 c , aRin;7. Finish. ?Col, 'hermos3r PoNF- •er Go" Tr • r u uh'n1 a allahto r, R1acb�. - - m0 nominal r I,,kute. > vAPr ". oarM Ln7n213 ;eanP. ar'OrIC16<7 Nhn 3 micVnfl5s, Ndh 31I pm0 enia tnoro rGhP gmcem,e r-nr011,niF inC iOcal ONES Or . p>TyaS musC OA ,ryounc-0 In. 3G�Df0?.ns:+i 'N,tn Warning• !p .^ sn .may reswt 4ser�oua ^ e Fill !nE f atop nEl GE�7trlC of I-i_rl per,rnal lnlur\ `--��' r M �� _i fi HTi P15 �y �n0 3 r WS Zy YOv �om 1 °o9mo ng� Z ° N9�in Hof 3' n�°so is n O ��9n xx p oz a o D _OMZ i onto my n m oy z i7r o0 O 9m A yy�LI Arsy m CZ mg a g yg pp DESERT CLUB ,1� • I' t; 0 o o 9 0 z r I mo I� in A'�� i��`��i ( �° 9� ��y5,b�l� de k pf4G a; 7- 4I Ple ri ^ �� ATTACHMENT 4 PARKING STUDY FOR PALMER'S RESTAURANT IN LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT 78505 OLD AVENUE 52 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 PREPARED BY: MARK GREENWOOD, P.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING AND PLANNING 73502 SUN LANE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 NO.57989 Exp. 6 /30/02 FINAL DECEMBER 6, 2000 PROJECT AREA The project is located on the north side of Avenue 52, west of Washington Street in the City of La Quinta. Avenue 52 is a 4 lane arterial, divided by a landscaped raised median island. Avenue 52 is approximately 80' wide and has a posted speed limit of 50 MPH. There is no street lighting on this portion of Avenue 52. This area of the city is a mix of single family residential, planned residential/country club, community park and commercial land uses. The project site is currently zoned for residential use. A site plan with a vicinity map is included with this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes an 8,600 square foot dinner -only restaurant plus 2,500 square foot banquet area, a total of 4,322 square feet of outdoor patio areas and an 800 square foot basement, totaling 16,222 square feet. 190 parking spaces are proposed within a well landscaped parking lot. Access to the site will include two driveways on Avenue 52 and one driveway on Desert Club Drive. A zoning designation of Village Commercial is being sought for the project. It is anticipated that the restaurant will employ approximately 30 people. The Village Commercial zoning designation requires one parking space per 75 square feet of gross leasable area. It has been determined that the project falls 26 parking spaces short of this requirement, as proposed. PARKING ANALYSIS In an effort to determine if the 190 proposed parking spaces could be adequate for the proposed project, four similar restaurants were studied. The La Quinta Grill in La Quinta; and Kaiser Grill/LG's Steakhouse and Palomino Euro Bistro in Palm Desert are all well established upscale dinner houses. The La Quinta Grill is a stand-alone facility within a mixed residential/commercial area. Kaiser Grill and LG's Steakhouse are two separate restaurants occupying one building and parking lot in a commercial area on Highway 111. Palomino occupies the lower level of a two story mixed use building with offices on the upper floor, in a commercial area with many restaurants near Highway 111, Highway 74 and El Paseo. All locations offer valet parking. Inventories of parking usage at the four similar restaurants were conducted during the evenings of Friday, November 17; Sunday, November 19; and Tuesday, December 5, 2000. The 8:30 observation at Kaiser Grill/Lg's appeared to be a good representation of peak periods, as a substantial number of customers were observed waiting to be seated. The observations at La Quinta Grill were conducted from the street and are therefore less accurate, as the parking lot could not be accessed. Since there are many restaurants in the area near Palomino, it is not possible to determine with any certainty which vehicles are parked for that restaurant, although a parking management plan is in place for this property. This parking management plan seeks to prevent traffic from any one use from intruding on other properties. The observations of parking usage and calculations of restaurant area to parking space are summarized on Table 1 on the following page. .l()92 TABLE 1 LOCATION TIME SELF PARKED VALET PARKED TOTAL PARKED RESTAURANT AREA BUILDING ' AREA PER PARKING SPACE KAISER/LG's 6:00 PM 73 23 96 15,800 165 SQ. FT. LA QUINTA GRILL 8:00 PM 15 30* 45* 3047* ?? SQ. FT. KAISER/LG's 8:30 PM 115 54 169 15,800 93 SQ. FT. LA QUINTA GRILL 7:15 PM 2 25* 27* 3047* ?? SQ. FT. PALOMINO 7:30 PM 87 37 124 8418 68 SQ. FT. * = estimated data At the 6:00 observation, the Kaiser Grill/LG's parking lot was approximately 55% filled. At the La Quinta Grill observation, the parking lot was reserved exclusively for valet and was inaccessible for study; self -parked vehicles were required to park on the street. At the 8:30 observation, the Kaiser Grill/LG's parking lot was approximately 95% filled, with most of the available spaces reserved for valet parking. The 8:30 observation at Kaiser Grill/LG's may have been impacted by another neighboring restaurant, Jillian's, as that lot was overfilled by valet double-parked vehicles and Jillian's patrons were observed using the Kaiser Grill/LG's parking lot. This would tend to result in a conservative, or worst case, sample during this observation. The gross floor area for the La Quinta Grill was not available from City records or the property owner, therefore the County Assessors record of 3047 square feet is shown on the above table. However, the assessors records indicate the property is a single family home, and the structure appears to be larger than the records indicate. Due to lack of accurate data for both the gross floor area and parking generation at the La Quinta Grill, this location should not be used for this analysis. It should be noted that the combined gross floor area of Kaiser Grill/LG's Steakhouse is very similar to Palmer's, and the Kaiser Grill/LG's parking lot provides somewhat fewer spaces than Palmer's. Kaiser Grill/LG's is 3% smaller in gross floor area than Palmer's, but Kaiiser Grill/LG's provides approximately 8% fewer parking spaces than Palmer's. Since there have been no concerns at Kaiser Grill/LG's, there is no expectation that parking concerns would result at Palmer's. As proposed, the project provides 1 parking space per 85 square feet of gross floor area. If the basement is to be used for storage only, with no staff or patrons occupying this space, this area could be excluded from the building to parking ratio. This results in a parking ratio of 1 space per 81 square feet. The Municipal Codes of various California destination cities were also reviewed to determine typical parking requirements for restaurants. Data from that review is included on Table 2 on the following page. op. J 093 TABLE 2 CITY USE PARKING SPACES REQUIREMENT REQUIRED IF APPLIED TO PALMER'S Rancho Restaurants, cafes, bars and other eating and 1 for each 80 sf of gfa 202 Mirage drinking establishments Palm Desert Restaurants, (takeout 10 minimum and 10 for 228 restaurants) and other each 1,000 square feet of eating establishments gross floor area for including lounges for the restaurants up to 3,000 consumption of food and square feet and 15 spaces beverages for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 3,000 square feet of gross floor area Laguna Hills Restaurants: 227 Dine -in (<4,000 SF-GFA): 1 stall/100 SF-GFA 4,000 SF-GFA+: 40 stalls, plus 1 stall/50 SF-GFA above 4,000 SF-GFA Outdoor dining areas in excess of 16 seats: 1 stall for 150 SF of entire outdoor dining area (Note: Outdoor seating areas with 16 or less seats need not provide additional parking) Brentwood Restaurants, bars, and nightclubs: one space for each three 140 seats plus one space for each fifty square feet of floor area used for dancing or other assembly uses, t Camarillo Restaurants, cafes, and 1 space for each 4 fixed 154 places food is served to seats or 1 space for each public one hundred square feet of building area, exclusive of area used for storage of utility equipment whichever is greater. . Dana Point Restaurants: 227 Dine4n (<4,000 SF-GFA): 1 stall/100 SF-GFA 4,000 SF-GFA+: 40 stalls, plus 1 staIV50 SF-GFA above 4,000 sf-GFA Outdoor dining areas in excess of 16 seats: 1 stall for 150 SF of entire outdoor dining area (Note: Outdoor seating areas with 16 or less seats need not provide additional parking) Laguna Beach Food services including, but 1 space for each 100 162 not limited to: restaurants, square feet of gross floor drive-thru, take-out, fast-food area, including outdoor and full -service; bakery; ice seating area(s), or 1 space cream store; juice bar; and per 3 seats, whichever is delicatessen greater. Four of the cities id( are being required currently proposed. ntified on Table 2 would apparently require fewer than the 216 spaces which in La Quinta. Three of these cities would require fewer spaces than are The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation Manual, 2nd Edition, includes parking generation rates for a variety of uses, including Quality Restaurant. The ITE Manual indicates that the average parking rate on a weekday is 12.49 spaces per 1000 GSF, and 15.89 spaces per 1000 GSF on a Saturday. This would result in the need for 203 spaces on a weekday and 258 spaces on a Saturday if applied to the proposed Palmer's Restaurant. ALTERNATIVES It has been suggested that employees could be required to use the City Project Office/Corporation Yard parking lot located on the south side of Avenue 52 at Desert Club Drive. Since Palmer's is to be a dinner -only facility, and the project office/yard are generally in use only during the daytime, shared use of this parking lot may be appropriate. This alternative could offer the advantage of flexibility, as it could be implemented only during those times when it is needed, and leaves the extensive parking lot landscaping as proposed. However, this alternative would require employees to walk across Avenue 52 without benefit of any traffic controls or street lighting. This could result in pedestrian safety issues. If this alternative were to be seriously considered, appropriate pedestrian safety measures must be carefully identified and implemented. It has also been suggested that the parking lot design can be modified to provide an unknown number of additional parking spaces. Review of the parking lot design does indicate that there is some potential to provide several more parking spaces however, this will impact the amount of landscaping for the project. Another alternative that can be considered, is the use of valet parking to increase yield in the parking lot, as currently designed. A portion of the parking lot could be reserved exclusively for valet parking, which allows the valet to double park vehicles if necessary during peak periods. While this certainly slows the return of vehicles to patrons, this strategy has been used successfully at other locations. This type of operation has been used at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in Palm Desert when needed, and has allowed all vehicles to be parked within the available parking lots, which would otherwise be too small to accommodate all parking which is generated by the facility. The developer has indicated that a valet parking overlay will be produced to demonstrate that an additional 26 vehicles can be accommodated. SUMMARY As designed, the project does not conform to the Village Commercial zone requirement for 1 parking space per 75 square feet of gross floor area. However, several facts and alternatives are known which could serve to mitigate this condition and assure adequate parking: 1. Similar restaurants were observed to operate well at a maximum of 1 parking space per 93 square feet. As proposed, this project provides at least 1 space per 85 square feet. 2. The potential exists to modify the parking lot design to provide an unknown number of additional parking spaces. Valet parking can be implemented to increase the yield of the parking lot. A display of the valet parking layout will be provided by the developer. RECOMMENDATIONS The following measures are recommended to assure adequate parking during peak periods at the proposed Palmer's Restaurant: 1. Modify the parking lot design to provide any additional spaces which are feasible. The developer has indicated that a plan which includes additional parking spaces will be presented with this report. 2. Implement valet parking to increase the yield of the parking lot. MARK GREENWOOD, P.E., PTOE A l' 1 7 I I 1 ` i• r ` x \v = wa E 8 \ \ \ d S• \ �omsna \ <�ama° JE LLI a � � e. \ e`z g N I OF � — � a I e +� u I �� ATTACHMENT #5 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1, 2000 through The trees Will "A ��l�f_I_sjze islands to allow the roots to grow. Staff asked if the use of the annualc—olo—r—w-UT57.6e as the Palm Desert store with the "W". Mr. Doczi stated no, ' will not be used. 9. Committee Member Reynolds thanked the appl' ant on his presentation. He has no problems with the prop al. 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated he c uld like to be sure the line -of -site is correct. Mr. Cross state is a concern of theirs as well, and they will make sure it works. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if/the building is constructed and the equipment is seen, is therea/condition to see that it is not visible. Planning Manager Christi a di lorio stated yes, ai condition will be added. Mr. Cross aske if they would be able to add the extra two feet if they find its needed. Staff stated it could be added to the Specific Plan s an option if there is a problem with the visibility at the time jzf construction. 12. There being no furth/ef discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee/ending r Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-020 approval of the landscaping plant pallette andg elevations for Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Develoermit 2000-677, as amended. a. C ndition #1: Deleted b. ondition #3c: Deleted. C. New condition: Requiring the mechanical equipment to be hidden from sight. B. General Plan Amendment 2000-071 , Zone Change 2000-096, Village Use Permit 2000-004, and Environmental Assessment 2000-402: a request of Chapman Golf Development, LLC for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for an 1 1,900 square foot restaurant to be located on the northeast corner of 52"d Avenue and Desert Club Drive. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\ALRCI I-1-OO.wpd 4 Architectural & landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1, 2000 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to identify what the grass area was to be used for. Staff stated it was for special theme functions. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is a great project and he would love to see more of this type. 4. Committee Members Bobbitt and Reynolds stated they had no problems with the project. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2000-021 recommending approval of building elevations and landscaping plans for General Plan Amendment 2000-071, Zone Change 2000-096, Village Use Permit 2000-004, and Environmental Assessment 2000-402 2000-045. Unanimously approved. Site Development Permit 2000-685; a request of Tait and Associates for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 3,984 square t convenience store located on the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 an ashington Street within Point Happy Specific Plan. 1. Pn cipal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in th staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Develop ent Department. 2. Committee ber Cunningham asked about the location of the building. PlannI Manager Christine di lorio stated it is right off the Highway 111 ignal entrance. Staff has worked with the developer of the site be consistent with the other buildings in the project. 3. Mr. Steve Frank, Tait and *sociates, stated they have been working with staff to reach an'�greement on the canopy design. 4. Committee Member Cunningham ated this is an extremely sensitive site. The Cliffhouse Rest t is located on the other side of the rock, which is gorgeous. a restauran^t design is almost what they are looking for on the te. Whalt needs to happen is for the architect to go over and loo at the Cliffhouse and come real close to it architecturally. This is a ice looking gas G:\WPDOCS\ALRCI 1-1-OO.wpd 5 19 J 0 o CORRECTED REPORT - SEE PA & 5 HIGHLIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 23, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-649 APPLICANT: COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT ARCHITECT: BBG ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: GMA INTERNATIONAL PH #C LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF 54T" AVENUE BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND MONROE STREET WITHIN COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A CLUB HOUSE, MAIN ENTRY GUARD HOUSE, AND GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RL /FP (FLOOD PLAIN) / COACHELLA CANAL; RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / VACANT, WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY; RVL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY / RESIDENTIAL; AND AGRICULTURAL USES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / PGA RVL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY / AGRICULTURAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL USES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WEST: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / VACANT LAND (THE RANCH) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that Site Development Permit 99-649 is within Specific Plan 99-035 and is exempt from the p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd 0 t California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (a). An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing house 83062922 and 90020727) was certified on November 21, 2000, by the City Council for SP 99- 035. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. BACKGROUND: The clubhouse, main entry guard house, and maintenance facility are for the 819 residential unit Country Club of the Desert project which was approved by the City Council on November 21, 2000. Rough grading of the first phase near Jefferson Street has begun. The main entry guard house is on Jefferson Street, midway between 52ND and 54T" Avenues. The clubhouse is located in the northwest corner of the project northeast of the Jefferson Street entry. The maintenance facility is located at the southwest intersection of 52ND Avenue and Madison Street which will be extended from 52ND Avenue to 54T" Avenue. PROJECT REQUEST Clubhouse The clubhouse is designed to be the dominant architectural feature of their "village" which is intended to serve as the "center of town" for the project (Attachment 1). The village will include the recreational facilities, such as tennis, swimming pools, and a spa. The applicant describes the design as Spanish Colonial with an early California influence. The structure has three levels, with the ground floor covering the most square footage at approximately 66,000 square feet. Due to grading, the main valet entry area is on the middle level with the side facing the golf course at the lower level. The clubhouse uses a two piece clay barrel roof tile, ivory stucco, brown wood trim, black wrought iron, and tan stone siding. As approved by the Specific Plan, the structure uses multiple roof heights of 40', 48", 52' and 72' for a tile capped tower. The roof uses a combination of hip and gable types to create the varying heights. The exterior features include covered arcades, wood trellis', inset windows, exposed wood lintels, wrought iron railings and accents. A preliminary landscaping plan with a plan pallette indicating sizes has been submitted for the clubhouse and adjacent parking area. The plant material conforms with that approved in the Specific Plan. The minimum tree size is 24" box with 36" box size used also. Tall palm trees species are shown at 12' to 45' brown trunk height. Date palm trees are proposed at 12' to 35' high. p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd 02 This clubhouse requires a total of 139 parking spaces for this first phase of common facilities. Parking provided with the clubhouse includes 139 car spaces and 295 golf cart spaces. Future facilities will include a tennis area, spa, and swimming pool and require additional parking. Entry Guard House The guard house adjacent to Jefferson street is the main project entry and is setback approximately 196 feet from the Jefferson Street curb. The building, which has a one car garage, is two stories high (25 feet) on the exterior but will only have one interior floor. A porte cochere is provided over the vehicle entry area. An alternate uncovered entry lane is provided along the south side for large vehicles. The building materials and colors match the club house and the exterior design is similar ,with the exception being the exterior walls of the guard house are covered entirely with stone. The preliminary landscaping plan uses some of the same plant materials and minimum sizes as those used at the club house. A decorative fountain is used in the center median in front of the guard house. Maintenance Facilit The proposed facility at the southwest corner of 52ND Avenue and Madison Street will contain a 100' by 200' (20,000 square foot) building near the northeast corner of the irregularly shaped parcel. The building is a flat roof tilt -up concrete building 23' 6" in height with arched tile covered arcades over the office area and overhead doors facing west and south towards the interior of the site. Except for a cornice treatment and an overhead door facing east near the north end of the building, the balance of the east wall and the north wall is flat and void of architectural treatment. The tilt -up concrete panels will be painted tan, with bronze storefront windows and brown rain gutters. The roof tile will be the same material and color as that used in the club house and guard gate. On site facilities include open storage bins, a washdown area, fuel tanks, a nursery area, and parking for 79 employee and work vehicles. At the northwest corner of the site is a Coachella Valley Water District water well site. The plans indicate the maintenance facility site will be surrounded by a slumpblock wall matching the color of the building. The landscaping plant pallette includes some of those used at the club house. Relatively heavily planted 24" and 36" box size trees are used around the perimeter of the facility. 03 p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) ACTION: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of January 3, 2001, and determined that with minor design articulation modifications to the maintenance building the request is acceptable (Attachment 2). FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, the Findings required to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolution, with the exception of the following: Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. RESPONSE - The club house and guard house are well designed and use their colors and materials in a manner which will be compatible and establish a theme for the balance of the project. The maintenance building uses some of the colors and materials of the other structures, but lacks design articulation on the north and east sides of the building. These sides face 52N' Avenue and Madison Street, respectively, both of which are designated as Primary Arterials and Secondary Image Corridors in the General Plan. The building will be visible from off site due to the proximity to the streets. Trees are indicated adjacent to the building which may help screen the building. However, full screening will take a number of years, and if the trees are not replaced as they die the building will be visible. Condition #40 requires that an enhanced cornice treatment be provided around the top of the building, as recommended by the ALRC. Zoning Code Section 9.90.040 (Nonresidential Development Standards) requires that buildings within 150 feet of a General Plan designated Primary Arterial street (52N' Avenue and Madison Street) cannot exceed 22 feet in height. Condition 941 requires revision to the maintenance building to reduce the height from 23' 6" to no more than 22 feet. Site Design- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city, except for those used on the maintenance building facing the streets. Condition #42 requires that shoe box downshining lights be used to minimize glare and visibility of the light source. p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd 04 Landscape Design- Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence, to enhance the visual continuity of the project. Condition #32 requires that date palm trees not be planted in areas of high pedestrian traffic if the trees are transplanted from older date groves. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2001-_, approving Site Development Permit 99-649, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachment: 1. Plan exhibits 2. Minutes for the ALRC meeting of January 3, 2001 Prepared by: Submitted by: I9-), Savm Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner o � Christine di lorio, Plan ng Manager p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd ��) 5 PH # C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 23, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-649 APPLICANT: COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT ARCHITECT: BBG ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: GMA INTERNATIONAL LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF 54T" AVENUE BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND MONROE STREET WITHIN COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A CLUB HOUSE, MAIN ENTRY GUARD HOUSE, AND GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RL /FP (FLOOD PLAIN) / COACHELLA CANAL; RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / VACANT, WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY; RVL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY / RESIDENTIAL, AND AGRICULTURAL USES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / PGA RVL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY / AGRICULTURAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL USES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WEST: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / VACANT LAND (THE RANCH) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that Site Development Permit 99-649 is within Specific Plan 99-035 and is exempt from the p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd 'O.J California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (a). An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing house 83062922 and 90020727) was certified on November 21, 2000, by the City Council for SP 99- 035. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. BACKGROUND: The clubhouse, main entry guard house, and maintenance facility are for the 819 residential unit Country Club of the Desert project which was approved by the City Council on November 21, 2000. Rough grading of the first phase near Jefferson Street has begun. The main entry guard house is on Jefferson Street, midway between 52N° and 54T" Avenues. The clubhouse is located in the northwest corner of the project northeast of the Jefferson Street entry. The maintenance facility is located at the southwest intersection of 52ND Avenue and Madison Street which will be extended from 52ND Avenue to 54T" Avenue. PROJECT REQUEST Clubhouse The clubhouse is designed to be the dominant architectural feature of their "village" which is intended to serve as the "center of town" for the project (Attachment 1). The village will include the recreational facilities, such as tennis, swimming pools, and a spa. The applicant describes the design as Spanish Colonial with an early California influence. The structure has three levels, with the ground floor covering the most square footage at approximately 66,000 square feet. Due to grading, the main valet entry area is on the middle level with the side facing the golf course at the lower level. The clubhouse uses a two piece clay barrel roof tile, ivory stucco, brown wood trim, black wrought iron, and tan stone siding. As approved by the Specific Plan, the structure uses multiple roof heights of 40', 48", 52' and 72' for a tile capped tower. The roof uses a combination of hip and gable types to create the varying heights. The exterior features include covered arcades, wood trellis', inset windows, exposed wood lintels, wrought iron railings and accents. A preliminary landscaping plan with a plan pallette indicating sizes has been submitted for the clubhouse and adjacent parking area. The plant material conforms with that approved in the Specific Plan. The minimum tree size is 24" box with 36" box size used also. Tall palm trees species are shown at 12' to 45' brown trunk height. Date palm trees are proposed at 12' to 35' high. 002 p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd This clubhouse requires a total of 139 parking spaces for this first phase of common facilities. Parking provided with the clubhouse includes 139 car spaces and 295 golf cart spaces. Future facilities will include a tennis area, spa, and swimming pool and require additional parking. Entry Guard House The guard house adjacent to Jefferson street is the main project entry and is setback approximately 196 feet from the Jefferson Street curb. The building, which has a one car garage, is two stories high (25 feet) on the exterior but will only have one interior floor. A porte cochere is provided over the vehicle entry area. An alternate uncovered entry lane is provided along the south side for large vehicles. The building materials and colors match the club house and the exterior design is similar ,with the exception being the exterior walls of the guard house are covered entirely with stone. The preliminary landscaping plan uses some of the same plant materials and minimum sizes as those used at the club house. A decorative fountain is used in the center median in front of the guard house. Maintenance Facility The proposed facility at the southwest corner of 52ND Avenue and Madison Street will contain a 100' by 200' (20,000 square foot) building near the northeast corner of the irregularly shaped parcel. The building is a flat roof tilt -up concrete building 23' 6" in height with arched tile covered arcades over the office area and overhead doors facing west and south towards the interior of the site. Except for a cornice treatment and an overhead door facing east near the north end of the building, the balance of the east wall and the north wall is flat and void of architectural treatment. The tilt -up concrete panels will be painted tan, with bronze storefront windows and brown rain gutters. The roof tile will be the same material and color as that used in the club house and guard gate. On site facilities include open storage bins, a washdown area, fuel tanks, a nursery area, and parking for 79 employee and work vehicles. At the northwest corner of the site is a Coachella Valley Water District water well site. The plans indicate the maintenance facility site will be surrounded by a slumpblock wall matching the color of the building. The landscaping plant pallette includes some of those used at the club house. Relatively heavily planted 24" and 36" box size trees are used around the perimeter of the facility. 003 p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) ACTION: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of January 3, 2001, and determined that with minor design articulation modifications to the maintenance building the request is acceptable (Attachment 2). FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, the Findings required to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolution, with the exception of the following: Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. RESPONSE - The club house and guard house are well designed and use their colors and materials in a manner which will be compatible and establish a theme for the balance of the project. The maintenance building uses some of the colors and materials of the other structures, but lacks design articulation on the north and east sides of the building. These sides face 52ND Avenue and Madison Street, respectively, both of which are designated as Primary Arterials and Secondary Image Corridors in the General Plan. The building will be visible from off site due to the proximity to the streets. Trees are indicated adjacent to the building which may help :screen the building. However, full screening will take a number of years, and if the trees are not replaced as they die the building will be visible. Condition #57 requires that an enhanced cornice treatment be provided around the top of the building, as recommended by the ALRC. Zoning Code Section 9.90.040 (Nonresidential Development Standards) requires that buildings within 150 feet of a General Plan designated Primary Arterial street (52ND Avenue and Madison Street) cannot exceed 22 feet in height. Condition #58 requires revision to the maintenance building to reduce the height from 23' 6" to no more than 22 feet. Site Desian- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city, except for those used on the maintenance building facing the streets. Condition #59 requires that shoe box downshining lights be used to minimize glare and visibility of the light source. 004 p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd Landscape Design- Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence, to enhance the visual continuity of the project. Condition #60 requires that date palm trees not be planted in areas of high pedestrian traffic if the trees are transplanted from older date groves. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2001-_, approving Site Development Permit 99-649, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachment: 1. Plan exhibits 2. Minutes for the ALRC meeting of January 3, 2001 Prepared by: Submitted by: G ��D4�DAVZ�- Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner O�\ Christine lorio, Plan ing Manager O05 p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CLUB HOUSE, MAIN ENTRY GUARD HOUSE, AND GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY IN A COUNTRY CLUB CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-649 APPLICANT: COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23RD day of January, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT to approve the development plans for a clubhouse, main entry guard house, and golf course maintenance facility in the RL zone district, located in the Country Club of the Desert project on the north side of 54T" Avenue, between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street more particularly described as: Portions of Tentative Tract 29894 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined the Site Development Permit is within Specific Plan 99- 035 and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (a). An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing house 83062922 and 90020727) was certified on November 21, 2000, by the City Council for SP 99-035. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on January 3, 2001, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the development plans, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The clubhouse, entry, and maintenance building are consistent with the General Plan in that they are related uses to golf courses which are permitted on the residentially designated property. 00 p:\Stan\sdp 99-649 pc res.wpd Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 99-649 January 23, 2001 2. The clubhouse, entry, and maintenance building are designed to comply with City Zoning Code requirements and are in compliance with Specific Plan 99- 035. 3. The architectural design of the clubhouse and guard house building, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The club house and guard house are well designed and use their colors and materials in a manner which will be compatible and establish a theme for the balance of the project. The maintenance building is acceptable with additional design articulation to the cornice treatment on the building, as recommended by the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee. Zoning Code Section 9.90.040 (Nonresidential Development Standards) requires that buildings within 150 feet of a General Plan designated Primary Arterial street (52N' Avenue and Madison Street) cannot exceed 22 feet in height. With revision to the maintenance building to reduce the height from 23' 6" to no more than 22 feet this building is acceptable. 4. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city, with revisions that shoe box downshining lights be used to minimize glare and visibility of the light source. 5. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, with conditions, has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 007 p:\Stan\sdp 99-649 pc res.wpd Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 99-649 January 23, 2001 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 99-649 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 23RD day of January 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\Stan\sdp 99-649 pe res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 GENERAL EXHIBIT "A" 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. 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. Upon conditional approval by the Planning Commission of this Site Development Permit, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd 009 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 4. Per La Quinta Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9.150, Paragraph 9.150.040 A.2.a., non residential parking shall be located on the same parcel as the use served, on an adjacent parcel, or on a parcel across an alley. Required parking may also be located across a street (other than a major or primary arterial) provided a properly designed crosswalk connects the parking with the use(s) served. 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. 5. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 6. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 7. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. 010 p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 8. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 9. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 10. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the fugitive dust control plan issued in conformance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC 11. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 13. Stormwater and nuisance water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for The Country Club of the Desert, Tentative Tract 29894. 011. p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 14. Nuisance water shall be retained on the development site and disposed of in an approved manner. 15. The City of La Quinta does not have regulations governing chemical storage or spill prevention for the chemical and petroleum products associated with the golf course maintenance facility. Applicant shall comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing the storage and use of all chemicals/petroleum products used. UTILITIES 16. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of utility lines withing the right or way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 17. All proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 18. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 19. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. a. PRIVATE STREETS Main Entry: Construct full -width improvements including curb and gutter. ii. Residential Collector Streets: Construct 40-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from curb face to curb face) where straight faced curb is installed, and 37-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) where rolled curb is installed, all within the 41-foot right of way. 0121 p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 All on -site streets constructed with "wedge" type curb shall use a design approved by the City Engineer. iii. Residential Cul-de-sac: Construct 28-ft wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within the 31-foot right of way. All on -site streets shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. iv. All emergency access roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. V. All streets divided by a median island shall be s\constructed with 20-foot wide improvements for each single direction lane. vi. All "dead end" streets with frontage on more than one lot shall have a cul-de-sac bulb constructed with a radius of 38-feet. b. CUL-DE-SACS Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-foot radius. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 20. 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. 21. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks)• 22. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. Oil p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 23. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 24. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 25. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 26. 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. 27. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 014 p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 LANDSCAPING 28. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 29. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit preliminary landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking of the final plans by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 30. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 31. Preliminary landscaping and final landscaping, hardscape, and irrigation plans for the clubhouse, entry, and maintenance building areas, substantially conforming to this approval and all municipal code requirements shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit by the Building and Safety Department. 32. Date palm trees shall not be planted in areas of high pedestrian traffic if the trees are transplanted from older date groves. QUALITY ASSURANCE 33. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 34. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide: sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. U1� p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 35. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 36. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 37. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 38. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 39. Final architectural working drawings for all structures, substantially conforming to this approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to submission of plans to the Building and Safety Department. 40. Prior to preparation of final working drawings for the maintenance building, an enhanced cornice treatment shall be provided around the top of the maintenance building to the satisfaction of Community Development Department. 41. Prior to preparation of final working drawings for the maintenance building, the building shall be reduced in height to a maximum 22 feet. (J 16 p:\stan\sdp 99-649.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 99-649 Country Club of the Desert January 23, 2001 42. The building mounted exterior lights on the maintenance building facing north and east shall be shoe box downshining fixtures or equal. All exterior lighting shall comply with applicable requirements. 43. A minimum of 139 car parking spaces and 295 golf cart parking spaces shall be provided with the clubhouse construction. FIRE MARSHAL 44. All plans shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit for plan review and approval. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 45. Knox box entry devises shall be installed at major entries to facility access by law enforcement/fire personnel in the event of alarm response, or other needed access. 46. Plans shall include sufficient lighting around facilities to discourage criminal activity and element. 47. Suggest landscaping around perimeter of facility be of a nature as to not block the view of the facility/area so as to not provide positions/areas of hiding to any criminal element. Also will provide for ease of view by patrol officers. 48. If motion senors/alarms are installed in the open yard areas, they should be placed in such a manner as to avoid false ativation by acts of nature or small animals. 017 p:\stan\sdp 99-649 pc coa.wdp ATTACHMENT #1 � ON � 7T ivanav aoenow - J L F .�P6iN 1� cN aaa mF F Q Qar loN w o'er 3 [�a m �z r=O<11Q Sl'N ,0-.[ - Ue min° rci° Uo Q §| m@ |hh�| 2 q 388& RAgBq ?88� a ab$ 8$8 d$ 49 #8i 8 " gene;l«ea7a',nm..... ..I. �r�:�4 gU5^ g,g$xSEs $ g€ a§ a8 g gga x.i. 9f$$g4�g�� tl�$ a m89�� Y�Soo a m� t�i alm m <F sSmo x.> �' § ei S 021. iaaxis Nosluvw i c I p�J f. K_� al - ash molp, a w x z a I Baas �s sRas - s °m 888 Ag 8888 E r P S Fit u=5 e � .8 il�c ��k`y:ayG 3 a$§o € y s rpez T GI x °' : i B¢3 ��Yz3'_ IM 0_ F2 N I I z wa�ssr3ooo a K. `Xjc�aa$�xx022 mx oaiavne .9.,E? o� f ]'Jtl OVIVIN9 t z 023 024 ATTACHMENT #2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 3, 2001 a 2. Committe Member Dennis Cunningham asked if the applicant would lik to address the Committee. Mr. Steve Schneider, represen ng the applicant, stated he had no objections with staff's recom ndations. 3. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Com ittee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Mo on 2001-001 recommending approval of Site Development P mit 2000-687, subject to the conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2000-649; a request of Country Club of the �f Desert for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a clubhouse, main entry, guard house, and golf course maintenance facility to be located on the north side of 54`h Avenue, between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street within the Country Club of the Desert. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presentedthe information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Dennis Cunningham asked if there were any comments from the applicant. Mr. Tom Rencovitch, representing the applicant stated they were in agreement with most of staff's recommendations, but would like to discuss some of staff's recommendations in regard to the maintenance facility. In regard to the tilt up panels in Condition #3, they will be painted, not stuccoed.. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated the clubhouse and entry gatehouse were beautifully designed and he had no issues. Concerning the maintenance facility, in his opinion staff's recommendation would add too much architectural detail and it would defeat the purpose of having it blend in and not be seen. He would not recommend more than additional cornice detail. Painting is acceptable on the tilt up walls and maybe some scoring. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that in comparison to the maintenance facility at the Tradition, which has the appearance of a hacienda and that of the Rancho La Quinta maintenance facility which is the other end of the architectural scale being more modern and plain, this design is in between. With proper landscaping and maintenance he has no problem with the design. G:\WPDOCS\ALRCI-3-Ol.wpd 2 ti Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 3, 2001 5. Committee Member Reynolds asked where it was located in relation to the other buildings. Staff explained its' location. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be another entrance off Madison Street. Staff stated no and showed where the entrances would be located. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be any provisions for tunnels to serve the golf course. Staffs stated a tunnel would be constructed by the maintenance facility on Madison Street and one close to 53`d Avenue and 54`h Avenue. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Reynolds/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-002 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-649, subject to the conditions with the modification to Condition #3. a. Condition #3: "...provide design articulation with a decorative cornice wrapping around the entire building." Unanimously approved. C. ViIFR a Use Permit_2000 05; a request of Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC for revie f architectural and landscaping plans for a hotel and plaza to be located the north side of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Deser Club Drive within Santa Rosa Plaza 1. Plannin' Manager Christine di lorio and Contract Planner Nicole Criste pre' nted the information contained in the staff report, a copy of ich is on file in the Community Development Department. c 2. Committee Mem er Dennis Cunningham asked if the applicant would like to a ress the Committee. Mr. Dan Brown, representing the app ant, stated they have no problem with the 12 inch recessed win ws, as recommended by staff. They will change the design of the a window element to blend in with the roof line. In regard to the\he ng and berming on the interior, it was their hope to enlarge and add berming around the chip and putt and pool areawanted to elevate the area to give the pool area some prrefore they have no objection to the berming. Theyno objections to the other recommendations. 1026 G\W PDOCS\ALRC 1-3-0 l .wpd 3 PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 23, 2001 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-406, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050, VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-005 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29909 REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, REVIEW OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 15.25 ACRE COMMERCIAL CENTER; 2)CREATION OF 11 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM .4 TO 6.2 ACRES; AND 3) DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A SIX STORY 145 ROOM HOTEL. LOCATION: THE NORTH SIDE OF CALLE TAMPICO, BETWEEN DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND AVENIDA BERMUDAS. APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-406 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING/ DESIGNATIONS: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL/VILLAGE COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND: Site Background The project site is currently vacant desert land. The site is bounded on three sides by roadways, specifically Calle Tampico on the south, Avenida. Bermudas on the west, and Desert Club on the east (Attachment 1). The La Quinta Evacuation Channel occurs along the northern boundary of the site. Three small parcels at the southwestern corner of the site are excluded from this project, and are currently developed as convenience stores and a restaurant. G:\WPD0CS\PCStfRpt-SantaRosa. WPD Project Request In addition to the Environmental Assessment, the following applications have been filed: 1. A Specific Plan to establish design standards and guidelines for 49,160± square feet of commercial retail and office space, and up to 217 hotel rooms (Attachment 2). 2. A tentative parcel map which divides the proposed 14.3 acre project site into 11 parcels. 3. A Village Use Permit for the use and development of 145 hotel rooms within an Embassy Suites Hotel building, as well as the construction of perimeter improvements for the site. The Specific Plan provides the design guidelines and standards which will guide the future development of the site. The Specific Plan requires that Site Development Permits or Village Use Permits (VUP) be secured in the future for the construction of the seven commercial buildings, and for the casitas (which will provide an additional 72 hotel rooms). In addition, the Specific Plan includes an option which would allow parcels 4, 5, 6 and 7 (corresponding to buildings 4, 5, 6 and 7) to be used for an additional 72 casitas hotel rooms. The Specific Plan further details the potential architectural style of the buildings, and the types of materials which will be utilized. The variations to the City's zoning standards are discussed individually below, under Design Issues. The Specific Plan proposes construction of the project in three phases, starting with the hotel building. Only the hotel is being considered for detailed design review at this time, through the -Village Use Permit. As development of other buildings occurs, additional Village Use Permits will be required. The project will be accessed from all three streets. The primary access point will be located on Calle Tampico. Secondary access is provided on both Desert Club and Avenida Bermudas. Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 2, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no comments have been received. UU2 G:\WPD0CS\PCStfRpt-SantaRosa. WPD Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee has reviewed the Village Use Permit for the hotel and perimeter landscaping, and has recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 4). These conditions primarily address concerns regarding the building's appearance, particularly on the large blank wall surfaces on the north, east and west elevations. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Specific Plan, Village Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map can be made, as noted in the attached resolutions with the exception of the property suitability finding for the Specific Plan, which is described below: Finding #4 - Property Suitability: Issues associated with the design of the project are discussed below. The project is proposing a building height of 78 feet for the proposed hotel, which significantly exceeds the Village Commercial standards. In addition, signage plans proposed in the Specific Plan are insufficient, and will require further review. Parking standards are also of concern. Finally, land use issues associated with the development of additional casitas, and the overall potential increase in square footage have been insufficiently addressed, and must be expanded upon. Conditions of approval have been included to address these issues, and are discussed individually. Building Heiaht The commercial retail/office component of the proposed Specific Plan allows for one and two story buildings. For the hotel building, however, a maximum height of 78 feet is proposed, to allow for a 6 story hotel with atrium lobby. The maximum building height in the Village Commercial zone is 35 feet. This represents a significant departure from the City's standards, and does not fit into the concept of pedestrian scale development envisioned in the Village. In addition, the Initial Study found that the construction of 6 stories would represent a significant impact to the aesthetics of the area. It is important to note that the sight line studies shown in the Specific Plan are not accurate, insofar as the grade differential from Calle Tampico to the north property line is no more than 3 feet, while the sight line study shows a grade 003 GAWPD0CS\PCStfRpt-SantaRosa. WPD differential of more than 10 feet. Viewshed impact occurs for the residents of Duna La Quinta, looking south and southwesterly. The viewshed impact for this development, unless mitigated, will be significant. The Initial Study finds that a maximum height of 55 feet (23 feet less than proposed by the applicant), would mitigate the viewshed impact. This reduction would be more appropriate in scale and mass with the existing and envisioned buildings per the Village Design Guidelines. A possible design alternative, so as to retain the same number of hotel rooms, can be accomplished by placing them over the conference and spa areas and increasing those single story spaces to multiple story spaces. Specific Plan Condition #15.A. has been added which limits the hotel to 55 feet in height. Land Use The Specific Plan allows for lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be used for either commercial retail/office space, or for an additional 72 casitas. Although the land use flexibility is mentioned (on pages 2 and 11), no additional standards, including amenities, open space, parking and landscaping, are provided for this conversion in land use. There is also no alternate site plan which would allow for some analysis of whether the land use would meet minimum standards. Although the use, as a complement to the hotel would be acceptable, a number of issues would need to be addressed in the Specific Plan to provide minimum standards for the conversion. A condition of approval has been added which addresses these issues (#15.13.). The Specific Plan also allows for each building in the project to be expanded by up to 10% without amendment to the Specific Plan. This could result in an additional 23,431 square feet on the site. This increase in square footage represents a significant impact, and is excessive. A condition of approval has been added which requires that the Specific Plan be amended to allow a 10% increase of the commercial retail/office buildings only, which would result in up to 4,916 additional square feet on the site 1#15.C.). Parking The Specific Plan proposes to vary from the City's standards for parking, particularly for restaurant uses. A 6,800 square foot restaurant would require 91 parking spaces to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance; 34 spaces are provided in the plan. Since shared parking will be possible on this site, such a variation can be accommodated, insofar as the office and retail uses will not operate at the same time as the restaurant's busiest time. However, should more restaurant space be proposed, as is possible under the Specific Plan, parking could become an issue. A condition of approval has been added which provides for individual parking analysis for land uses in the commercial retail/office section of the project (#17). Ou4 G:\WPD0CS\PCStfRpt-Santa Rosa. WPD Sianaae The signage proposed in the Specific Plan does not provide sufficient detail, including size and location, to make a determination as to its adequacy. A condition of approval has been added (Condition #16) which requires that signage for the project be processed through a Site Development Permit, and that all signage shall conform to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSION: The Specific Plan, Village Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map represent an appropriate use of the parcel on which they are proposed. The Specific Plan, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can be made. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-, recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-406. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2000-050, subject to the findings and conditions. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 29909, subject to the findings and conditions. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-, recommending to the City Council approval of Village Use Permit 2000-005, subject to the findings and conditions. Attachments 1 . Location Map 2. Specific Plan 2000-050 Document and Tentative Parcel Map 29908 (Commission only) 3. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes for January 3,2001 Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Submitted by: 04, U 2(� t' C.) Christine di Iorio, PI nning Manager 0 ) G:\WPDOCS\PCStfRot-SantaRosa. W PD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050, VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-005, AND PARCEL MAP 29909 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-406 APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of January, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2000-406 for Specific Plan 00-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and Parcel Map 29909, generally located on the north side of Calle Tampico, between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas, more particularly described as follows: APN 770-020-001 & 770-020-002 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-406) and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan, Village Use Permit and Parcel Map could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval for Specific Plan 00-050, Village Use Permit 00-005 and Parcel Map 29909 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and Parcel Map 29909 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2000-406. 2. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and Parcel Map 29909 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 (10 6 G:\W PDO C S\PCReso EASantaRosa. wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2000-406 Santa Rosa Plaza community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and Parcel Map 29909 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and Parcel Map 29909 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. 5. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and Parcel Map 29909 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 7. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2000- 406 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2000-406 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta 007 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoEASantaRosa.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Environmental Assessment 2000-406 Santa Rosa Plaza Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\W PD0CS\PCResoEASantaRosa. wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005, Parcel Map 29909 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: North side of Calle Tampico, between Desert Club and Avenida Bermudas. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC P. 0. Box 1503 Palm Desert, CA 92261 6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial 7. Zoning: Village Commercial 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.) Specific Plan to establish development standards for 217 hotel rooms, and 49,160 square feet of retail and office commercial space. The hotel includes conference and spa facilities, as well as 72 "casitas," which are on an adjacent parcel but not an integrated portion of the hotel. The Village Use Permit is for review of the hotel portion of the project only. The Parcel Map will create a total of 11 lots, for each of the buildings within the project. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: La Quinta Evacuation Channel South: Three retail commercial lots are developed at the southwestern corner, including convenience store and restaurant. Calle Tampico, Village Commercial land, currently vacant also occur to the south. East: Desert Club, Village Commercial land currently vacant, and Medium Density Residential land built out for a school. West: Avenida Bermudas, Village Commercial and Medium High Residential lands, currently vacant. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District or 9 G:\ W PDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEACklst. W PD 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 Hazards and Hazardous Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed X to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date CHRISTINE DI IORIO CITY OF LA QUINTA Printed Name For 010 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-05OSantaRosaEACkist.WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1 . A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced)• 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D)• Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The analysis of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 011. G\WPDOCS\SP2OOO-O 5OSantaRosaEACk1st.W PD 3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to on -agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Site Visit) III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated a X X X Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 15 13 X X X 012 c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project: region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application Materials) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application Materials) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Municipal Code) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Limited Archaeological Testing on TPM 29909," prepared by CRM Tech, December 2000) 9 FA X 0 X X X X X X 013 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? ("Limited Archaeological Testing on TPM 29909," prepared by CRM Tech, December 2000) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Paleontology Lakebed Map) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Limited Archaeological Testing on TPM 29909," prepared by CRM Tech, December 2000) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-39) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.) e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) FA FN X X X X 3 X 7 X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the 014 project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would i create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 57 ff.) X 3 X E X X X X X *11 X 015 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial Photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.) 0 3 9 3 X X X 0 X 0 N X d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Land Use Map) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (Land Use Map) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Aerial Photo) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Aerial Photo) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. 1 Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. 1 XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: X X KI X X X X X X X X X 017 XVI a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Traffic Study prepared by Korve Engineering, 11 /2000) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Traffic Study prepared by Korve Engineering, 11 /2000) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application Materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) X X X X X X X X X X X X 11 XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have cause substantial advers directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. environmental effects which will effects on human beings, either x 0 X X Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-406 a) & c) Calle Tampico is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. The corner of Avenida Bermudas and Calle Tampico is also identified as a Secondary Gateway Treatment in the General Plan. The proposed project includes the required setbacks and landscaping for such designations. The proposed office and retail commercial buildings are proposed for single and two story construction. The hotel building, however, is proposed for 6 stories, with a total height of 78 feet. The Village Commercial standards in the Development Code allow up to 35 feet, plus added height for uninhabitable projections. The Specific Plan can modify such standards, and proposes to do so in this case. The proposed project is located in the Village, which is generally flat, and benefits from exceptional views of the mountain which surround it. The line of sight studies shown in the Specific Plan, though "not to scale" can be interpreted, showing significant grade differentials (10 feet or more). Analysis of the grading plan, however, shows that the grade differential from Calle Tampico to the Evacuation Channel is no more than 3 feet. From the Duna La Quinta subdivision, the project will create a substantial blockage of views to the west and south, which are the primary mountain viewsheds in the City. The visual impact of the building, therefore, will be significant. In order to mitigate this impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. The overall building height for the hotel shall not exceed 55 feet, or a maximum of 4 stories. I. d) The project site is currently vacant desert land, and is in an area of the City which benefits from low lighting levels. The project proponent shall be required to meet the standards of the Municipal Code regarding lighting. All lighting fixtures shall be required to be flush mounted, down -lights. These conditions of approval will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. III. a) e) The uses proposed in the Specific Plan are to be consistent with the Village Commercial land use designation in the General Plan. As such, land uses were analysed as part of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project will create 50,000± square feet of retail commercial land uses, and up to 217 hotel rooms. Based on the land uses proposed, the project can be expected to generate approximately 2,959 trips per day'. Based on this, as shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. "Traffic Study," prepared by Korve Engineering, November 2000. G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 1 Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 35 mph 81.9 4.25 10.1 0.0 0.33 0.33 8 2 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 2,959 trips/day and average trip length of 5.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). Recent analysis by SQAQMD has determined that the Valley has reached attainment, and a redesignation is pending. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures: 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre- watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 021 2 7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation measures. 14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at the time of development. The proposed project includes the possibility of restaurants, which could result in cooking odors. These odors will be transient, and should not be considered objectionable. No other objectionable sources are anticipated for the project site. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project site are not included in the analysis. Further, the air quality impacts from the proposed project falls within what was studied in the General Plan EIR. The City determined at that time that air quality impacts associated with the buildout of the City required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulatively significant when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its boundaries. 02� G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 3 IV. a) The site has been significantly impacted, and is surrounded on all sides by either roadways or existing development. As such, it does not represent quality habitat, and is unlikely to support significant numbers of species. V. a) & b) An archaeological resource analysis was conducted for the proposed project2. This included on -site testing, which uncovered no archaeological resources. The archaeological resource analysis therefore recommends the following mitigation measure: 1. Should any grading or earth moving activity on the site uncover an archaeological resource, all construction activity shall cease until an archaeological monitor has been retained by the project proponent. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect earthmoving activities. A plan for its evaluation and treatment should be developed in consultation with the Community Development Department. The monitor shall file a final report with the Community Development Department. VI. a) i) The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. No known earthquake fault occurs within several miles of the proposed project. The potential impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant. VI. a) ii) The proposed project occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City has adopted the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard. Construction of any structure on the project site will conform to these standards, and will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. VI. a) iii) The proposed project does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The soils on the site are loose silty sand, which has the potential to shift in a seismic event. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) & c) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils on the proposed site are loose silty sand. Sandy soils must be properly compacted prior to construction to assure long-term stability. The City's standards for site preparation shall be adhered to, as required by the City Engineer. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 2 "Limited Archaeological Testing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 29909," prepared by CRM Tech, r� December, 2000. U G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 4 _ 1 IIAIIIIIIIIIIAIIRIIA401�11i 1 . Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the specific structure(s) being constructed. VIII. a) The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on - site. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning" devices when necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water quality standard to a less than significant level. VIII. b) Although the proposed project will utilize water for irrigation and operations, the potential impacts are expected to be less than significant. Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The use of water within the hotel and casitas will be slightly greater than the balance of the commercial site. The project proponent will, however, be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures, and water tolerant landscaping. These regulations will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c), d) & e) Any development proposal reduces the amount of natural terrain available for percolation, and changes drainage patterns. Construction of structures and parking lots will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The proposed project will retain 100 year storms on site, and will also provide an overflow connection to the Calle Tampico storm drain. The City Engineer will impose conditions of approval to ensure that any drainage is properly treated, if needed, and that adequate capacity exists in the City's system to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impact is expected. XI. a), b) & c) The proposed project occurs in a relatively quiet area of the City. The construction of the hotel and casitas represent sensitive receptors. They are, however, located at least 600 feet north of Calle Tampico. The project will be required to maintain exterior and interior noise standards which meet or exceed the Municipal Code standards, including construction improvements if necessary. The impacts potentially created by noise are not expected to be significant. G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 024 5 XII. a) The proposed project may indirectly induce growth, insofar as the commercial land uses and hotel will require employees. The housing market in the City is currently strong, and provides for a variety of housing opportunities for all income levels. The potential impact is not expected to be significant. XIII. a) The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential impacts for both police and fire services. The property, once developed, will generate sales and use tax and property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to police and fire service. All development has an impact on governmental facilities and services. The project proponent will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvements. In addition, the revenues generated by the site will result in sales tax for the City, which will offset any needs for additional municipal services. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XV. a) & b) A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project'. The traffic analysis found that the project will generate 2,959 average daily trips at buildout. The traffic study found that the project would not have significant impacts on traffic and circulation, with the inclusion of the following mitigation measures: 1. Prior to the third phase of construction, the project proponent shall construct, or shall cause to be constructed, a longer left turn pocket on southbound Desert Club at Calle Tampico. The length of the pocket shall be determined by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to the third phase of construction, signal timing adjustments and/or phase revisions, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be completed. 3. The project proponent shall participate in the signalization of Eisenhower and Calle Tampico. Such signalization shall be complete prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for phase 2 of construction. 4. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each phase of the project, the City Engineer shall review the potential impacts generated by that phase, and determine whether timing adjustment and/or split phasing must be completed. ' "Traffic Study," prepared by Korve Engineering, November 2000. 025 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 6 XVI. f) The construction of the proposed project will have a limited impact on utilities and public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the business operators for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. - 026 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050, TO ALLOW DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 15.25 ACRE COMMERCIAL CENTER, HOTEL, CASITAS AND COMMERCIAL RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE ON 14.3 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CALLE TAMPICO, BETWEEN DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND AVENIDA BERMUDAS. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050 APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of January, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the Santa Rosa Plaza project for review of design guidelines and development standards for a 145 room hotel, 72 casitas and 49,160 square feet of commercial space on the north side of Calle Tampico, between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas, more particularly described as: APN 770-020-001 & 770-020-002 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering Environmental Assessment 2000-406, and all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Specific Plan: 1 . The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, the Land Use Map for the General Plan and supports the development of the proposed project, as conditioned. 2. The proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance and the Village Design Guidelines in that it provides standards for the proposed land uses. 3. The proposed Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 4. Development of the proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the parcel on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses, as conditioned. 027 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSantaRosaSP.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 2000-050 Santa Rosa Plaza NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with the conditions of approval for the proposed Specific Plan; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-406 assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2000-050 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California �028 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSantaRosaSP.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ SANTA ROSA PLAZA - EMBASSY SUITES SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050 January 23, 2001 GENERAL 1 . Upon conditional approval by the City Council of this development application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 2. The developer agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1 . Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial): 50-foot half of 100-foot right of way. 2. Desert Club Drive (Collector): 32-foot half of 64-foot right of way. 3. Avenida Bermudas (Collector): 32-foot half of 64-foot right of way, plus right of way for one-half of a standard cul-de-sac at the northern terminus of the street. NOTE: As an alternative, subject to agreement with the adjacent property owner (refer to Tentative Parcel Map 29886), the applicant may jointly apply with the adjacent property owner for a street vacation at a point north of the northernmost access on Avenida Bermudas. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Commercial: Applicant shall comply with the City's Parking Ordinance. C. CULS DE SAC 1 . Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 029 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050-coaSantaRosa.wpd 1 f IInm11I1111A'1II11A111B111!®All� Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites Specific Plan 2000-050 January 23, 2001 4. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): a. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial): 20-feet b. Desert Club Drive (Collector): 10-feet C. Avenida Bermudas (Collector): 10-feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 5. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 6. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial) - None required (improvements, including sidewalk, have already been installed). 2. Desert Club Drive (Collector) - None required (improvements, including sidewalk, have already been installed). 3. Avenida Bermudas (Collector) - a. Construct 20-foot half of 40-foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs), including easterly half of symmetrical cul-de-sac at northerly terminus, plus 6-foot sidewalk. These improvements shall be installed with Phase I of the development. (NOTE: Avenida Bermudas shall be designed so that the drainage flow in Calle Tampico will not divert onto northbound Avenida Bermudas.) b. Construct 14-feet of pavement westerly of and adjacent to street centerline. C. Construction of improvements northerly of project entry may not be required dependent upon receipt of documentation from adjacent property owner agreeing to deletion of future street (see Condition 8.A.3 above). 3 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050-coaSantaRosa.wpd 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites Specific Plan 2000-050 January 23, 2001 d. Modify traffic signal at Avenida Bermudas and Calle Tampico to include a designated left -turn from southbound Avenida Bermudas. B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1. Construct onsite improvements per City of La Quinta Parking Ordinance. 2. Culs de sac per Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 8O0A (offset), 38-foot curb radius. C. CULS DE SAC Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 8O0A (offset) with 38-foot curb radius. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 7. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. LANDSCAPING 8. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 9. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the G:\WPD0CS\S P2000-050-coaSantaRosampd 3 0 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites Specific Plan 2000-050 January 23, 2001 Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 10. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 11. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Avenida Bermudas. The sidewalk shall be installed with Phase I of the development. 12. The plant palette shall be amended to require a minimum of 24" box for all trees to be planted on the proposed project. 13. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include berming throughout the interior of the property, varying in height from 1 to 3 feet. The amended landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 14. Architectural and landscaping plans for all office and retail commercial buildings shall be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Committee prior Village Use Permit approval. 15. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Specific Plan shall be amended to include: A. The height of the hotel shall not exceed 55 feet. The 35 foot maximum height limit shall apply to all other structures on the project site. B. Development Regulations (page 31), add: Casitas on parcels 4, 5, 6 and 7 Should hotel rooms (casitas) be proposed for lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, the following minimum standards shall apply: Maximum Density: 34 rooms per acre Parking Spaces Required: 1.1 per room Landscaped Area Minimum: 50% Amenities: 1 pool per 36 rooms or fraction thereof GAWPDOCS\SP2000-050-coaSanta Rosa.wpd n 4 u3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites Specific Plan 2000-050 January 23, 2001 C. Wherever a reference is made to an increase in square footage of 10%, the Specific Plan shall be amended to read "10% of the commercial retail/office space only." 16. All signage for the proposed project, including monument signs and site -specific signage, shall require a Site Development Permit. Prior to issuance of any individual sign permit for the proposed project, the project proponent shall have received approval for a Master Signage Program for the entire site. 17. Village Use Permit applications for the casitas or any commercial building shall include a parking analysis which includes the following: A. Specific land uses within the building(s) proposed. B. Number of parking spaces provided. C. Demonstrated conformance with the standards in the Specific Plan. Any increase over 6,800 square feet of restaurant space shall require the provision of additional parking to meet the City's standard of 1 space per 75 s.f. of seating area. 18. The project proponent shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2000-406. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: 19. No construction traffic shall be allowed on Desert Club Drive. 20, The access drive on Desert Club Drive shall be properly posted to indicate the driver is entering a school zone. G:\WPDOCS\S P2000-050-coaSantaRosa. wpd 5 031 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 14.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 PARCELS AND TWO LETTERED LOTS. CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29909 APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of January, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Santa Rosa Plaza, in order to subdivide a 14.3 acre parcel into 9 numbered lots and 2 lettered lots, generally located on the north side of Calle Tampico, between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas, more particularly described as: APN 770-020-001 & 770-020-002 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Parcel Map 29909: Finding Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan: A. The property is designated Village Commercial. The Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages specialty and resort -related development in this land use designation. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because specialty retail and resort commercial land uses are proposed. Finding Number 2 - Consistency with City Zoning Ordinance: A. The proposed retail development is consistent with the land uses specified in the Zoning Ordinance, as conditioned. Modifications to the City's standards, which are included in Specific Plan 2000-050, are justified. Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act: A. Parcel Map 29909 is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Public Resources Code Section 65457(a). An Environmental Assessment (EA 2000-406) has been prepared, and a mitigated Negative Declaration has been proposed. 034 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSantaRosaPM.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Parcel Map 29909 Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC Finding Number 4 - Site Design: A. The proposed design of the subdivision conforms with the development standards found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is flat and without physical constraints, and the parcel map is consistent with other parcels surrounding the project site. Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements: A. Storm water retention will be provided on -site, and conveyed to existing storm water systems adjacent to the site. B. Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive will be improved to City standards. C. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will service the site in underground facilities as required. No adverse impacts have been identified based on letters of response from affected public agencies. 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 confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-406 assessed the environmental concerns of this Parcel Map; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Parcel Map 29909 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 035 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSantaRosaPM.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Parcel Map 29909 Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 036 G:\WPDOCS\PC ResoSantaRosaPM. WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SANTA ROSA PLAZA - EMBASSY SUITES TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29909 January 23, 2001 GENERAL 1 . Upon conditional approval by the City Council of this development application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 2. The developer agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements and standards of § §66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Fire Marshal Y Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB 037 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050coaSantaRosaTPM.wpd 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 5. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of final map approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 8. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1 . Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial): 50-foot half of 100-foot right of way. 2. Desert Club Drive (Collector): 32-foot half of 64-foot right of way. 3. Avenida Bermudas (Collector): 32-foot half of 64-foot right of way, plus right of way for one-half of a standard cul-de-sac at the northern terminus of the street. NOTE: As an alternative, subject to agreement with the adjacent property owner (refer to Tentative Parcel Map 29886), the applicant may jointly apply with the adjacent property owner for a street vacation at a point north of the northernmost access on Avenida Bermudas. b. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Commercial: Applicant shall comply with the City's Parking Ordinance. 038 GAWPDOCS\S P2000-050coaSan1aRosaTPM.wpd 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2001 Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 C. CULS DE SAC 1 . Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 9. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 10. 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. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 1 1. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): a. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial): 20-feet b. Desert Club Drive (Collector): 10-feet C. Avenida Bermudas (Collector): 10-feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved Specific Plan. OTT G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050coaSantaRosaTPM. wpd 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 16. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. 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. 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading, Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. 040 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050coaSanta RasaTPM. wpd 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 20. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 22. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 23. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map o47 G:\WPD0CS\S P2000-050coaSantaRosaTPM.wpd 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 24. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 25. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 26. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 27. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors 042 G:\ W PDOCS\SP2000-050coaSantaRosaTPM.wpd 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 29. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 30. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 31. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 32. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. A3 G:\WPDOCS\S P2000-050coaSanta RosaTPM. wpd 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 34. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 35. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual - lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 36. Stormwater retention basins and underground piping systems shall be installed such that each Phase of the project shall provide appropriate drainage capabilities for that Phase. 37. All on site stormwater retention basins shall have provisions for evacuating retained water, either by mechanical means or by gravity flow, into the Calle Tampico storm drain system subsequent to the peak drainage flow in Calle Tampico. 38. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 39. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 40. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-05 ocoaSantaRosaTPM. wpd 8 .. 0 44 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 41. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 42. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 43. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 44. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 45. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 46. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. G:\WPDOCS\S P2000-05 OcoaSantaRosaTPM.wpd 9 045 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 47. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 48. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 49. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial) - None required (improvements, including sidewalk, have already been installed). 2. Desert Club Drive (Collector) - None required (improvements, including sidewalk, have already been installed). 3. Avenida Bermudas (Collector) - a. Construct 20-foot half of 40-foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs), including easterly half of symmetrical cul-de-sac at northerly terminus, plus 6-foot sidewalk. These improvements shall be installed with Phase I of the development. (NOTE: Avenida Bermudas shall be designed so that the drainage flow in Calle Tampico will not divert onto northbound Avenida Bermudas.) b. Construct 14-feet of pavement westerly of and adjacent to street centerline. C. Construction of improvements northerly of project entry may not be required dependent upon receipt of documentation from adjacent property owner agreeing to deletion of future street (see Condition 8.A.3 above)• d. Modify traffic signal at Avenida Bermudas and Calle Tampico to include a designated left -turn from southbound Avenida Bermudas. B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1. Construct onsite improvements per City of La Quinta Parking Ordinance. U 4 F G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050coaSantaRosaTPM.wpd 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 2. Culs de sac per Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset), 38-foot curb radius. C. CULS DE SAC 1 . Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-foot curb radius. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 50. 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. 51. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 52. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 53. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 54. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 55. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): A G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050coaSantaRosaTPM.wpd 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 56 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. 57. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 58. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Calle Tampico - access shall be restricted to right -turn movements only both to and from Calle Tampico at the single location shown on the approved Specific Plan. B. Avenida Bermudas - unrestricted access both to and from Avenida Bermudas at the single location shown on the approved Specific Plan. C. Desert Club Drive - unrestricted access both to and from Desert Club Drive at the two (2) locations shown on the approved Specific Plan. LANDSCAPING 59. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 048 G:\WPDOCS\S P2000-050coaSantaRosaTPM.wpd 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 60. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 61. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 62. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Avenida Bermudas. The sidewalk shall be installed with Phase I of the development. 63. The plant palette shall be amended to require a minimum of 24" box for all trees to be planted on the proposed project. 64. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include berming throughout the interior of the property, varying in height from 1 to 3 feet. The amended landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. QUALITY ASSURANCE 65. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 66. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 67. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 049 G:\W PDOCS\SP2000-050coaSanta RosaTPM. wpd 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites TPM 29909 January 23, 2001 68. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 69. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 70. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 050 G:\WPDOMSP2000-050coaSanta RosaTPM. wpd 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 145 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL ON A PORTION OF A 14.3 ACRE SITE ON CALLE TAMPICO, BETWEEN DESERT CLUB AND AVENIDA BERMUDAS. CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-005 APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of January, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the Santa Rosa Plaza project for review of development plans for a 145 room Embassy Suites Hotel on a portion of a 14.3 acre site located on the north side of Calle Tampico, Between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas, more particularly described as: APN 770-020-001 & 770-020-002 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the City of La Quinta did, on the 3rd day of January, 2001 recommend approval of the proposed project, by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-004, subject to conditions of approval; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering Environmental Assessment 00-399, and all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Village Use Permit: 1. The proposed development plans are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and programs relating to the Village Commercial land use designation, and supports resort residential and commercial opportunities for the residents and visitors to the Cove. 2. The proposed development plans are consistent with the standards of Specific Plan 2000-050, which establishes development standards for the project. 3. The proposed development plans will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 4. The proposed development plans comply with the architectural design standards for Specific Plan 2000-050, and implements the high quality standards called for in that document. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSantaRosaVUP.WPD 115 T Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Village Use Permit 2000-005 Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC 5. The proposed development plans are consistent with the landscaping standards and palette in Specific Plan 2000-050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Village Use Permit 2000-005, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; and 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-406 assessed and adequately mitigates the environmental concerns for this proposal. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of January, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 0 5 '21 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSantaRosaVUP.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SANTA ROSA PLAZA - EMBASSY SUITES VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-005 January 23, 2001 GENERAL 1. Upon conditional approval by the City Council of this development application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 2. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 051 G:\WPDO CS\S P2000-050SantaRosaVUP. wpd 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1 . Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial): 50-foot half of 100-foot right of way. 2. Desert Club Drive (Collector): 32-foot half of 64-foot right of way. 3. Avenida Bermudas (Collector): 32-foot half of 64-foot right of way, plus right of way for one-half of a standard cul-de-sac at the northern terminus of the street. NOTE: As an alternative, subject to agreement with the adjacent property owner (refer to Tentative Parcel Map 29886), the applicant may jointly apply with the adjacent property owner for a street vacation at a point north of the northernmost access on Avenida Bermudas. b. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Commercial: Applicant shall comply with the City's Parking Ordinance. C. CULS DE SAC 1. Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 054 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-05OSantaRosaVU P.wpd 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 9. 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. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 10. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 11. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): a. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial): 20-feet b. Desert Club Drive (Collector): 10-feet C. Avenida Bermudas (Collector): 10-feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 12. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 13. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved Specific Plan. 14. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. U5 ) G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-05OSanta Rosa V UP.wpd 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 15. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 16. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. 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. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 18. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 19. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they o fr") G:\W PDOCS\S P2000-050SantaRosaVU P.wpd 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 20. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 21. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 22. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be G:\WPDO CS\S P2000-05OSantaRosaV UP. wpd 5 I l 5 " Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 23. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 24. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 25. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. u5a G:\WPDOCS\S P2000-05oSantaRosaVU P.wpd 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 27. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 29. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 30. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 32. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 059 GAWPDOCS\S P2000-050SantaflosaVU P. wpd 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 33. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual - lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 34. Stormwater retention basins and underground piping systems shall be installed such that each Phase of the project shall provide appropriate drainage capabilities for that Phase. 35. All on site stormwater retention basins shall have provisions for evacuating retained water, either by mechanical means or by gravity flow, into the Calle Tampico storm drain system subsequent to the peak drainage flow in Calle Tampico. 36. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 37. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 38. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 39. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 40. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape areal and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 41. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. G:\ W PDOCS\SP2000-05OSa ntaRosa V U P.wpd 0 (160 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 42. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 43. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 44. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 45. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 46. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 47. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-050SantaRosaVU P.wpd o 61 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial) - None required (improvements, including sidewalk, have already been installed). 2. Desert Club Drive (Collector) - None required (improvements, including sidewalk, have already been installed). 3. Avenida Bermudas (Collector) - a. Construct 20-foot half of 40-foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs), including easterly half of symmetrical cul-de-sac at northerly terminus, plus 6-foot sidewalk. These improvements shall be installed with Phase I of the development. (NOTE: Avenida Bermudas shall be designed so that the drainage flow in Calle Tampico will not divert onto northbound Avenida Bermudas.) b. Construct 14-feet of pavement westerly of and adjacent to street centerline. C. Construction of improvements northerly of project entry may not be required dependent upon receipt of documentation from adjacent property owner agreeing to deletion of future street (see Condition 8.A.3 above). d. Modify traffic signal at Avenida Bermudas and Calle Tampico to include a designated left -turn from southbound Avenida Bermudas. B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1. Construct onsite improvements per City of La Quinta Parking Ordinance. 2. Culs de sac per Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset), 38-foot curb radius. C. CULS DE SAC 1 . Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-foot curb radius. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. o 02 G A W PDOCS\SP2000-050Santa Rosa V UP. wpd 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 48. 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. 49. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 50. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 51. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 52. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 53. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 54. 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 063 G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-05OSanta Rosa V U P. wpd 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 55. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 56. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Calle Tampico - access shall be restricted to right -turn movements only both to and from Calle Tampico at the single location shown on the approved Specific Plan. B. Avenida Bermudas - unrestricted access both to and from Avenida Bermudas at the single location shown on the approved Specific Plan. C. Desert Club Drive - unrestricted access both to and from Desert Club Drive at the two (2) locations shown on the approved Specific Plan. LANDSCAPING 57. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 58. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 064 G:\W PDOCS\SP2000-050Sa nta RosaVUP. wpd 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 59. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 60. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Avenida Bermudas. The sidewalk shall be installed with Phase I of the development. 61. The plant palette shall be amended to require a minimum of 24" box for all trees to be planted on the proposed project. 62. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include berming throughout the interior of the property, varying in height from 1 to 3 feet. The amended landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. QUALITY ASSURANCE 63. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 64. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 65. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 66. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 67. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. (16.J, G:\WPDOCS\SP2000-05OSanta Rasa V U P.wpd 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Santa Rosa Plaza - Embassy Suites VUP 2000-005 January 23, 2001 The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 68. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 69. Prior to issuance of building permits the architectural plans shall be modified as follows: A. Windows throughout the building shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches. B. On the east, west and north elevations, on walls where no windows or other surface relief occur, the walls shall be embellished with either raised banding, medallions or other appropriate articulation at regular intervals. C. The large window west of the entrance, in the spa building area, shall have a roofline which is integrated to the balance of the roofline in this area. D. The hotel building shall not exceed 55 feet in height. 70. The project proponent shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2000-406. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: 71. No construction traffic shall be allowed on Desert Club Drive. 72. The access drive on Desert Club Drive shall be properly posed to indicate the driver is entering a school zone. IIRG G:\W PDOCS\S P2000-050SantaRosaVU P. wpd 14 ATTACHMENT #1 a 0 Of Of W m Q 0 A 001dwvi Iwo ARN 67 ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 3, 2001 5. Committee Member Reynolds asked where it was located in relation to the other buildings. Staff explained its' location. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be another entrance off Madison Street. Staff stated no and showed where the entrances would be located. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be any provisions for tunnels to serve the golf course. Staffs stated a tunnel would be constructed by the maintenance facility on Madison Street and one close to 53`d Avenue and 54`h Avenue. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Reynolds/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-002 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-649, subject to the conditions with the modification to Condition #3. a. Condition #3: "...provide design articulation with a decorative cornice wrapping around the entire building." Unanimously approved. C. Village Use Permit 2000-005; a request of Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a hotel and plaza to be located on the north side of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive within Santa Rosa Plaza 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio and Contract Planner Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Dennis Cunningham asked if the applicant would like to address the Committee. Mr. Dan Brown, representing the applicant, stated they have no problem with the 12 inch recessed windows, as recommended by staff. They will change the design of the spa window element to blend in with the roof line. In regard to the landscaping and berming on the interior, it was their hope to enlarge the site and add berming around the chip and putt and pool areas as they wanted to elevate the area to give the pool area some privacy, therefore they have no objection to the berming. They have no objections to the other recommendations. G A W PDOCS\ALRC 1-3-01. wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes January 3, 200 1 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he thought it was an excellent project for the area and he supports staff's recommendations. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the total height would be. Mr. Brown stated they were requesting 78 feet 8 inches. The building needs to be a "presence". Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the height regulations were for this area. Staff stated it was 35-40 feet and it was an issue that would be discussed by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting the proposed height in the Specific Plan approval. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the design. 5. Committee Member Reynolds asked what the distance was from Calle Tampico to the hotel. Staff stated about 500 feet. Committee Member Reynolds stated he has no objections. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what type of retail they were looking to have in the site. Mr. Brown stated restaurants, office, and retail. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2001-003 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2000- 005, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. D. Capital Program Improvement Project 2000-006; a request of Colonel Bill Schmid for Phyle Properties for review of a request for funding to construct a screening wall and remove and replace landscaping on the east side of Avenida Bermudas, Plaza de la Fuenta. 1. Management Analyst Brit Wilson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Dennis Cunningham asked if the idea of the wall was to block out the view of the parking. Mr. Steve Schmid, representing the applicant, stated yes. Discussion followed regarding the parking and location of the wall. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the total amount of the request was for. Staff clarified $10,619, should the Committee approve the higher amount projected. 169 G:\WPDOCS\ALRC 1 -3-01.wpd 4 BI #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 23, 2001 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2001-528 APPLICANT/ SIGN CONTRACTOR: RIOFINE NEON (MR. CESAR SANDOVAL) PROPERTY OWNER: LA QUINTA OIL COMPANY REQUEST: REVIEW OF PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR JIFFY LUBE (FORMERLY THE LUBE SHOP) LOCATION: 111 LA QUINTA CENTER - IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE LA QUINTA CAR WASH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Shopping Center History The 111 La Quinta Center was approved as Specific Plan 89-014 in 1990. Construction activities in the center has been ongoing since 1992. The center's approved Master Sign Program sets forth the criteria for sign approval for single satellite pad tenancies. It allows 24" high internally illuminated channel letter signs, with individual letters. The Sign Program permits one sign per building elevation, not to exceed 50 square feet or 75% of the leased lineal frontage area. Corporate signs can be approved by the Planning Commission as a deviation to the approved Sign Program, which states that national or regional tenants with five or more outlets will be allowed to use their standard sign. Site History The Lube Shop was initially approved on January 26, 1993 (Plot Plan 92-494). The current owner has sold his interest to the parent corporation which operates Jiffy Lube franchises. Therefore, new signs for the building are being requested. The structure is approximately 4,200 square feet, with three drive -through service bays. An on -premise board sign for The Lube Shop is also located on the site, adjacent to Adams Street. The sign program as proposed (Attachment 1) requests approval for two building - mounted illuminated cabinet signs, one each for the north and south building elevations. The signs will be mounted in the same locations as the existing signs, as shown on the attached plans. The south elevation will include the Jiffy Lube corporate logo (red arrow), and measures a total of 32 square feet. The logo only portion measures 43" x 44" (13.2 square feet) The copy reads "jiffy tube" in lower case letters; the shortest letters are 14", with the tallest at 27". The north elevation sign will be similar to the south, but will not include a logo. It measures 48.4 total square feet, with the same copy as the south elevation sign. Construction of the sign copy is a unichannel design, with raised plexiglas letters. Illumination is internal, and lights the white letters against a red background on the cannister's surface. The entire unichannel cannister is painted red, with the raised edges of the letters trimmed in black. FINDINGS: The approved sign program criteria for the 111 La Quinta Center address the conditions which apply to sign design, location and installation. Staff recommends certain revisions to the signs as proposed, to comply with the Sign Program: A. The red sign cannister, as shown on the sign plans and defined in the Sign Program, is required to be a matte black finish. B. The proposed design illuminates the red background areas surrounding the raised white letters. The can and letter surround areas may not be illuminated. C. No portion of any sign face may extend beyond the building fascia. Note that the illustration for the north sign elevation appears to extend below the lower edge of the fascia. The Jiffy Lube signs' letter sizes range from 22" to 42"; the Sign Program only allows for 24". D. All signs are required to have individual letters. The sign plans indicate a uni-channel design, with raised letters that are part of the entire cannister. After inspection of recently installed Jiffy Lube signs at 42275 Washington Street, staff determined that the sign is a singular element as currently proposed, and will have to be modified to individual letters. E. In order to better accommodate length of the south elevation sign text, it is recommended that the sign be stacked vertically, with the "jiffy lube" logo centered and decreased in size to 36" x 36". It is also recommended that the text be removed from the logo, as it is redundant in conjunction with the company name sign and would balance the sign elements. Attachment 2 illustrates a non -scaled representation of this recommendation. F. The existing -on premise board sign advertising the Lube Shop shall be removed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No. approving Sign Application 2001-528, subject to compliance with the following requirements: 1. No portion of any sign face may extend beyond any element of the building elevation. Sign letter height shall be reduced to 24". 2. The red sign cannister, as shown on the sign plans, and letter surround areas may not be illuminated, and the can returns shall be matte black. 3. All signs are required to be individually mounted channel letters. 4. The south elevation sign text shall be stacked vertically, with the "jiffy tube" logo centered and decreased in size to 36" x 36". The "jiffy lube" text shall be removed from the logo. 5. The existing board sign advertising the Lube Shop shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for any signs. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: Subm' ed by: Christine d�, Planni g Manager 1 . Proposed signs - North and south elevations - 3 pgs. 2. Recommended revision to South elevation sign / / e 0 -0 -0 -0 / % / 0 10 \ / \ k 2 ) � LL O � CL � J \ � � \ � \_\ �� k ' ] Q ca cu f�AR CL �666 L\� � Em a 0 O w V 0 a M O r r p ® 01 a ow i�o 0 c E W ,ia Q, r c to As u aWCLL aaaeo �ay0= aA mz 3s M .. LL O CL 0 LL 9 M l N N m G s �!