Loading...
2001 03 27 PCPlanning 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 March 27, 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 2001-032 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-006 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 March 13, 2001 B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA ' - U U I VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: I_l 13 A X Item ................... VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-008 Applicant........... Joseph Rounaghi Location............ 51-230 Eisenhower Drive. Request ............. Review of remodeling plans for an existing commercial building changing the use from a restaurant to an art gallery/studio. Action ............... Resolution 2001 Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-06, ZONE CHANGE 2000- 093, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677 Applicant........... Evergreen - La Quinta Limited Partnership Location............ Southeast corner of Washington Street and 50`h Avenue. Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change lands currently designated as Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial; Specific Plan establishing development standards and design guidelines for the construction of a 14,490 square foot Walgreens and 63,600 square feet of offices in two buildings; and development plans for the Walgreens building. Action ............... Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001-, Resolution 2001- Item................... ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT 2000-405, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-049, PARCEL MAP 29889 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-691 Applicant........... McDermott Enterprises Location............ Southeast corner of Washington Street and 47' Avenue. Request ............. Review of design guidelines and development standards for a ±53,500 square foot commercial/office building on a ±4.9 acre site; subdivision of a commercial parcel map to subdivide ±4.9 acres into 12 parcels; and consideration of development plans for construction of a ±5,000 square foot permanent bank structure, along with a ± 1,440 square foot temporary bank structure. Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001-, Resolution 2001-, Resolution 2001- Item................... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30056 Applicant........... The Keith Companies for Chapman Golf Development L.L.C. Location............ The south terminus of Washington Street within the Tradition Club taking access from Del Gato Drive. Request ............. Subdivide 5.39 acres into 13 residential lots. Action ............... Resolution 2001- I V _ PC/AGENDA E. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-074 AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-098 Applicant........... Village at the Palms Location............ Southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street. Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a pre -annexation General Plan designation from County designation 2B and Low Density Residential to Golf Course and Low Density Residential, and approval of a Zone Change from County designation A-1-20 and R-1-9000 to Golf Course and Low Density Residential. Action ............... Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001 VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-536 Applicant........... Patty Bonafede Location............ 43-875 Galaxy Drive, within the Starlight Dunes development Request ............. Compatibility review of a single family dwelling Action ............... Minute Motion 2001- B. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-700 Applicant........... Hamilton-Gamboa Location............ 48-236 Vista De Nopal Request ............. Compatibility review of a single family dwelling Action ............... Minute Motion 2001 C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-694 Applicant........... RJT Homes Location............ Southwest corner of Jefferson Street and 50`h Avenue within the Palmilla Specific Plan Request ............. Review of landscaping and architectural plans for three three prototype units each with two facades, a guardhouse and common parkway amenities. Action ............... Minute Motion 2001- VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of March 6, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 13, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. C. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to move Business Item B to the first item on the agenda. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 27, 2001. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 7, Item #23 be corrected to read "...then the Image Corridor does exactly...". Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item #9 be corrected to read, "...restaurants are also included.". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: B. Sian Approval 2001-528 Amendment #1; a request of Riofine Neon for Jiffy Lube for an amendment to a sign program to allow a time and temperature display unit located within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, immediately north of La Quinta Car Wash. G.\WPD0CS\PC3-13-01 .wod f i Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the previous public hearing when signs were approved the applicant was requested to remove the temporary sign, which has been done, but the two 4X4 posts that held it up are still there and he would like to see them removed. Secondly, how long with the temporary banners stay up. Staff noted there was a time limit and they would check and take care of it. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-004 approving Sign Approval 2001-528, Amendment #1, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Village Use Permit 2001-008; a request of Joseph Rounaghi for review of remodeling plans for an existing commercial building changing the use from a restaurant to an art gallery/studio located at 51-230 Eisenhower Drive. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Staff requested this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2001, as requested by the applicant. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to continue this item to March 27, 2001. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 2000 410 and Conditional Use Permit 2001- 054; a request of Nextel Communications for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and installation of a 70 foot high wireless communication antenna and ground mounted equipment for cellular telephone service at 77-865 Avenida Montezuma. 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. G\WPD0CS\PC3-13-01 .wod 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked what type of pole had been approved at the hotel. Staff stated it was a monopalm just like the one at the school administration building. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a chain link fence running adjacent to the property. Staff stated there was chain link fencing around the ball field. Commissioner Butler stated the pole would be painted brown and there was the option of additional light users. His question was why the pole could not be used for more than one service. Staff clarified there were other light poles that potentially could have antennas on them. 4. Commissioner Butler asked why staff did not want to use the monopalm design. Staff stated it was discussed with the applicant and given the height of the pole and other palm trees in the park and as there were no buildings to break it up, it was determined the light pole would fit in better. Discussion followed regarding potential alternatives. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned the color proposed and whether the other poles were painted. If you paint one, they should all be painted. Staff stated they did not know whether the other poles were painted or not, but it could be addressed in the Master Plan for the park. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a concern about approving this without a Master Plan for the park. 6. Chairman Robbins asked staff to identify where the chain link fencing would be replaced with wrought iron. Staff identified the area on the site plan. 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Barbara Saito, representing Nextel, gave a presentation on the project and stated they concurred with staff's recommendation. She further stated they had no objection to either the monopalm or light pole. 8. Commissioner Abels asked if a ball hit the pole could it affect the transmission. Ms. Saito stated it could, but the pole is 75 feet in height. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01.wpd 3 „- Il0` Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 9. Commissioner Butler asked if they wanted the monopalm could they still use the light. Ms. Saito explained they would leave the ball field light where it is and move the monopalm to where the row of palm trees exists, if the Commission preferred that design. Commissioner Butler questioned why the applicant would shut the pole down for maintenance. Ms. Sidel stated the antennas are ten feet above the light because if you touch it, it will burn you as the antennas do get hot. 10. Commissioner Tyler questioned the extra 10 feet in height for safety and what would happen if the City determines to lower the lights; would they lower their antenna. Ms. Saito stated that once it is installed, unless it is causing interference with other sites, they do not take it down. They are finding that as technology improves they are able to lower the height of their poles. They do know however, that they cannot come below the baseball field lights. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was for cell phones only. Ms. Saito stated it is to support Nextel communications. 1 1 . Commissioner Butler asked Ms. Saito to identify where they would locate a monopalm if the Commission determined they would rather have the monopalm. Ms. Saito did so. 12. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on this project. 13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify the applicants original proposal versus what staff was recommending. Staff clarified what the original application consisted of and how they arrived at staff's recommendation. Commissioner Kirk asked if this would fit in with the Master Plan for the park and whether the row of palms would still exist after that Plan is completed. Staff stated it was their understanding that the Plan is to retrofit existing facilities. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to see a shorter pole with the tree. 15. Chairman Robbins stated there seems to be a discrepancy between the applicant's proposed height of 60 feet and staff's statement that it would be 75 feet. Ms. Saito stated that they originally GAWPD0CS\PC3-1 3-01 .wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 submitted a request for a palm tree 75 feet high. If they relocate it with no lights they could lower the pole to 60 feet with either design. However, since the ballfield lights are at 60 feet they would have to go up the additional ten feet to 70 feet. 16. Commissioner Butler stated there appears to be the possibility of more poles being placed in the park. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Butler asked if these future poles could also be monopalms, or are they absorbing too much of the space for the support facilities. He does not want to fill this park up with monopalms. 17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-026 recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-410, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-027 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-054, as amended. a. Condition 7.C.: The monopole and its antennas shall be a 60 foot high monopalm. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Environmental Assessment 2001-412 Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and Site Development Permit 2001- 686; a request of Omri Sikla for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and development plans for a commercial building consisting of a restaurant and office located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. F,-- UU3 G:\WPD0CS\PC3-13-01.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked if changes were made based on the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommendations regarding lighting. Staff stated no changes were required by the ALRC and the applicant stated they did not see any problems with the lights as proposed. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not the Thomas Bros. Map pages could be copied into a document that would become a City document without their permission. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he concurred that it would not be the preferred method. Commissioner Kirk stated it seemed strange and excessive to have a Specific Plan on this size of project, so he assumed the Zoning Code requires it in the CR district. Staff stated that was correct as well as the General Plan requirement. Commissioner Kirk asked how the mitigation monitoring document would be used. It is staff's perspective to have a mitigation measure prepared with every item that is identified as potentially significant unless mitigated. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Kirk stated he thought it was unusual to identify mitigation measures when we identify it as less than significant impact. When you look at this Mitigation Monitoring Plan, most of the mitigation measures are associated with actions we deemed as less than significant impact. One of them is a mitigation measure associated with something where we identify no impact. He does not like to see this document included with the report as it appears to be redundant, but if it is to be included it has to be consistent in some way. For example there is a mitigation measure for school impact fees where there is no impact. Most of the other measures are where the applicant is meeting the Code itself and not a special mitigation measure. In regard to parking he believes it is a good analysis as to why the parking should be reduced. What would happen if in five or ten years this owner sells to a tenant that would double the tables, there is nothing in the Specific Plan that would preclude this from happening. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Kirk stated that then the analysis would change and we should look at likely uses, but the use can change within the category and therefore the analysis becomes uncertain. Staff stated conditions could be added that would address more specifically what is approved. Commissioner Kirk asked if the project could be conditioned to the number of seats/tables proposed by this applicant so that if a different user were to come in they would be subject to the same conditions. Staff stated this could be done under the conditional use permit process. G:\W PDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 3. Commissioner Butler asked if we are doing the monitoring programs for compliance with CEQA as an additional step. He agrees with Commissioner Kirk that this is just additional work for staff. Staff stated they are prepared, but not always included in the staff report. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated mitigation measures are generally required when you identify potentially significant impacts unless mitigated, hence the mitigation measure. They will continue to work with staff to see that a futile paperwork drill does not take place. In regard to this Mitigation Monitoring Program, assuming their is an Environmental Assessment that does in fact identify potentially significant impacts unless mitigated certainly CEQA requires under Public Resources Code 21081.6 requires that the Council adopt a monitoring program at the time that they adopt a negative declaration. There is an advantage to having the Commission approve the same document prior to the City Council. He will prepare a memorandum on the monitoring program issue prior to the Commission's next meeting. Commissioner Butler stated that unless there is an issue, he does not see the need to have the mitigation monitoring in the staff report. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurs with Commissioner Kirks's comments. In regard to the parking he agrees that the parking analysis is based on some interesting concepts, but they are not controllable. The parking analysis needs to consider future uses. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lew Bishop, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to any future use he believes it will have to be the same use. In regard to parking, they have analyzed it in regard to the use and hours of operation of all the uses. In reference to the lighting, the specific luminaires they have chosen for this project are specifically designed for low level lighting in parking lots. They have the ability to screen various directions so light is not directed off the site. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated he likes the lighting concept. He asked if the conditional use permit included the hours of operation for the restaurant and office uses and could it. Staff stated it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Tyler stated that since the only entrance was off Caleo Bay was there any advantage to a left turn lane off Washington Street. Mr. Bishop stated it would make it easy to enter the site and reduce the traffic on Caleo Bay. G:\WPD0CS\PC3-13-01.wpd 7 ) 1 rj Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 7. Commissioner Butler stated the building design is very dramatic and has a definite character, but there is nothing to match it in La Quinta. His only concern is that it is a single use building and what use could it have in the future if the restaurant was not there. Is the architectural design too much? Is this the place for it? It is a very dramatic change for Washington Street. Mr. Bishop stated the design architect and the owners have taken a great deal of time to design this unique building and there is a diversity in architecture in La Quinta in the way of quality of design. Discussion followed regarding the architectural design. 8. Commissioner Abels stated he concurs with Commissioner Butler. This is going to be a footprint for this area. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked what the large circular element that appears to look like a smoke stack was on the front elevation. Mr. Bishop stated all the kitchen equipment is hidden behind this screen wall. 10. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Larry Lichliter, KSL Development, stated he eats at this restaurant and it has excellent food. This will be an asset to the City and will make a statement that the City is progressive. 11. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Kirk stated he has a problem with the parking, however if approved the conditional use permit could be conditioned to address those concerns if there was a change in the use of the building. The design will add to the image corridor of Washington Street and he would like to see more innovative designs like this in the City. 13. Commissioner Abels stated he is in favor of the project. 14. Commissioner Butler stated the picture of the different elevations showing the building in such a way that it is a stark structure that a picture with the landscaping probably would have softened the building itself. Mr. Bishop showed colored renderings of the buildings with the landscaping. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-1 3-0 1.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 15. Commissioner Tyler stated that when he first saw the project he was indecisive, but he thinks it will probably grow on us and it will make a statement. He would like the conditional use permit to be conditioned to require the hours of operation. 16. Chairman Robbins stated he was very concerned, not that the architecture was bad, but that it does not fit within the character of La Quinta. He conducted a very unofficial poll and showed the elevations to numerous residents and all agreed that it did not fit within what they thought was the image of La Quinta. He does not believe this architectural style fits within the City of La Quinta; at least what his image is. In regard to the lighting concept, he completely agrees. 17. Commissioner Abels stated he had spoken with the architect for the La Quinta Inn and after listening to him he agrees it will be an asset to La Quinta as it will bring diversity. 18. Commissioner Tyler stated he strongly approves of the sign program. 19. Commissioner Kirk stated they may disagree as to the architecture, but there are so many components to this project that are positive like the lighting and signage, but it will add to the City. He is strongly in support. 20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-028, recommending Certification of an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-412, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-029, recommending approval of Specific Plan 2001-052, as recommended. a. The location maps in the text shall be changed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPD0CS\PC3-13-01.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-030, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-056, as amended. 23. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was where the seating would be addressed and whether or not the applicant would have any problem with limiting hours of operation. 24. Mr. & Mrs. Siklai stated they have no objection. a. Condition #5: The restaurant shall not exceed 142 seats as specified in the Specific Plan. b. Condition #6: The restaurant hours of operation shall be as stated in the Specific Plan; weekdays 5:30 to 1 1:00 p.m. and weekends with extended hours. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-031, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-690, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:41 p.m. A. Zoning Code Amendment 2000-066; a request of the City for review of applicability and impact of the exist Water Efficient Ordinance on development proposals. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer 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 if staff was talking about water features on a particular piece of property, it doesn't take into consideration the depth of the water. The evaporation is from the surface, but isn't there any impact on the water itself and the growth that can occur in a water feature if the water heats up. If there is a water feature that is 12 inches deep and during the e-- 013 G:\WPDOC S\PC3-1 3-0 1.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 summer months it is heated by the sun, we have the same evaporation rate, but the same water feature at four feet deep it may be cooler and less impacted by the heat and you do not get the growth at the bottom of the water that cause other problems. Is this a plus or negative? Staff stated they did not know the answer to that question. Standing water has a fixed number and moving water does increase the water usage because it increases the evaporation rate. 3. Chairman Robbins stated deeper water stays cooler and evaporates less. 4. Commissioner Butler stated the formula presented by staff does not take into consideration the depth of the water that would reduce evaporation but takes more water to fill. 5. Commissioner Kirk stated that on Page 204-3, Item J.J. the source that is referenced, is it subject to State law; can we chose any reference we like? Staff stated we adopted a model ordinance that had been initiated by the State as it is a State-wide issue. The reference in all the plant factors you find in referenced material use cool season grass as the standard. If you wanted to tighten it up you would change the reduction factor in the formula from 0.8 to something less than, say 0.7 or 0.65, etc.. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated he was surprised to learn that the cool season grass has a .6 factor. Staff explained the overall ETofactor is .6. That is the plant factor and you have to apply the irrigation efficiency factor and that causes the effective rate to move up. If you have a large landscape area such as a golf course where you can use the rotors, that concept has a more efficient landscape/irrigation mechanism. However, if you have turf and sidewalk and more confined areas where you have smaller spray heads and a lot of runoff, that irrigation system is not as efficient and the lake will not work in the landscaping concept if everything else is turf. Commissioner Kirk asked what the plant factor was for the warm season grass. Staff stated that overall for the year it is .6. Discussion followed regarding plant factors and the formula. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the preliminary calculation staff was proposing to have the developer prepare was in the ordinance now or is it proposed. Staff stated we are asking them to provide it now, but it is not formally in the ordinance. 0it G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01.wod 11 _. nnnnuninnntnomunmm��mnnm Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 8. Commissioner Kirk stated that according to the ordinance audits are required, but have we ever received one. Staff stated no. Commissioner Kirk stated that if we are going to meet the intent of the ordinance shouldn't we do this? Staff stated it would require additional staff which the City has not funded. Commissioner Kirk stated that all tracts are required to have a model home with an example of efficient landscaping, is this done? Staff stated it needs to evaluated to see what can be enforced. 9. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Development Corporation, stated they hoped there was some room for improvement that would satisfy the goals of the ordinance and yet allow them and other developers to be competitive in the market. The process/calculations are cumbersome and far reaching to have to prepare at the time of a preliminary landscaping concept plan. They would like to be able to present their plans to the Commission and work out the formula with staff after the approval process. 10. Commissioner Butler stated the use of the word lush landscaping in the specific plan is an immediate flag and maybe a different word should be used. Mr. Hosea stated this is a "recreational playground" and people come here because of the weather. Therefore, they would request the City to take some moderation on this formula with consideration for grandfathering for existing developments. Also some consideration given for using canal water. 1 1 . There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Tyler thanked staff for the presentation. He would suggest no action be taken at this time due to the joint meeting being held with the City Council and the presentation being given by CVWD. 13. Commissioner Butler complemented staff on their presentation. As new applications are brought in will the staff be giving them some alternatives to their plant palettes. Staff stated the developer needs to be aware of what the City's requirements are. They need to be looking at their plant palettes as to what they are G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01.wpd 12 U15 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 proposing. They are not challenged unless they are proposing a lake. Commissioner Butler asked if the lake issue was something that allowed a developer to use the lake as a retention basins as a feature that would solve two purposes and would be an acceptable alternative. Staff stated that as long as it is left as a dry retention basin it is fine until such time as it is made into a lake and becomes a use and it challenges them to look at their other landscaping features around the project. If their lake is more than 14 percent of the site they will have to start reducing the amount of turf in the landscaping concept. 14. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the ordinance allows these types of developments then why have it. Maybe if a lake is proposed maybe at that time the analysis becomes effective. If we are going to have this ordinance we should do it right. Maybe there are better ways of doing this that could be considered. It appears that the model ordinance is inefficient and ineffective and a waste of time and isn't meeting the intent of what the State was trying to achieve. He finds it ludicrous that we are using 1.0 as the starting point and it is based on using Rye grass 100 percent of the year and yet the grass we use here is .6. What would desert landscaping be if Bermuda grass is .35 on its own, what is Verbana with a drip system? 15. Chairman Robbins stated the State-wide ordinance was developed mostly for coastal California. It was not intended to be used in the desert environment. He agrees with Mr. Hosea that green is what makes the homes attractive and keeps them selling and we do need to continue to keep it green. In contrary to what has been stated, there is not an endless supply of canal water. We do have to look at how canal water is used and the thought of allowing an exemption because a developer uses canal water does not make any sense at all. One of the things that could be changed in the ordinance is that there is a minimum efficiency that lets you use 62 percent. That is an inefficient irrigation system, so one of the things that could be looked at is not allowing an irrigation that is 62 percent. Move the minimum efficiency to 70 or 75 percent. On Page 206, Item C allows you to use turf to use more water whereas in staff's analysis shows that using turf you have no problem meeting the standard. This needs to be looked at as to its practicality. On Page 204, Item 4 it states that using 50 percent recycled water are exempted from the maximum water allowance and audit. Just because a site uses recycled water does not mean that it can use as much water as it wants. G:\WPDO CS\PC3-13-01.wpd Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 Recycled water is needed everywhere and this will limit what they are able to do on other sites in this City or throughout the Valley. Audits are a must for the large projects to ensure they are staying efficient. He agrees that this is an unfunded mandate for the City and perhaps the City should talk with the Water District to see if they can be given the responsibility of making sure they comply with the ordinance at the plan check process. Maybe the Water District could also handle the audits and enforcement issues. A look should be given to the size of a lot that is exempted and maybe that should be lowered. The 0.8 reduction factor should be evaluated as to its effectiveness. 16. Commissioner Kirk suggested staff look at ordinances in other states. 17. Chairman Robbins stated that some of the other states do not have strict landscaping ordinances but do have very, very expensive water with a tiered system. The more you use the more it costs. 18. Commissioner Kirk stated the process needs to be made more simple. If we are suggesting a change to the ordinance, make sure there is some grandfathering. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to continue this to May 8, 2001. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: B. Sion Approval 2001-536; a request of M & H Realty Partners for an amendment to a sign program for commercial pad buildings located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and highway 1 1 1 within Plaza La Quinta. 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 staff to clarify when a cabinet box sign was allowed. Staff stated that if they are part of a registered trademark logo staff has been allowing them. Commissioner Kirk GAWPD0CS\PC3-13-01.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 asked why a cabinet box sign would be allowed in conjunction with a registered trade mark as to allowing any company to have one. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that a cabinet sign has the background lit along with the letters as opposed to having individual channel letters where only the letters are lit. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was that the City was treating corporate entities different than we treat local merchants. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that in regard to a registered trade mark, you cannot change their color, size or display. He is not certain as to how a cabinet box sign would be applied. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern is treating those with a registered trade mark differently that the "mom and pop" business. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he cannot imagine where the law would be restrictive as to the box. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that maybe staff is not describing it properly. There are two different things. There is the logo for some such as Starbucks. That is a cabinet sign that is a circle that is their logo and then they have the "Starbucks" which are their channel letters. Second, is that with Jiffy Lube they submitted a proposal with uni-channel letters, which was the red background with the white letters which is actually a cabinet sign because it is all one box with the background lit up instead of individually mounted channel letters. The recommended condition was that they be individual channel letters and they said no, it is part of their trademark. Staff asked for verification of their trademark and found that it was not a part of the trademark, so they are required to have individual channel letters. Discussion followed regarding examples. 3. Commissioner Butler stated that if we allow this we are discriminating against the other tenants in the center. How did we change our sign program for one building? 4. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain a halo sign. Staff explained. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if this was approved could other tenants come back and request this type of sign. Staff clarified this would be for the satellite pads only. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01.wpd 15 x (? 1 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Glen Goodman, project manager for M & H Partners, gave a presentation of the sign program and stated they are looking for consistency with the other pad building signs. They concur with staff's recommendations. 7. Commissioner Kirk stated there is some confusion as to where the channel signs would be allowed. Staff stated the Downey Savings building is the only building currently with multi -tenants and the only building that would be allowed to change their signs. 8. Chairman Robbins stated his only concern was the preference being given to national chains versus local businessmen. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the issue was not a national change versus a small business. It is the fact that the City has not been given documentation that this is part of their corporate logo. The City can prohibit the sign all together, or reduce its size, or location. What you cannot do is change the logo itself. 9. Chairman Robbins stated they could eliminate the red glow. Staff stated that would be consistent with what has been approved. 10. Commissioner Butler stated he has no objection to what staff is recommending. The issue is that they are allowing individual pads to have signs that are different from what was originally approved for the center. Staff clarified the sign program is different for the in -line tenants than the satellite buildings. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked about the status of the proposed parking lot. Mr. Goodman stated they are hoping to have it started before the week is out. 12. Chairman Robbins asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-005 approving Sign Approval 2001-536, as amended: Condition 2.A. Logo cabinet box signs shall be allowed if it is a part of a formally registered trademark of the business which is used for business sign identification The background shall be opaque. Unanimously approved. 11154 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of March 6, 2001. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abets to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 27, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. on March 13, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California INA PH #,A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 27, 2001 (CONTINUED FROM 3-13-01) CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-008 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH ROUNAGHI REQUEST: REVIEW OF EXTERIOR REMODELING PLANS AND CHANGE OF USE FROM RESTAURANT TO AN ART GALLERY AND STUDIO LOCATION: 51-230 EISENHOWER DRIVE (FORMERLY SCHATZI'S RESTAURANT) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301, CLASS 1(A) AND (G) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AS AMENDED (RESOLUTION 83-63). SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST ARE IN THE VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT AND EITHER DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL AND/OR MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, OR VACANT. TO THE WEST, ACROSS EISENHOWER DRIVE, ARE PROPERTIES DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL HOUSES RECENTLY CHANGED TO THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FROM RESIDENTIAL COVE. TO THE SOUTHEAST IS FRANCES HACK PARK. BACKGROUND: The property is located at the northeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Montezuma and bounded on the north by Avenida Martinez (Attachment 1). A one SR VUP 2001-008 pc - Greg 47; R2/14&Ret.3/5Cont.; R3/19-3/22JSS Forml.wpd: story commercial building exists on the property that had previously been used for restaurant purposes. Exterior building materials consist of stucco and wood painted white accented by stucco columns and heavy wood beam outriggers that are painted green. An S-tiled mansard roof encircles the 16-foot high building concealing roof mounted mechanical equipment. The parapet is painted green to match the outriggers. The building's entrance on Avenida Martinez is covered by a large wood patio cover that was previously used for outdoor dining. This shaded area of the building is enclosed by a masonry wall and wrought iron fencing that is painted white and green, respectively. Storefront windows on Washington Street are covered by canvas awnings. Additionally, a 4.8-foot high monument sign with triangular base covered in 1 " by 1 " green tiles exists on Eisenhower Drive, northerly of Avenida Montezuma. The sign face measures 40-inches wide by 30-inches high (approx. 8 square feet) and is painted white. A 20-space parking lot is located on the east side of the building and surrounded by mature landscaping consisting of palms, shade trees and various shrubs. Presently, site cleanup work is being done to ready the site for its proposed opening. Turf is used in parkway frontages. Perimeter street improvements are in place at this time, but are being reconstructed in certain areas by the City's Assessment District project for The Village. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to establish a professional art gallery/studio in the existing 2,438 square foot building (circa May 1980). Exterior changes planned are new fixed panel windows measuring roughly 5.5' wide by 5.0' high (a total of three) facing the parking lot and two doors on the east and south building elevations, respectively (Attachments 2 through 5). The owner also plans to repaint the building off-white, and eave trim and overhang navy blue. In addition to minor facade changes, the applicant plans to add wrought iron fencing to the recently lowered masonry courtyard screen wall on the south side of the building. New shrub landscaping is proposed by the property owner. The applicant has submitted a sketch showing the name of the business and address in Forrest Green Vinyl being applied to the existing monument sign on Eisenhower Drive. Letter and number heights measure approximately 4.1-inches. No changes are being proposed to the 27-inch high pedestal base (Attachment 6). Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on March 1, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. 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. SR VUP 2001-008 pc - Greg 47; R2/14&Ret.3/5Cont.; R3/19-3/221SS Forml.wpd: y (J�2 Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRCI The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 21, 2001, and on a 3-0 vote, recommended approval of the applicant's CPIP funding request (Attachment 7). FINDINGS: The Findings required in Section 9.65.040 (Village Use Permit Review Process) of the Zoning Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, approving Village Use Permit 2001- 008, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Floor Plan 4. Building Photos 5. Elevations 6. Sign Program 7. Draft ALRC Minutes of 3/21/01 8. Large Elevation Exhibit - Planning Commission only are y: Submitted by: g rpu dell, 4ssociate Planner Christine di lorio, lanning Manager SR VUP 2001-008 pc - Greg 47; R2/14&Ret.3/5Cont.; R3/19-3/221SS Forml.wpd: ' I l� y V PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REMODELING PLANS AND CHANGE OF USE FOR A ART GALLERY AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIO CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-008 APPLICANT: JOSEPH ROUNAGHI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 13`h and 271h days of March, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of Joseph Rounaghi for approval of a Village Use Permit to allow exterior remodeling and change of use for a new art gallery and professional studio on approximately 0.33 acres located at 51-230 Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: APN: 773-072-019 (Lot Nos. 9-12, Block #128, SC@VLQ #14); Portion of Section #1, T6S, R6E, SBBM WHEREAS, said Village Use 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 Community Development Department has determined this Village Use Permit request is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (a and g) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended (Resolution 83-63); and WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed this request at its meeting of March 21, 2001, and on a 3-0 vote, recommended approval of the applicant's Commercial Property Improvement Program (CPIP) funding request. 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 justify approval of said Village Use Permit: A. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code in that the use is permitted in the VC District and has been designed to comply with the applicable VC District development standards, guidelines, and provisions. B. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements under Section 15301, Class 1 (a and g) of the Guidelines for Implementation in that the applicant is remodeling an existing commercial building and signs. C. The project will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the use will operate in an existing structure and parking lot that complies with applicable Zoning Code requirements, and be conducted in concert with applicable environmental and health regulations. VUP008 pc reso - 47 Greg ISS form) Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Village Use Permit 2001-008, Joseph Rounaghi March 27, 2001 Page 2 D. The architectural design of the building with the remodeling, is compatible with the surrounding uses and quality of design illustrated in the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, as recommended. The proposed fixed glass windows and doors are similar in design to the existing windows and doors on other elevations, and the proposed open visibility fencing for the courtyard is visually attractive. E. The site design of the project including parking and signing is compatible with surrounding commercial developments and consistent with Chapters 9.150 (Parking) and 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code. F. Existing project landscaping provides shading for the building and parking areas consistent with other commercial facilities in The Village. No new landscaping improvements are required by this permit. 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 2001-008 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 27`h day of March, 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\vup 2001-006 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-008, JOSEPH ROUNAGHI MARCH 27, 2001 GENERAL 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 tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. All questions regarding the meaning of this condition should be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. A:ACond vup 2001-008 pc .wpd-47 Greg Page 1 of 2 FEES AND DEPOSITS 4. 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. 5. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits, unless otherwise determined by the Building and Safety Department. MISCELLANEOUS 6. Prior to beginning of work authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department including the following: A. Building color samples shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to being applied. B. A sign permit shall be obtained. 7. Parking spaces shall be restriped and completed before the business opens. 8. Any major changes to the existing landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. (� 2 7 A:\Cond vup 2001-008 pc .wpd -47 Greg Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS cJjuNLr. NU LIABILITY IS ASSUV.ED TFF[ ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN, ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT C 0 W P L Y WITH LOCAL L0T-SPLIT 0R BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES E O ITEM: APPLICANT LOCATION: m ------------------------ I 6= 5 Y �S 7 \ aS O6B 0 \ 2 I 9 � L I le Attachment 1 LL-L F _ Be c3. 13 <e ' 4 3 1 2 1 1 _ O� & I 2j28 j 5e12 v ,6 .5 S � e 51 MONTEZUMA 108.<3 P POR.SE 1 CITY OF © le 74.25 9 N T2A e2e-e90 N fiO � U 70 J 9 6O a8 i a0 12 I 11 1 m � � I I j i U �1JJ e BLOCK I I I O� ARK AND,;C�VTIC I : 1 3 1 I I ' ' I ' I \ 236 i89. e8 I VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-008 JOSEPH ROUNAGHI 51-230 EISENHOWER DRIVE SDOI CENT MONTEZUMA 3-53' - 13 MB ! S/82-83 SA!J A ++n"hmnn+ '7 WE 3 0OMUS 4dbM20 ' vi Attachment 3 a J� 00 .N n Y i 60 n o _ o —`— o� ❑ 0 q N dSld 3 8sW ax n� � 4 Attachment 4 U0u%V ° °aogo aa°o,000��awod so � �aoeo-o�e�on Attachment 5 J A 5 lhhf s� I o _ � _ d 3 w 6 y 5Y' �FF.I <�s,E =: !r aol Attachment 6 N I v Architectural &Landscape Review Committee Minutes Attachment 7 March 21, 2001 C. CPIP 2001-009; a request of Joseph Rounaghi for funding for wrought iron fencing, parking lot rehabilitation, signage, landscaping and painting for an existing commercial building located at 51-230 Eisenhower Drive. 1. Management Analyst Britt Wilson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had no objections and thought it was a good idea. Staff stated the project would be going to the Planing Commission on March 27, 2001. Mr. Rounaghi gave a presentation on the work proposed. 3. Committee Members reviewed the Funding Criteria Worksheet and scored the project with a total score of 100 points 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Reynolds adopt Minute Motion 2001-014 recommending approval of C'PIP 2001-009, as requested. Unanimously approved, VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adjourn this special meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a special meeting to be held on April 18, 2001. This meeting was adjourned at 10:42 a.m. on March 21, 2001. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\A LRC3-2 1 -0 l.wpd 3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 27, 2001 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-067, ZONE CHANGE 2000-093, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE LANDS CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 14,490 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS AND 63,600 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICES IN 2 BUILDINGS; AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE WALGREENS BUILDING. LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50. APPLICANT: EVERGREEN - LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396 WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS 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/ CURRENT: COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONING/ PROPOSED: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS: BACKGROUND: Site Background The proposed project is a triangular parcel located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 (Attachment 1). The parcel is currently vacant, and occurs several feet below existing street grade. The western portion of the parcel was GAW PDOCS\PCStfRptW algreens. W PD used as a staging area for the widening of the Washington Street bridge, and has therefore been significantly impacted. The southern and eastern boundary of the project site is the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. Residential and golf development occur to the south, east and west (across Washington Street). Vacant residential lands occur to the north (across Avenue 50)• The site currently occurs several feet below the grade of Washington and Avenue 50. The proposal includes filling the site to raise it above the current grade of Washington Street. Project Request In addition to the Environmental Assessment, the following applications have been filed: A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the parcel from its current Commercial Office designation to Neighborhood Commercial. 2. A Specific Plan to establish design standards and guidelines for a 14,490 square foot Walgreens store in the northwestern portion of the property, and two 2- story office buildings totalling 63,600 square feet, along with the required parking and landscaping improvements (Attachment 2). 3. A Site Development Permit for the building elevations, site landscaping, lighting and sight plan for the Walgreens store, as well as the construction of perimeter improvements for the site. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required to allow the Walgreens on the site. Under the current designation, the two proposed office buildings would be allowed, but the drug store would not. 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 be secured in the future for the construction of the two office buildings, in addition to the Permit being sought for the Walgreens site at this time. 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. The project will be accessed from one driveway each on Washington Street and Avenue 50. The driveway on Washington Street will be for right -in, right -out access only. The driveway on Avenue 50 will allow right -in, right -out and left -in access. GAWPDOCS\PCStfRptWalgreens. WPD Project Description The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in a Neighborhood Commercial designation over the whole site. The Specific Plan, however, dictates that the eastern 5 acres will be developed as offices, with only the drug store site being retail commercial in nature. The Specific Plan would require amendment should retail development be proposed where offices are currently planned. The proposal therefore lessens the potential impacts associated with retail commercial development on adjoining residential development, insofar as it utilizes the office project as a buffer between the two uses. Office development is generally less intense than retail development, and represents lower traffic and noise impacts than retail commercial development. The proposed project includes a 14,490 square foot Walgreens drug store, designed within the standard corporate envelope, but with the addition of Mediterranean architectural accents. The Walgreens site will occupy approximately 2 acres in the northwestern portion of the site. The Walgreens site is proposed for immediate development. The remaining 5 acres are proposed for future development, and include 2 office buildings, each to be 2 stories, with a total square footage of 63,600 square feet. The architectural style for the office buildings is also proposed to be Mediterranean, but will be refined through Site Development Permits at a later date. The Walgreens site is designed to stand alone, and includes enough parking to satisfy the City's standards. The store is designed to provide enhanced architectural detailing on the Washington and Avenue 50 elevations. A loading area is planned on the eastern side of the building which will be screened by a landscaped median. The proponent has included substantial landscaping to soften the building architecture, and further amendments were included in the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee's action on this project, which requires that 50% of the trees proposed along the building's facade be changed from the proposed palm trees to canopy trees. The two office buildings are designed to offer more of a campus setting, and have only been conceptually planned at this time. The proponent proposes to include landscaping of the bank of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel to improve the aesthetics of the site. The proposed Walgreens building is planned to have a roof line occurring at 22 feet, with the northeast, southeast and southwest corners have projections to 24'8", and the northwestern corner having a tower projecting to 30'8". The office buildings are proposed to be two stories, with the second story set back and smaller than the buildings' footprint. Review of the proposed height and location of the two office buildings will occur when Site Development Permit(s) are submitted to the City in the future. G:\W PDOCS\PCStfRptW algreens. W PD The proposed project includes a total of 370 parking spaces, 100 of which are proposed to be covered. Of these, 73 are proposed adjacent to the Walgreens building, meeting the requirements of the development code. The required parking for the office buildings totals 254 spaces. The project site plan therefore exceeds the City's requirement by 43 spaces. The proposed signage in the Specific Plan includes two monument signs (the maximum allowed), one to be located exclusively for Walgreens at the corner of Washington and Avenue 50, and one to be located at the entry on Washington Street (please see page 37 of Specific Plan). Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee: The ALRC reviewed the proposed landscaping and building elevations for the Walgreens at their meeting of November 1, 2000, and recommended approval subject to conditions (Attachment 3). Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 1, 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. Letters received from surrounding property owners since late 2000, when this application was first scheduled for Planning Commission review, are attached to this staff report (Attachment 4). 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. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Site Development Permit can be made, as noted in the attached resolutions with the exception of: A. Site Development Permit 1 . Consistency with the Zoning Code. The City's Zoning Code requires that building heights be limited to 22 feet within 150 feet of Arterial roadways this requirement implements the General Plan Policy 3- 4.1.10, "Along Primary, Secondary and Agrarian Image Corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low density character and ✓ V G AW PDOCSTC Stf RptW al greens. W PD appearance". Although the building is sufficiently set back to meet this standard on the Washington Street frontage, it violates the standard on the Avenue 50 frontage. This condition is exacerbated by the fact that the tower element, which represents the bulkiest part of the building, occurs closest to the street. The scale of the building can be changed to accommodate the City standard by reducing the roofline to about 17 feet, and raising the tower element to a maximum of 22 feet. Condition #62(SDP) and Condition #10 (SP) were added to reflect this requirement. 2. Site Design: The design of the circulation pattern between the drive through window and the parking/travel lane to the south may be confusing to customers. Therefore, to discourage unwarranted traffic in the freight unloading area, staff is recommending the city engineer work with the applicant in providing structure controls to eliminate any confusion. Condition #42.8.1. (SDP) was added to reflect this requirement 3. Landscape Design: The proposed landscaping plan includes substantial landscaping treatment along the perimeter of the property. Landscaping adjacent to the western elevation of the Walgreens building, however, is limited to palm trees only. No groundcover or shrubs are provided against the building. The elevations provided do not match the landscape plan. Landscaping shown on the elevations does not occur on the landscape plan. In order to provide relief to the building mass, and improve the aesthetics of the building, ALRC recommends the applicant replace 50% of the palm trees on the western side of the building with canopy trees. Tree wells are to be of sufficient size to include groundcover. Condition #66.8. (SDP) was added to reflect this requirement. The landscaping plan shown on Figure 9 states that the area which will be the second phase is to be cleared and grubbed, and sprayed with soil stabilizer. Although this is sufficient to meet the City's basic standards, it will not provide an aesthetically pleasing view from the finished Walgreens site. Condition #68 (SDP) include a requirement that all of Phase II be seeded with a desert wildflower mix. 4. Sign Programs The monument signs proposed for the site in the Specific Plan includes one at the driveway on Washington Street, to be devoted to the entire project, and one on the corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, to be used exclusively by Walgreens. Given that Walgreens is also proposing wall mounted signage on the north and west faces of its building, a monument sign exclusively for its use is excessive, especially since monument signs at each entry could be designed to include Walgreens. Condition #17 (SP) has been added which requires that the Specific Plan be amended to require monument signs at each entry, and none on the corner. O G:\W PDOCS\PCStfRptWalgreens. WPD Further, the Walgreens building is proposing a total of 111.9 square feet of wall - mounted signage. This exceeds the Development Code standard by 61.9 square feet (Table 16.03, Section 9.160). Condition #18 (SP) has been included which reduces the maximum wall -mounted signage on the Walgreens building to 50 square feet. B. Specific Plan: 1 . Property Suitability Assuming an area of approximately 300 square feet for a parking space and its adjacent drive, the 43 excess spaces represent a total of 13,000 square feet of space which could otherwise be dedicated to open space amenities rather than parking. Since the Site Development Permits have not been submitted for these buildings, however, it is difficult to determine what actual parking will be required. Condition #11 (SP) has been added to require that the Specific Plan be amended to require that the Site Development Permit Submittal(s) for the office building include a parking analysis, and that excesses in code requirements be justified. The Specific Plan states (page 15) that perimeter improvements will be made along the entire frontage of the site, "subject to obtaining required roadway easements from CVWD along the projects (sic) Avenue 50 frontage." Since the Walgreens building is proposed immediately, and the office development timeline is not known, all street improvements should be required prior to occupancy of the Walgreens building, regardless of the easements required. Condition #14 (SP) has been added requiring that the text above be deleted. CONCLUSION: The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, and Site Development Permit, as conditioned represent an appropriate use of the parcel on which they are proposed. The Specific Plan and Site Development Permit, as conditioned, are 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 2001-, recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-396. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-067. G:\W PDOCS\PC StfRptWalg reens.WPD 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2000-093. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2000-045, subject to the findings and conditions. 5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2000-677, subject to the findings and conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Specific Plan 2000-0045 Document 3. ALRC Minutes for November 1, 2000 3. Letters from surrounding property owners Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Submitted by: Wk Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager G:\WPDoCS\PCStfRptWaIgreens.WPD 0,p 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 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-067, ZONE CHANGE 2000-093, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of March, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2000-396 for General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677 located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as follows: APN 769-040-016 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 2000-396) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000- 677 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 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: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677 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 2000-396. G:\WPDOCS\PCResEAWalgreens.wpd r Planning Commission Resolution 2001 Environmental Assessment 2000-396 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677 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. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677 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. 6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-093, Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677 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. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2000- 396 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). G:\WPDOCS\PCResEAWalgreens.wpd h ` x r Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Environmental Assessment 2000-396 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and 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 2000-396 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. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2000-396 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of ❑March, 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:\WPDOCS\PCResEAWalgreens.wpd J `E 5 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000- 093, Specific Plan 2000-045, Site Development Permit 2000-677 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: Southeast corner of Washington Street and 50th Avenue. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 2920 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Commercial Office Proposed: Neighborhood Commercial 7. Zoning: Current: Commercial Office Proposed: Neighborhood 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.) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change a 7.63 acre parcel from Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial. Specific Plan to establish design standards and guidelines for the construction of a Walgreens drug store and two free standing office buildings. Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a 15,000 square foot Walgreens drug store. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant low density residential lands South: La Quinta Evacuation Channel, golf course East: La Quinta Resort and Club, residential and golf course development West: Washington Street, residential and golf course development 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District G:\WPD0CS\EAChklstvyalgreens.WPD 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 Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings 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. 12 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 project, nothing further is requi d. Signature Date CHRISTINE DI IORIO CITY OF LA OUINTA Printed Name For r.NA/PnnnSt�FGnhklstwain,wonc_wPn®��im�I11uIIII11w�IIIIrIIIAlllllflm Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I . 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 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: 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) It. 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 non-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) QI. 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) Potentially Less Than Potentially Significant Significant No Significant Unless Impact Impact Impact Mitigated IN li GI X X X KI �i X WPD IV V d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application materials) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) 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? (Application materials, General Plan FIR p. 4-65 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 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? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) 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? ("A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation..." McKenna et.al., January 2000) 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)? ("A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation..." McKenna et.al., January 2000) 94 X X X M V M X 0 ►9 G:\WPD0CS\EAChklstWalareens.WPD I!'jII c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (General Plan FIR p. 4-77 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation..." McKenna et.al., January 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 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan FIR, 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 FIR, page 4-30 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? ("Geotechnical Engineering Investigation..." Krazan & Associates, February 2000) 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) 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) X X X X X X X X X X M M ri G:\WPDOCS\EAChklstWalareens.WPD 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) t) 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? (Specific Plan, Grading Plan) 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? (Specific Plan, Grading Plan) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) 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) 9 G1 ks X X OA G:\WPDOCS\EAChklstWalgreens.WPD �" g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) 1 1 X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) 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? (General Plan Land Use Element) 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? ("Walgreens Noise Impact Analysis," RKJK, July 2000) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Application Materials) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Walgreens Noise Impact Analysis," RKJK, July 2000) 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? (Application Materials) 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) 91 0 X M X G/ X X C 5 3 G:\WPD0CS\EAChk1stWa1greens.WPD - .�__ ��..��.o..�..........e............ m...,,..�..R61� IAIi1`RaM6.� 11� 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? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) 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. ) 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 ) 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. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: 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)? ("Walgreens Traffic Impact Analysis," RKJK, July 2000) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ("Walgreens Traffic Impact Analysis," RKJK, July 2000) X FA M M X X X X X X X X G:\WPD0CS\EAChk1stWalgreens.WPD 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? (Application Materials) 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)? (Application Materials) XVI. 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) I) 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? X X X X X X X X X X X km G:\WPD0CS\EAChkJstWa1greens.WPD 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. M 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. 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. Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, prepared by Krazan & Associates, February 3, 2000 Walgreens Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by RKJK, July 11, 2000 Walgreens Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by RKJK, July 11, 2000 A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation..., Prepared by McKenna et. al., January 19, 2000 G:\WPD0CS\EAChk1stvVaIgreens.WPD �mneni nnlanlmnwttmri Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2000-396 a) & c) Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the City's General Plan. 50th Avenue is designated a Secondary Image Corridor in the General Plan. This designation requires that special landscaping and building setbacks be incorporated into project design. The Specific Plan and Site Development Permit propose to construct structures in excess of the 22 foot height limit within the 150 foot building setback area on Arterial streets. The center portion of the roof line of the proposed project is proposed at 22 feet in height; however, a considerable area, in excess of what might be defined as architectural detailing, is proposed at heights ranging from 24'8" to 30'8". The proposal therefore does not meet the City's standard. In order to mitigate the potential impact of the Walgreens building on the scenic vista along Washington Street and Avenue 50, the following mitigation measure is proposed: 1 . All structures within 150 feet of either Washington Street or Avenue 50 shall not exceed 22 feet in height, including architectural projections or towers. I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for the area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for outdoor lighting, (Section 9.100.150 of the Zoning Ordinance) which will ensure that lighting is directed downward, confined to a maximum of two foot candles, and contained within the project site. III. a), c) & d) The proposed project includes a change in General Plan and Zoning designations from Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial. The project includes a 14,490 square foot drug store and two office buildings totalling 63,600 square feet. Uses within the office buildings have not been specified at this time. Based on the land uses proposed, the project can be expected to generate approximately 6,429 trips per day'. As shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Walgreens Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by RKJK, July 11, 2000 r G:\WPDOCS\EAAddenWalgreens.WPD Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 166. 6.39 34.0 -- 0.71 0.71 05 6 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 6,429 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, Table 6-2 for assistance in determining the significance of a project. The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). 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. 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. . UJ� G:\WPDOCS\EAAddenWalgreens.WPD 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. 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 fall 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. IV. a) The proposed project site has been significantly impacted construction on adjacent roadways, is surrounded on two sides by roadways and on one side by the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, and therefore does not represent habitat. No impacts to biological resources are expected. IV. f) The proposed project is located outside the required fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed lizard. No impacts to this species are expected. ". I?J3 G:\WPD0CS\EAAddenWa1greens.WPD V. b) A cultural resource study was completed for the proposed project2. The investigation included both a records search and a field investigation. A scatter of historic/modern refuse and prehistoric isolates were found on the project site. The study further determined that although impacted, the site may yield sub- surface resources, and that the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present on site during any earth moving activities. Should the monitor identify a resource, he shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities until such time as the resource can be properly identified and processed. The archaeological monitor shall be required to prepare a report at the end of earth moving activities and file such report with the Community Development Department. VI. a) i) & ii) A geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed project3. The project site is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. The site will experience significant movement during an earthquake. In order to mitigate and protect the City from this hazard, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The proposed project will be required to meet these standards. The requirements will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Vl.c) The project site includes surface soils which are subject to settlement°. In order to mitigate for this potential impact, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: Soil at least two feet below the base of footings and slab systems shall be excavated, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. "A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of 7.63 Acres at the Southeast Comer of Avenue 50 and Washington Street, City of La Quinta," prepared by McKenna et al., January 19, 2000. 3 "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy," prepared by Krazan & Associates, February 3, 2000. Ibid. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddenWalgreens.WPD 2. All construction drawings shall be completed based on the geotechnical engineering investigation for the project. The City Engineer shall determine, at the time of building permit submittal, whether additional analysis is necessary. If such analysis is required, the project proponent shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, the additional reports and analysis prior to the issuance of a grading permit. VIII. b) All development adds to demand for groundwater. The project will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. All construction will be required to meet the City's standards for water efficient plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c)-e) The proposed project, through the construction of buildings and parking lots, will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. IX. b) The site is currently designated Commercial Office on both the General Plan and Zoning maps. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to Neighborhood Commercial represent a slight intensification of land use for the site, insofar as commercial office development generally has a lower impact on such environmental factors as traffic and circulation and noise. The proposed Specific Plan, however, limits the retail commercial component of the plan to the northwest 2.5 acres of the site only. The balance of the site is proposed for future office development. As such, the Specific Plan proposes a buffering of the more intense component of the plan (the drug store) from the adjacent residential land uses to the south and east. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, therefore, do not represent a significant impact to land use. Impacts of the change are expected to be less than significant. IX. c) The proposed project is located outside the required fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed lizard. The impacts to this species are expected to be less than significant. 061 G:\WPD0CS\EAAddenWa1greens.WPD XL a) & c) A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. The analysis found that the project area is already impacted by noise from adjacent streets. The proposed project, however, does not include sensitive receptors. As such, the noise environment on the project site will not exceed City noise standards for commercial development. Development and operation of the site is also not expected to have a significant impact on adjacent sensitive receptors to the east and south, with mitigation. The construction of the proposed project has the potential to create temporary construction noise impacts on the residential units to the east and south. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All construction vehicles or fixed or mobile equipment operated within 1000 feet of a residential unit shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 2. All construction activities shall occur within those hours prescribed by the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located in the northwestern portion of the site, as far away from residential units as possible. 4. The Walgreens store shall require all delivery trucks to turn off their engines during loading and unloading activities, so as to minimize idling noise on the site. XIII. All development increases the need for public facilities. The project, however, will generate land uses which have a limited impact on public services. The design of the project site will be reviewed by both the Fire and Police departments, whose conditions of approval will be incorporated into project approvals. This will ensure that any potential impact is mitigated to a less than significant level. XV. a) & b) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. The analysis found that the Walgreens portion of the project will generate 1,333 trips per day, and that the buildout of the project will generate a total of 6,429 trips per day (including the drug store component). The study further found that with 5 "Walgreens Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by RKJK & Associates, July, 2000. 5 "Walgreens Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by RKJK & Associates, July 2000. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddenWalgreens.WPD - (169 d mitigation, the roads surrounding the proposed project will operate within acceptable levels of service. In order to assure that levels of service are maintained, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. The proposed project shall have one right -in, right -out access onto Washington Street, and one right -in, right -out and left -in access of Avenue 50 only. 2. Washington Street shall be improved to its ultimate half -section width along the entire western boundary of the site prior to occupancy of the Walgreens building. 3. Avenue 50 shall be improved to its ultimate half -section width along the entire northern boundary of the site prior to occupancy of the Walgreens building. 4. The project proponent(s) shall participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. XVI. d) & 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. G:AWPDOMEAAddenWalgreens.WPD -''... (163 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 COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON A 7.63 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-067 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership for review of a General Plan Amendment to assign a land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial to 7.63 acres located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and more specifically described as follows: APN 769-040-016 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 General Plan Amendment: 1. Internal General Plan Consistency. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map would change the designation from Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed amendment is an existing land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed amendment maintains consistency within the other General Plan elements, insofar as the Neighborhood Commercial designation is intended to serve the residents immediately surrounding a parcel, and this area is surrounded by existing residential development. The continued development of a mix of uses is consistent with the goals of the General Plan for this area of the City. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed project requires the extension of all public services to the site as part of project development. In addition, conditions of approval and environmental mitigation measures have been included for this project which address safety and welfare issues, including noise, traffic and water quality. As the Specific Plan is built out, through the Site Development Permit process, site -specific issues which might affect the public health and safety will be further addressed. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the surrounding designations in the project area, insofar as the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation will sere residential development in the area. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoGPAWalgreens.wpd �" flJ EXHI BIT "A" RESOLUTION 2001- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-045 'i I i 'f i rl v z � 0 �w 0 Cf) O a O 0: EL 0 U .0 N_ 0 m m E o U d 00 E 0 0 U L m 0� U 0 z 0 ^\� 0B� a m U EI E 0 U 0 0 L Z0 g L m a v ¢JZ0 W 0 Z 0 LLU i 13381S NOl0NIH3VM 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 ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON A 7.63 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50. CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2000-093 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Development Corp. for review of a Zone Change to change the zoning designation on a portion of 33 acres at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, more particularly described as: APN 769-040-016 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 Zone Change: 1 . Consistency with General Plan. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map would change the designation from Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed amendment is an existing land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed amendment maintains consistency within the other General Plan elements, insofar as the Neighborhood Commercial designation is intended to serve the residents immediately surrounding a parcel, and this area is surrounded by existing residential development. The proposed Zone Change will maintain the consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance required by law. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed project requires the extension of all public services to the site as part of project development. In addition, conditions of approval and environmental mitigation measures have been included for this project which address safety and welfare issues, including noise, traffic and water quality. As the Specific Plan is built out, through the Site Development Permit process, site -specific issues which might affect the public health and safety will be further addressed. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the surrounding designations in the project area, insofar as the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation will serve residential development in the area. 7 P 6 G:\W PDOCS\PCResoZCW alareens.wod Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Change of Zone 2001-067 KSL Development Corp. 4. Property Suitability. The property is well suited to commercial development, being primarily flat, and having adequate access to major roadways. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires a mix of land uses convenient to its residents, in order to meet the goals of the General Plan. 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 confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000-396 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of CZ 2000-093 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in the attached Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: FkTril* 1 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PCResoZCWalcireens.wDd EXHI BIT "A" RESOLUTION 2001- ZONE CHANGE 2000-093 1Q U _N a �p U U N E p m o U U y o E 0 o t o Za w z ° 9 v z O9@ N w cw7= o a A w \ \Vll\ `v w a ., \}� lii `O i I \ i o. . . I ....I...............................r:1.. —..—.. —.. 13381S NO1J1 Fi4S X%M -_---� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 14,490 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE AND TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50. CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the La Quinta Promenade project for review of a Specific Plan to establish design guidelines and development standards for a 14,490 square foot Walgreens and two office buildings at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN 769-040-016 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering Environmental Assessment 2000-396, 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: 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 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. G:\WPD0CS\PCResoSPWa1green.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- General Plan Amendment 2001-075 KSL Development Corp. 4. Property Suitability. The property is well suited to commercial development, being primarily flat, and having adequate access to major roadways. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires a mix of land uses convenient to its residents, in order to meet the goals of the General Plan. 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 confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2000- 396 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2000-067 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of March, 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 x G:\W PDOCS\PCResoGPAWalgreens.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 2000-045 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 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 2000-396 assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2000-045 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 27th day of March, 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:\WPDOCS\PCResoSPWalgreen.WPD 1 y PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045 EVERGREEN LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP March 27, 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 project proponent 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 this approval. 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. This project requires a project -specific NPDES permit. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSPWalgreen.WPD 0 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 2000-045 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of permit issuance. 5. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, 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. 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. 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 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. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSPwalgreen.WPD �' 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specifc Plan 2000-045 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 10. The Specific Plan shall be amended to require that all structures within 150 feet of either Washington Street or Avenue 50 shall not exceed 22 feet in height, including all architectural projections. 11. The Specific Plan shall be amended to include a parking analysis for each of the office buildings with Site Development Permit approval. Such analysis shall include, if necessary, a justification of an exceedance in the City's parking standards. 12. All mechanical equipment to be located on the roof of any building on the site shall be fully enclosed in either stucco finished or lattice structures, painted with a non -reflective, tan color, unless it can clearly be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that the equipment will not be visible from the Washington Street bridge. 13. Table 2 of the Specific Plan shall be amended to reflect an accurate count of the number of parking spaces provided in the plan (370). 14. Table 2 of the Specific Plan shall be amended to include maximum square footage for Phase 1 of 14,490, and for Phase II of 63,600. In the first paragraph of page 15, the following text shall be deleted: "subject to obtaining required roadway easements from CVWD along the projects Avenue 50 frontage." 15. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 16. Architectural and landscaping plans for the two office buildings shall be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee prior to Site Development Permit approval. 17. The Specific Plan shall be amended to allow a monument sign at each of the project entries, and none on the corner of Avenue 50 and Washington Street. 18. The Specific Plan shall be amended to limit wall -mounted signage for the Walgreens building to 50 square feet. GAWPDOCS\PCResoSPWalgreen.WPD ` Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 2000-045 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 19. On page 41, under Operational Guidelines, the word "approximately" shall be deleted from the first sentence. 20. All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Site Development Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent shall submit amended documents within 30 days of City Council approval of the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit or issuance of a grading permit whichever occurs first. 21. The mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2000-396 shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for this project. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 22. The project proponent shall install suitable access to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 23. The project proponent shall obtain an encroachment permit from the District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping and roadways. 24. This project shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the District for sanitation service. 25. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 26. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Std. W-33, subject tot he approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. 27. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required in all new structures 5,000 square feet or greater in size in accordance with La Quinta City ordinance 8.08.090. 28. Specific site access and circulation plans shall be submitted for review for compliance with Fire Department requirements. G\WPDOCS\PCResoSPWalgreen.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677, ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF A 14,490± SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS DRUG STORE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the La Quinta Promenade project for review of a Site Development Permit to allow a 14,490 square foot Walgreens drug store on a portion of a 7.63 acre site located at the southeastern corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN 769-040-016 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the City of La Quinta did, on the 1 st day of November, 2000 recommend approval of the proposed project, by adoption of Minute Motion 2000-020, subject to conditions of approval; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering Environmental Assessment 2000-396, 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 Site Development Permit: The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and programs relating to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, and supports the development of conveniently located commercial opportunities for the residents of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with Specific Plan 2000-045, which establishes development standards for the project. The project, as conditioned meets the City's standards for height, parking, lighting, and land use. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit 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. U G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 4. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the architectural design standards for Specific Plan 2000-045, and implements the standards and guidelines included in that document. 5. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the landscaping standards and palette in Specific Plan 2000-045 and implements the standards for Image Corridors established in the General Plan. 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 Site Development Permit 2000-677, 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 2000-396 assessed the environmental concerns of this Site Development Permit. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of March, 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 (j77 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677 MARCH 27, 2001 GENERAL 1. The project proponent 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 this approval. 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. 2. 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) Y Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Y 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. This project requires a project -specific NPDES permit. 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. 3. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of permit issuance. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWaigreens.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 8. 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. 9. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the approved site plan are necessary prior to applicant's dedication of 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. Washington Street (Major Arterial): 20-feet (NOTE: this setback is also applicable at locations of additional right of way dedications adjacent to right turn only lanes). B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial): 20-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. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD ��,"? Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 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 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. 16. 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. 17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 18. 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. "' 1? �,, I I G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 19. Depending on the timing of development of the 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 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 any development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 20. 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 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD `) Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 23. 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 24. 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. 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board acknowledgment of the applicants filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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: G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalcireens.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 33. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. Nuisance water shall be retained on site 37. 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. 38. 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 Specific Plan excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public ('h3 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 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. UTILITIES 39. 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. 40. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and aII0 proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 41. 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 42. 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 Washington Street (Major Arterial) a. Construct 6-foot meandering sidewalk from Avenue 50 to tie to the sidewalk over the bridge across the drainage channel south of the property, on Washington Street. (Note: paving and curb & gutter improvements have previously been constructed by the City). The applicant may reduce the required 6-foot sidewalk width, and place sidewalk behind the curb, as the sidewalk approaches the Washington Street Bridge to the south to fit existing grading profiles. b. Reconstruct existing curb to provide a 12-foot wide, 125- foot long "right -turn only" lane from Washington Street onto Avenue 50. The construction of this lane will require the G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD OJ Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership relocation of the existing signal(s) and pole(s) at the southeast corner of the intersection. Bicycle lane shall remain continuous between the right -turn lane and the through lane. C. Add a red/yellow/green right turn only signal light to the signal mast for northbound Washington Street. 2. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - a. Construct 38-foot half of 76-foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk from intersection at Washington Street easterly to the west boundary of the storm channel. Applicant shall construct full center island, including dedicated left turn lane from westbound Ave. 50. Applicant shall bear the cost of the outer 20-feet of the roadway. The cost of the median construction shall be reimbursed from the Development Impact Fee fund in an amount not to exceed the budgeted amount. b. Applicant shall relocate east bound signal mast to the east as required for construction of the right turn lane from northbound Washington. C. Applicant shall review location of the entry from Ave. 50 and if practicable, move this entry east to better align with the two-way traffic corridor between future Office Building B and the island to the west. Final entry location shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1. Construct on -site improvements per City of La Quinta parking ordinance. Applicant shall provide landscaped island separation between the Walgreens drive through window and the parking/travel lane to the south, inclusive of speed bumps or other structural controls to discourage unwarranted traffic in the freight unloading area. Design to be approved by the City Engineer. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD l � Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 43. 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. 44. 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). 45. 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. 46. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 47. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without pending 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 0 /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. 48. 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" 49. 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. O j G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalcireens.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 50. 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. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the buildings or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 51. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Washington Street: Turning movements shall be restricted to right -turn only both from Washington Street and onto Washington Street. B. Avenue 50: Turning movements shall be restricted to right -turn in, right turn out, and left -turn from Avenue 50 into the site. LANDSCAPING 52. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 53. 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. 54. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 55. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Washington Street and along 50`h Avenue. The sidewalk shall meander within the 32-foot Right -of -Way and setback. 087 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership QUALITY ASSURANCE 56. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. 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 60. 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 61. 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 CONDITIONS 62. The building plans shall be revised to reflect a maximum height of 22 feet, including all architectural projections. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD ti s J Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership 63. All mechanical equipment to be located on the roof shall be fully enclosed in either stucco finished or lattice structures, painted with a non -reflective, tan color, unless it can clearly be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that the equipment will not be visible from the Washington Street bridge. 64. Colored stamped concrete shall be used for the sidewalks and walkways at the northwest, southwest and northeast corners of the Walgreens building. 65. Landscaping along the entire 50th Avenue, Washington Street and Evacuation Channel frontages shall be installed prior to occupancy of the Walgreens building. 66. Prior to issuance of building permits, the landscape plan shall be revised as follows: A. Berming of one foot to three feet in height shall be incorporated into the Washington Street frontage. B. 50% of the palm trees on the western side of the building shall be replace with canopy trees. Tree wells are to be of sufficient size to include groundcover. 67. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 68. After grubbing and clearing, all of the area reserved for Phase II of the proposed project shall be seeded with a desert wildflower mix, and sufficiently irrigated to ensure the immediate survival of the plants. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 69, All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Site Development Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent shall submit amended documents within 30 days of City Council approval of the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit or prior to issuance of a grading permit whichever occurs first. 70. The mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2000-396 shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for this project. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD '+U .? Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 71. The project proponent shall install suitable access to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 72. The project proponent shall obtain an encroachment permit from the District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping and roadways. 73. This project shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the District for sanitation service. 74. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 75. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Std. W-33, subject tot he approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. 76. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required in all new structures 5,000 square feet or greater in size in accordance with La Quinta City ordinance 8.08.090. 77. Specific site access and circulation plans shall be submitted for review for compliance with Fire Department requirements. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT #1 AVENUE $O SITE 'r 77, .' CASE MAP CASE No. EA 2000--396 GPA 2001-006 ZC 2000-093 SDP 2000-677 ORTH SCALE: NTS _ IiAl11A111111111�IlAl Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1, 2000 2. Committee Member Dennis Cunningham asked if the applicant would like to address the Committee. Mr. Mike Peroni, Dudek and Associates, introduced Tom Doczi landscape architect, Mike Mokray with Dudek and Associates, Philip Cross with Evergreen, Chris Wiseman, architect for the project. Mr. Cross reviewed the major modifications that had been made. He explained they wanted to create an architecture that was compatible with La Quinta with a Spanish influence. With the proximity to the neighborhoods to the north and west of site, they wanted to create something that would reduce the visual scale and create a more human scale at the ground level. They started to introduce the cantera stone to serve as visual relief. He then went on to describe the architecture. The office buildings will have a similar architectural character with color palettes that are similar. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff had concerns about the view from the Washington Street bridge looking down onto the roof; is staff satisfied? Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it was acceptable; the applicant has provided additional information to satisfy staff's concerns. Mr. Cross stated the view from the maximum height of the bridge, you will see a finished wall height. They have done sightline studies and from a five foot eye level at the parapet height, this site is six feet below the parapet. It is impossible to see on top of the roof. They kept within the 22 foot building height limit and are still convinced the mechanical equipment will be screened. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the "beefing" around the column base. Mr. Wiseman stated they would like to keep it as proposed. It adds color, texture, shadow play and mass instead of stucco coming down that could be damaged. The mass of the stone gives a more substantial appearance. Staff stated it was just the height of the columns. Mr. Wiseman stated the scale in terms of proportions, was designed to have it in thirds to pick up the critical line around the building. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be any advantage to widening out the base; he did like the use of the cantera stone. 5. Committee Member Cunningham stated the issue to him was the height of the stone. Staff stated they wanted the architect to address this issue. Committee Member Cuningham stated that in using thirds, he agrees with the architect. A three foot column, however is substantial. The arch height is the same and the G:AWPDOCSVALRC I-I-00.wPd 2 ,- O U Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1, 2000 height of the cantera stone works well. It does add texture to the building and from a maintenance standpoint it will hold up better. Mr. Cross stated that especially at the entrance which will sustain the greatest damage, it was important to use the stone. It will have a medium sand finish to contrast with the highly textured and colored cantera stone. Staff recommended deleting Condition #1 . 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what material was to be used for the trash enclosure. Mr. Cross stated it would be painted to coordinate with the colors and would be made of metal. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the date palm trees as there are a great number of Phoenix Dactylferas and they are unique, but from a safety standpoint, the crowns will fall off which have caused injuries. He is not opposed as long as they are not in high traffic areas. If they are planted in a younger state they are better than the older ones removed from a grove. If they use them only in not highly traveled areas, he has no objection. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked Mr. Doczi if they were having any trouble getting the standard trunk tree to reach maturity without having structural problems. Trees such as Schinus Molle and Sumac, blow over or lose their shape. Mr. Doczi stated that on the date palms they want to use them for continuity along Washington Street similar to the other developments and introduced them at the entrance and along the perimeter. They did not plan to use them within the project. Schinus Molle would be used along the streetscape on Washington Street as well. They anticipate using the younger date palms, but it is becoming more and more difficult to find them. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there was no problem using them, as long as they were planted where they would not fall on anyone. Mr. Doczi stated that in regard to the condition regarding 50% replacement, they have no problem with this and will revisit the hardscape plan to get vines on the columns. Rather than a canopy tree they would like to use an understory tree and alternate them with the palm trees. They did add trees at the southwest and northeast corner of the building, but since this was the main entry area, they felt there would be a pedestrian conflict adding the landscaping. They may use some at grade planters or pots to add to the landscaping. They will have berming at the corners to meet grade. There will be a wall to screen the parking, and they could add berming around the corner. Trees do allow the people passing by to see G:AW PDOCSVALRCI 1-1-OO.wpd 3 ATTACHMENT #3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landsca ' g Committee was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Planning Manag7,Ohristine di lorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members p/ryBetty tt, Dennis Cunningham, and Frank Reynolds. C. Staff present: Planningine di lorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Executive Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF TH;i/AGENDA: It was moved/andeconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Reynolds to reorganize the ato move Agenda Item #C to Item #B and Item #B to Item #C. Unanimouroved. IV. CONSENT VALENDAR: A. P nning Manager Christine di lorio asked if there were any changes to he Minutes of October 18, 2000. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to approve the minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Specific Plan 2000-045 Site Development Permit 2000-677; a request of Evergreen for review of landscaping plant pallette for a commercial office complex and land, and building elevations for a drugstore to be located at the southeast corner of 50`h Avenue and Washington Street. 1. 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. 1 `• �).� J G:\WPDOCS\ALRCI I-I_00 rd Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1, 2000 through. The trees will have full size islands to allow the roots to grow. Staff asked if the use of the annual color will be the same as the Palm Desert store with the "W". Mr. Doczi stated no, it will not be used. 9. Committee Member Reynolds thanked the applicant on his presentation. He has no problems with the proposal. 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated he would like to be sure the line -of -site is correct. Mr. Cross stated 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 there a condition to see that it is not visible. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated yes, a condition will be added. Mr. Cross asked if they would be able to add the extra two feet if they find it is needed. Staff stated it could be added to the Specific Plan as an option if there is a problem with the visibility at the time of construction. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-020 recommending approval of the landscaping plant pallette and building elevations for Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677, as amended. a. Condition #1: Deleted b. Condition #3c: Deleted. C. New condition: Requiring the mechanical equipment to be hidden from sight. Unanimously approved B. eneral Plan Amendment 2000-071 Zone Change 2000-096 Village Use rmit 2000-004 an Environmental Assessment 2000-402; a request Chapman Golf Development, LLC for review of building elevations and scaping plans for an 11 ,900 square foot restaurant to be located on the nor st corner of 52"d Avenue and Desert Club Drive. 1 . Principal Planner Fred Baker ented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of whic on file in the Community Development Department. G:AWPDOCSVALRCII-I-OO.wpd 4 �� Jan-16-01 05:19P Linda Gates ATTACHMENT #4. P.O. sox 89 HETCHUm, IDAHO 83340 CHARLES M. ELLIS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ALtorneVs January 16, 2001 TEL 1208)788-169 Fax 2081 788-W I I City of La Quinta VIA TELECOPY Community Development Department 760-777-1233 Attn: Christine di lorio Re: Proposed Walgreen's at Avenue 50 & Washington Street ("Project") Dear Ms. Di lono: Thank you for taking the time to discuss the above referenced matter with me earlier today. I look forward to receiving copies of the proposed building elevations, site plan, and draft specific plan which you mentioned, and any other materials that you have available, respecting the Project, at your earliest convenience. Also, this is to confirm that you informed me that the Project is not scheduled for today's City Council meeting. Moreover, it is my understanding of your comments that when the Project applicant, Evergreen Development, is prepared to proceed, that a new publication of a proposed Planning Commission public hearing on the same will be required and, subsequent thereto, publication of notice of a public hearing, respecting said Project application, by the La Quinta City Council. Thus, it is the understanding of myself and my client that no action will be taken today, nor is any formal action concerning the Project scheduled for today, nor is any in fact yet scheduled regarding the Project. Based on the foregoing, my client, Thomas F. DiMare, will reserve his rights to protest the inappropriateness of the proposed general plan amendment, zone change and specific plan application relating to the Project. Suffice it to say that my client is extremely concerned about the proposed Project inasmuch as he considers it to be entirely inappropriate for the area of the city in question for a wide variety of reasons. The current general plan properly addresses the use of the property in question and should not be modified. Again, I look forward to receiving the materials which we discussed earlier today and thank you for your assistance in this matter. cc: Very truly yours, Charles M. Ellis Thomas F. DiMare (via telecopy 760-347-1180) 1!9? —.—.c—O, RECEIVED FROM P•02 F - , 9 .�sll�im��mn�n�AA11�91111a11AlAlls9111s1o(CIO® Planning Commission City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 50-215 Doral Street � 4; La Quinta, CA 9225 �V Dec. 26, 2000 RE: Proposed WALGREENS DRUG STORE at Washington St. & Avenue 50. This refers to the recent meetings with Evergreen Devco Inc. of Phoenix AZ regarding their proposal to develop the vacant property at the Southeast corner of Washington St,and Avenue 50 in La Quinta. Our homes are situated along the 5th Fairway of the La Quinta Resort and Club Dunes Course facing Northwest directly at the location of the proposed Walgreen Drug Store. If this parcel is allowed to be developed into a Retail/Commercial complex the blight to our beautiful area of Country Clubsresidential neighborhoods will be incalculable. The negative impact of HEAVY TRAFFIC, NOISE, BRIGHT LIGHTS AT NIGHT AND THE UNSIGHTLY APPEARANCE OF A WALGREENS DRUG STOREIright in the center of our beautiful neighborhood is unthinkable. There are numerous parcels of land in downtown La Quinta which are suitable for such a drugstore location as well as the area along Hwy.11l between Washington St. and Jefferson St. A Walgreens Drug Store would be compatible in either location but not in our area. Please give us a break by encouraging the development of this pro- perty into a beautiful park or residential type business such as an Assisted Living complex or Doctors Offices which are only active during daylight hours as opposed to a Drug Store which is open 24Hrs. a day. Walgreens is NOT WELCOME in our neighborhood and we appeal to your good judgement to keep La Quinta beautiful and free of Commercial polution. Incidentally, Avenue 50 is already a traffic nightmare with 2 schools and the Boys & Girls Club of La Quinta at the corner of Ave. 50 and Park Avenue. The addition of a Commercial complex at the corner of Washington and Avenue 50 would be disastrous. Please do not allow this property to be developed into a Retail/ Commercial development. Tel. (760) 771-2204 nSincerely, cc: Mayor City Council and �lJ � Comm.Development Dept. II✓ Mr. & Mrs. G. Warren Palmer I i J j Mayor Pena and City Council Members LaQuinta City Hall LaQuinta, Ca. December 1, 2000 01CC . As a LaQuinta Fairways homeowner, I am very disturbed over the prospect of a proposed Walgreens on the comer of 50'h and Washington. The obvious reasons of visual blight, unbelievable traffic, noise from delivery trucks and obtrusive parking lot lights all add up to a negative for my property. Is our tax base so wanting that you will seize every opportunity of commercial development with no concern as to the affects on surrounding property owners? You, the city council are elected officials not the supreme court. You are supposed to have the same agenda as the citizens of LaQuinta Oh yes, I've heard the story of "council sees the bigger picture". However, take your blinders off and abide by your campaign rhetoric "This election is of treat .. _ __ __ -,;n r..m;n1v affe& vow auafrty of lrfe". This statement was taken directly from one of the council members campaign literature. This type of proposed development has no business in a residential neighborhood It belongs on Highway 111. Whoever set the zoning on that piece of property demonstrated extremely poor judgement. Tell the developer to build out near PGA West. Those folks are in dire need of a pharmacy. Oops, I'll bet that would never get approval. They don't want a Walgreens in their neighborhood, either. By the way, just how many pharmacies do we need in LaQuinta anyhow? We already have 2 in -grocery store pharmacies, one discount pharmacy and 3 big name pharmacies 4 miles from the proposed location. Should you decide to approve this project, it won't take long for it to turn into a big empty box attracting all kinds on undesirables. Get a grip on the issue Council members. Don't just blow us off with the usual pat on the head and a shove out the door. Ron Hawks 78-770 Spyglass Hill Dr. LaQuinta, Ca OJ3 ;oil V W CA 01 � DEC 2 7 2000 a' 50-215 Doral Stree La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY GrLAOWNTA �, ti w CITY MANAGE 'S DEP ' Dec. 26, 2000 mayor: John Pena RE: Proposed WALGREENS DRUG STORE City Council Members: at Washington St. & Avenue 50. Don Adolph Terry Henderson Ron Perkins Stanley Sniff This refers to the recent meetings with Evergreen Devco Inc. of Phoenix AZ regarding their proposal to develop the vacant property at the Southeast corner of Washington St,and Avenue 50 in La Quinta. Our homes are situated along the 5th Fairway of the La Quinta Resort and Club Dunes Course facing Northwest directly at the location of the proposed Walgreen Drug Store. If this parcel is allowed to be developed into a Retail/Commercial residential complex the blight to our beautiful area of Country Clubs P neighborhoods will be incalculable. The negative impact of HEAVY TRAFFIC, NOISE, BRIGHT LIGHTS AT NIGHT AND THE UNSIGHTLY APPEARANCE OF A WALGREENS DRUG STORE right in the center of our beautiful neighborhood is unthinkable. There are numerous parcels of land in downtown La Quinta which are suitable for such a drugstore location as well as the area along Hwy.11l between Washington St. and Jefferson St. A Walgreens Drug Store would be compatible in either location but not in our area. Please give us a break by encouraging the development of this pro- perty into a beautiful park or residential type business such as an Assisted Living complex or Doctors Offices which are only active during daylight hours as opposed to a Drug Store which is open 24Hrs. a day. Walgreens is NOT WELCOME in our neighborhood and we appeal to your good judgement to keep La Quinta beautiful and free of Commercial polution. Incidentally, Avenue 50 is already a traffic nightmare with 2 schools and the Boys & Girls Club of La Quinta at the corner of Ave. 50 and Park Avenue. The addition of a Commercial complex at the corner of Washington and Avenue 50 would be disastrous. Please do not allow this property to be developed into a Retail/ Commercial development. Tel. (760) 771-2204 Sincerely, Qu� cc: Planning Commission and � 0 Community Development 1 ')'9 Mr. & Mrs. G Warren Palmer 0 0 Stephen E. Askew P�vtroaa� �RE�EFV� 50-235 Doral Street La Quinta, California 92253-5814 760-771-3241 760-771-4312 fax Community Development Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 20 November 2000 Re: General plan amendment 2000-067 Change of zone 2000-093 Specific plan 2000-045 Site development permit 2000-677 Planners, I wish to state my objection to the development at the southwest corner of 50d' and Washington. The past redesignation of this parcel from residential to commercial office was and is not in the best interests of the residents and community at large. Except for this parcel, the entire area is residential. Public statements from planners and civic leaders, as reported in the press, indicate that commercial development would be on Hwy I I I and the Calle Tampico — Civic Center strips. This property is not in either area. Traveling south on Washington to the Civic Center or the new residential complexes is well designed with wide landscaped areas on both sides of the street from Hwy 111 to 52d. We have a beautiful new bridge across the flood control channel. Why would we purposely destroy the image of our city with a commercial development, in this location, marring the landscape? I would think our city is more important than that. If that is not reason enough, the traffic entering and leaving the complex would be a significant problem. It would require "U" turns at 50th and Park and at Washington and 50t", left turns, and add to the congestion around the Boys and Girls Club, the elementary and middle schools, and the play fields. 1O j E 50`}' is already hazardous due to commercial traffic, in this same area, using it as an east- west thoroughfare. This is unacceptable The applicant is proposing to develop only approximately one-third of the property and sell off the other portions to unnamed parties. No matter how well intentioned his plans are, he can't guaranty future development. No, this is bad land use. This application should be denied and an effort should be implemented to return this property to residential use, or if impracticable, to green belt or open space. Thank you for your consideration, ephen Askew CC: Planning Commission Mayor and City Council Paul Eisler 78-775 Grand Traverse Ave. La Quinta, CA 92253 Home Phone 760-564-2248 November 08, 2000 City Council LaQuinta City Hall 78495 Calle Tampico LaQuinta. Ca 92253 RE. WALGREENS Dear City Council Members: I would like to express to you my opposition to the proposed Walgreens at the comer of Washington and Avenue 50. I think you should give careful consideration to the residential neighborhood that this project would be boarding on and the problems that this project would create. This retail center would not only be completely out of place at this location but would also create a traffic nightmare. The lights from the signs would light the adjoining residential area and the lights from the parking lot no matter how carefully aimed and shielded would also light the adjoining area. Cars and delivery trucks would be entering and exiting the parking area at all hours of the night disturbing the residential areas. We moved to this beautiful and peaceful community over 6 years ago and have enjoyed it very much. I urge you to consider the proposed Walgreens very carefully and to think of the neighborhood and not just how many tax dollars will go to the city of LaQuinta. There are many other locations in this same general area that a retail store would tit into much better than this location. Si rely Yours. �A Paul Eisler 1000 need to place any more obstacles, such as drive ways for large trucks, in their path. Fourth, one of the reasons that I bought a home in La Quinta was that it looks and feels like a small community. The large retail stores are located along Highway 111 where they belong, and residential developments and small neighbor stores (stores owned by local residents) are located near the mountains. As I drive south on Washington and see the wide greenbelts associated with the residential developments and look up at the glorious views of the mountains, I think I must be dreaming -- how lucky we are to live here. To have a large concrete box, like a Walgreen come into view would be a big eyesore and totally incompatible, in my opinion, with the development that has taken place in this area of La Quinta. I would like to see the large concrete boxes remain along Highway 111. Finally, I love our night skies and enjoy star watching. The views to the north have deteriorated considerably as Highway 111 has developed. A large Walgreens sign and acres of parking lot lights will only further add to the glare and not be of any benefit to the residents located near it. I hope this letter makes a difference. Because of the holidays, I will not be able to attend your upcoming meeting.- I appreciate your time and consideration of my position on this matter. F. Craig Smith 78-740 Castle Pines Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 �U. C L : ICI �bY IL l3V 1 4 2000 Tim & Lisa Wallender - c 78645 Castle Pines Drive CITro:T. La Quinta, CA 92253 Ctrwwnvth�d,,►c� 760-564-6575 November 7, 2000 ya� \3 °)�'4N;�0 Re: General Plan Amendment 2000-067, Permit 2000-677 Community Development Department La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear City Manager/Council Members: We live directly in sight of the proposed Walgreens/Commercial Office complex. We have seen the nice cable TV Public Relations piece produced by the City of La Quinta stating La Quinta means business. We support this, however, the City currently has an abundance of retail space and a serious lack of executive office space for non retail use. I have personally been searching for office space for my business in the city for my money management business and have been unable to find adequate space. Pro business does not mean just retail, but a balance of mixed office use for service related, non -retail businesses such as professional tenants (i.e. doctors, dentists, investment managers, realtors, lawyers, etc). grew up in Phoenix and would hate to see La Quinta make some of the same mistakes I've seen in Arizona whereby retail strip malls sit empty with high vacancies resulting in an eye sore to the cities they promised tax revenue to. When we purchased our home in November 1998, we based our purchase on the zoning of the surrounding property. If the city approves any change in this existing zoning, this letter constitutes formal notice that an adverse impact will be sustained by my family and surrounding neighbors. Increased traffic, noise, view of surrounding mountains, added artificial light at night and other mitigating factors would result in a decrease in our property value and we would have no other choice but to file a lawsuit in addition to any action sought by the La Quinta Fairways Homeowner's Association. As a concerned resident of La Quinta and a member of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, I am asking you - please do not be short sighted on this adverse zoning change and only approve executive "commercial office" plans with no retail businesses to protect our balanced community. Thank you. � ��JAJ , Timothy J. Wallender Lisa F. Wallender J 0'i 514, Al \0 0 MM\3 to •d� ` �1�.� �.v ���vtil.�+1/ e+✓,�v.Gfbvtixv�ll�uN' .ve/IEt.�:Csc`ow4. eon ¢.�G A �� September 10,2000 Mayor Pena and Members of the Planning Board, Re:General Plan Amendment 2000-067 Dear Members, I wish to raise an objection to the proposed amendment changing the land use from commercial office to neighborhood commercial on the above mentioned plan amendment. Our beautiful city already offers many sites on which to house a commercial venture. There is space available in the Ralphs shopping center, spaces in and around the Post Office, and the already zoned neighborhood commercial Jefferson Street area. Mayor Pena you and the board have gone to considerable lengths to enhance our community, and make it the charming and desired area it is. The median plantings, the shopping area at Ralphs, our city hall, our new bridge, and the list could go on. The southern side of Washington Street is the entrance to our beautiful city, please do not permit it to be marred by neighborhood commercial ventures. To do so would impact on those of us who live behind the Washington Street corridor. And, a commercial zone change would be precendent setting for the entire area. Sincerely, Dolores J. Ahern (Mrs. Leo) 47-780 Via Firenze La Quinta, Ca.,92253 November 15, 2000 Planning Commissioners and City Counsel La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Oe LA ��/ i w•YYY �"UI CA& w W , V / z 011._.._o�� cc�n�- RE: Proposed Wallgreens -- Washington and Avenue 50 ?61\4„ S 00-ml1u• I am a new resident of La Quinta, and I am not in favor of the proposal for a Walgreens drug store to be built at the corner of Washington and Avenue 50. It is my understanding that this issue will soon be considered by the City Counsel. I have a number of reasons for not wanting a local Walgreens. My reasons may or may not be pertinent to the Planning Commission, but hopefully will be taken into consideration by the Counsel. First, La Quinta really lacks commercial and professional offices, which could attract doctors, dentists and other professionals. I know this as I am a diabetic and must travel to Palm Springs to see my doctor. Why not build professional offices on this corner? Higher paying paraprofessional jobs could be available to our youth instead of another large retailer that only pays minimum wages. Second, most of our local grocery stores already have pharmacies, liquor, cosmetics and other items found at a Walgreens store. I am concerned that a Walgreens store will take business away from Ralph's and our small True Value store. I don't know what margin is needed for these two businesses to survive during the summer months, but I can't believe that Walgreen's won't have a detrimental effect on their sales. I want these two retailers to succeed. Third, I would not like to see a large retailer of any type located this close to the school. Traffic continues to grow on Washington and Avenue 50. (1 know because I walk both streets almost daily). A large retailer is only going to compound this problem. Watching children come and go from school only convinces me that we don't Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2000-677 Evergreen La Quinta Limited Partnership PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, 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. 5. 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. 6. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1 . Washington Street (Major Arterial): a 60-foot half of 120-foot right of way. b. Provide additional 12-foot right of way dedication to accommodate the installation of a "right -turn only" lane from Washington Street onto Avenue 50 (See Condition No. 43.A.1.b herein) C. Within CVWD ownership from the Applicant's southern property line, south to the Washington Street Bridge over the drainage channel, acquire right of way or easement for installation of a 6-foot meandering sidewalk to tie to the existing sidewalk on the northern end of the bridge (at applicant's expense). 2. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial): a. Within applicant's property: 50-foot half of 100-foot right of way. b. Within CVWD ownership to westerly line of Channel: 50- foot half of 100-foot right of way. Applicant shall acquire (at its expense) right of way from CVWD. Should applicant be unable to acquire the required right of way, they may request the City to assist in the acquisition (at applicant's expense). 7. 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. 1U3 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDPWalgreens.WPD PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 27, 2001 CASE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-049 PARCEL MAP 29889 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-691 APPLICANT: McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES (MR. COLIN McDERMOTT) PROPERTY OWNER: COLIN McDERMOTT REQUEST: 1. REVIEW OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A ±53,500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX ON A ±4.9 ACRE SITE; 2. SUBDIVISION OF A COMMERCIAL PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ±4.9 ACRES INTO 12 PARCELS. 3. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ±5,000 S.F. PERMANENT BANK STRUCTURE, ALONG WITH A ±1,440 S.F. TEMPORARY BANK STRUCTURE; LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND 47T" AVENUE (ATTACHMENT #1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000- 405. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE REQUEST HAS NO POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, PROVIDED APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE INCORPORATED WITH PROJECT APPROVAL. AS A RESULT, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) C:\Wrkgrp\sp200l 049.wpd BACKGROUND: Site Background The 4.9 acre project site has no history of development proposals. Until demolished in 1995, the site was developed with structures associated to five generations of the Burkett family, including the original homestead of Manning Burkett. As a result of demolition activity, the site is barren of improvements, significant vegetation and any topographic features. The applicant proposes a 53,500 square foot commercial/office project, currently referred to as La Quinta Professional Plaza. Although intended primarily for office use, retail tenancies will likely be located in the complex as well. A 3,600 s.f. restaurant/office building is shown. The initial tenant is Palm Desert National Bank. The premise of the application presents a Specific Plan for review of design guidelines and development standards on the overall project development. The Site Development Permit is proposed for the construction of Phase I, which includes the ±5,000 s.f. Palm Desert National Bank use and the necessary on -site improvements for that use. It also would propose a ±1,440 s.f. temporary modular bank facility, which would be used for up to two years while the permanent bank building is being completed. Finally, a Parcel Map is requested to subdivide the overall site into 12 parcels, for possible sale and maintenance assignment purposes. ALRC Action - On February 7, 2001, the ALRC reviewed the conceptual project landscaping for the proposed complex, as well as the actual building architecture for the Phase I Palm Desert National Bank and temporary modular facility (Attachment #2, ALRC minutes). No significant issues were raised by the Committee, which unanimously recommended approval of the site development permit as recommended by staff. The only recommended condition was that the parkway landscaping and transition along Washington Street be consistent with that of Lake La Quinta. This is contained in the proposed approval conditions. Building Height - The Specific Plan proposes building heights up to 35 feet (tower features may extend up to 40 feet). The proposed bank building has a peak roof height of 24 feet. The CR district allows building heights of four stories, up to 50 feet, but limits building height to 22 feet for structures within 150 feet of any Primary Image Corridor and Major and Primary Arterial, as designated in the General Plan. Relation to Lake La Quinta residential - The project lies just west of existing residential areas of the Lake La Quinta project. The applicant has provided a line of sight and sectional representation along Caleo Bay to illustrate the relationship of the northeasterly commercial building with the residential area (Attachment #3). Home sites are under construction along Via Orvieto which back up to Caleo Bay, with the rear yards facing the project site. The current finished grade of these homes is at approximately the same height as existing grade of the project site, which will be lowered an average of 2-3 feet during grading. The site plan proposes two-story buildings along the easterly portion of the project; their height is not established at present. Temporary bank use - As part of the site development approval process, the applicant wishes to establish a 1,440 s.f. temporary bank facility for a maximum of 2 years on the site (Attachment #4). The specific plan addresses the temporary use development and operational terms. The facility is to be located on Pad 12, in the southwest corner of the site. Approval of the Site Development Permit will allow establishment of the use in accordance with the approval conditions. A conceptual landscaping plan for the use has been submitted, consistent with the overall concept landscape plan. Access - The Specific Plan provides access to all three perimeter roadways - Washington, 47'h and Caleo Bay (Attachment #5)• Washington Street access will be restricted to right in/out, and is consistent with access guidelines of the General Plan (see below). Other access points are acceptable as proposed. An access is provided to the south property via an open portion of the parking area. Phase I improvements will include all paved areas of the overall site, in order to allow full access to the Palm Desert National Bank use. Unlike the commercial parcels immediately south of the project site (i.e., in front of Lake La Quinta) this parcel has direct right-in/right-out access to Washington Street. La Quinta, and other governing agencies, typically allow one access per property that fronts an arterial street, provided the access location meets General Plan and zoning requirements. If parcels have narrow frontages along the arterial street, governing agencies typically require properties to consolidate their driveways when discretionary entitlement proposals are presented for review and approval. It is not essential for this project to consolidate its driveway with the property to the south as the properties involved have larger frontages. Therefore, the proposed driveway location on Washington Street can be approved because it complies with the General Plan. Drainage - The applicant has entered into an agreement with the Lake La Quinta Homeowner's Association for that project to accept excess nuisance water from a portion of the site into Lake La Quinta. This has been reviewed and accepted by Public Works, and final details will be addressed as engineered drawings are processed during plan check. Lighting - The applicant submitted a photometric study of the site relative to proposed lighting facilities. This study indicates that the average foot-candle reading is 1.7 (i.e. 1.7 lumen); the average foot-candle reading at the bank would be 1.9. The Specific Plan states that light pole height will not exceed 20 feet, with 18 feet the maximum along Caleo Bay. The light fixtures will be shielded (recessed lamp with flush lenses). This is in compliance with the applicable zoning code sections on lighting of parking lots. All lighting will be reviewed as part of a detailed lighting plan to be required. Signs - Sign guidelines are included in the Specific Plan document. They are consistent with the City sign requirements and are acceptable as general regulations. The Specific Plan shall be conditioned to provide a detailed sign program for the entire site, including the bank use, to be based on these approved guidelines. 1.1.2 This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 6,2001. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required. No negative comments have been received. Any correspondence received before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department. All other comments have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS• Findings necessary to recommend approval of each item can be found in the respective resolutions to be adopted for these cases with the exception of: A. Specific Plan - Land Use Compatibility Finding While the general building height stated in the Specific Plan is well below the 50 foot height limit established under the CR district, notwithstanding, no building within 150 feet of Washington Street may exceed 22 feet. The bank building located along Washington Street has two tower elements reaching 24 and 23 feet. As these elements do not extend more that 2.5 feet above the main roof line of 21.5 feet, staff recommends that the elements be reduced so that the building does not exceed 22' at any point. The northeasterly two-story building on the site (Parcel 5) was used to establish the line of sight study, as it was the most proximate to the residential area of Lake La Quinta. The building height was assumed at 30 feet, which would be 5 feet below the specific plan maximum height. It's orientation indicates that tenant space would have north/south facing, which suggests a lesser building face area, with minimal or no views into residential properties. Staff recommends that any structures along Caleo Bay be limited to two-story, 28 feet in height maximum. Conditions 5.A (SIP) and 72 (SDP) have been added to address these items. B. Site Development Permit - Site and architectural design The proposed temporary bank use indicates two access points onto Washington. The applicant has agreed to utilize an existing driveway approach at the temporary site location as the sole access into the facility. Conditions 5.0 (SP), 42 (SDP) and 70 (SDP) have been prepared to verify this. Condition 5.D (SIP) will be added to insure the timely removal of the temporary facility. li3 The overall project lighting is consistent with the zoning code, and lighting details will be reviewed as commonly required during plan check. Condition 68 (SDP), which requires standard plan check items for lighting, includes a requirement that the under canopy lighting for the bank drive through lanes incorporate flush lens treatments for directing light downward. Sign approvals will require more detailed information than the concept guidelines of the Specific Plan. Conditions 5.H (SP) and 69 (SDP) address the requirement for sign program submittal. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 2000-405; 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-049, subject to conditions as recommended by staff; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of Parcel Map 29889, subject to conditions as recommended by staff; 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-691, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. ALRC minutes of 2/7/01 (2 pgs.) 3. Sight line/sectional study 4. Temporary bank facility (3 pgs.) 5. Project access points Submitted by: OLl �N Christine di lorio, PI nning Manager ]l; 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 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-405, FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-049, PARCEL MAP 29889 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-691 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-405 McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 271h day of July, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on the Environmental Assessment for Specific Plan 2000-049, Parcel Map 29889 and Site Development Permit 2001-691, a request by McDermott Enterprises to develop a 53,500 square foot commercial and office complex on a 4.9 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and 47' Avenue, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 9618, AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST QUARTERS OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2000-405) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan 2000-049, Parcel Map 29889 and Site Development Permit 2001-691 could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that recommended mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed Specific Plan, Parcel Map and Site Development Permit applications will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when Planning Commission Resolution 2001- considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 3. The proposed Specific Plan, Parcel Map and Site Development Permit applications will not have the potential to achieve short term 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, Parcel Map and Site Development Permit applications will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 5. The proposed Specific Plan, Parcel Map and Site Development Permit applications will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. 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 Environmental Assessment 2000-405 and determined that it reflects the independent judgement of the City. 8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). Planning Commission Resolution 2001- 9. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2000-405 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27`h day of March 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 Environmental Checklist Form 1 . Project Title: La Quinta Professional Plaza: Specific Plan 2000-049 Site Development Permit 2001-691 Parcel Map 29889 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wallace Nesbit 760-777-7069 4. Project Location: Southeast corner of Washington Street and 47`" Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: McDermott Enterprises P.O. Box 163 Palm Desert, CA 92261 6. General Plan Designation: M/RC (Mixed/Regional Commercial) 7. Zoning: CR (Regional 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.) Review of design guidelines and development standards for a ±53,500 s.f. commercial/office complex on a ±4.9 acre site; consideration of development plans for construction of a ±5,000 s.f. permanent bank structure, along with a ±1,440 s.f. temporary bank structure; and subdivision of.a commercial parcel map to subdivide ±4.9 acres into 12 parcels. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projects surroundings.) North: Vacant M/RC land; retail use farther north South: Vacant M/RC land East: Low Density Residential development West: Institutional (St. Francis church and associated parking) 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ckist4O5.wpd 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 Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings 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. n 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, 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 upro Lbl�- thee proposed project, and nothing further is required.0"-� Oil �� I a l Signature Date Christine di Iorio City of La Quinta Printed Name Department C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ckist4O5.wpd 2 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 account for 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 C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck Ist405. wpd 3 Potentially Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Lisa Than Issues land Su p g Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan EIR, Figure 4.6-1) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Site assessment) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials/photometric analysis) 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 to non-agricultural use? (EIR, Figure 4.1- 4) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; EIR, Figure 4.1-4) 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; EIR, p. 4-19) 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? (1990 PM10 SIP) 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/PM1O SIP) 11 1=1 X 3 ):1 X M ft X X C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\cklst405.wpd +,., 121 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis) X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) X 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; EIR, Figure 4.4-1) 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; EIR, Figure 4.4-1) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP) 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? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource (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 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)? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000) X X X X X X X X Q\W rkgrp\EAdocs\cklst405. wpd c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed delineation map) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000) X 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 Figure EH-1; EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan Figure EH-1; 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 EIR, page 4-30 ff.) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that could become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (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? (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? (MEA, p. 5-32) 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? (Site/project assessment) 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? (Site/project assessment) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Site/project assessment) X X X X X X X X X X X 1 3 C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck1st405. wpd 6 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; Site/project assessment) 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? (Not applicable) 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? (Not applicable) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (MEA, p. 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Aerial data; Site assessment) Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or waste discharge requirements? (MEA, pp. 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? (EIR, p. 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? (EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter) d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? ( EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems to control? (EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable) g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? MEA, p. 6-13) E 1 X X X X X X X X X C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck1st405. wpd IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site assessment; Aerial data) 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? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (MEA, p. 5-5; CVFTL HCP) 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? (MEA, p. 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? (MEA, p. 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? (EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground - based vibration/noise levels? (EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) 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? (Not applicable) 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? (Not applicable) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project Fq X W X X 0 0 W 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, p. 2-14; Project assessment) X C:\Wrkgrp\EAd ocs\ck1st405. wpd G' I b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project assessment) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project assessment) 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? (MEA, p.4-3 ff.) Police protection? (MEA, p. 4-3 ff.) Schools? (MEA, P. 4-9 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan) Other public facilities? (MEA, p. 4-14 ff.) 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 facilities would occur or be accelerated? (Project assessment) 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? (Project assessment) XV. TRANS PO RTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (EIR, p. 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? (Not applicable) X X X X X 9 C:\Wrkgrp\EAd ocs\cklst405.wpd 9 d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment, Fire/police comments) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project assessment, Sunline response) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (MEA, p. 4-24; CVWD) 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? (MEA, pg 4-24; CVWD comments)• 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? (MEA, pg 4-27; CVWD comments) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (MEA, pg 4-20; CVWD comments) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (CVWD comments) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (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 habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X X X X X X X X X @4 W C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck1st405. wpd 17 10 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 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. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Checklist Addendum. c:\wrk9rp\EAdocs\ck1st405.wpd ,j it SOURCES CQNSULTED: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. City of La Quinta General Plan, 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993. Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech, December 5, 2000. Lake Management Plan for Lake La Quinta, 1989 Drainage Analysis letter for Palm Desert National Bank site, Dudek and Associates, January 15, 2001. State Implementation Plan for PM10 in the Coachella Valley, November 1990. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, Section 10A Permit, June 1985. C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck1st405.wpd 12 Checklist Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2000-405 Introduction This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for a proposed 53,500 square foot office complex, to be located on 4.9 acres in the City of La Quinta. The site location is the southeast corner of Washington Street and 47`h Avenue. The project site is currently vacant, with the Lake La Quinta residential areas to the east, vacant commercial land to the south, Washington Street and Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church to the west, and vacant commercial land across 47" Avenue to the north. I. a-d► There are no scenic view sheds identified from the site, nor is the site directly in line with any view windows as identified by the General Plan documents. There will be some view obstruction to residents of Lake La Quinta whose units on Via Orvieto back up to Caleo Bay. A line of sight study has been prepared by the applicant to illustrate the most proximate 2-story building to the residential area. Based on this study, and in order to accommodate the project objectives, the following mitigation is proposed: 1. The proposed 2 story, 5,000 s.f. office building to be located on Parcel 5 shall be limited to 28 feet in height. Specific attention to masking this building's height with landscaping, architectural elements, etc. shall be incorporated into any design submitted for future site development approval. II. a) The site is in an area identified by the General Plan EIR as being prime agricultural soil. The soil type is of the Gilman series (GbA, GbB, GcA), which are well drained, moderately permeable soils suitable for agriculture and recreational uses. Development of the site will remove approximately 5 acres from the City's inventory of available prime agricultural soil. However, this is recognized as a cumulative impact due to the growth -inducing nature of impacts associated with adoption of the General Plan. The property is not, nor has it been, in agricultural production. It's location away from agriculture -based infrastructure, in an urbanizing area, along with the small parcel size, render the site unsuitable for such use. III. b) Development of the proposed project will not, in and of itself, have an appreciable impact on ambient air quality. Air quality impacts for a development of this type and scale are generally limited to short-term construction. In the Coachella Valley, the greatest concern relative to construction emissions is particulate matter. The site has been previously disturbed in its entirety during demolition of the old Burkett ranch house and C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea2001405.wpd r .j �► associated structures/improvements, and is a source of fugitive dust during moderate wind periods. The Coachella Valley has in the past been a serious non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). However, in recent years the area has met criteria for reclassification to attainment status and, in fact, SCAQMD has filed for such status recognition from California Air Resources Board (CARB). The latest preliminary information from SCAQMD indicates that year 2000 data will reflect that the Valley has now moved back into non -attainment status. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust, and is in the process of modifying it's current ordinances to improve monitoring and compliance requirements. 2. No grubbing, clearing, grading or land disturbance of any kind shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a.PM10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP). 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the incremental increase of impacts to air quality from the proposal will not exceed those under the present condition on the site. IV. a-f) The project site has been significantly impacted by prior land disturbance activity. A structure fire and subsequent demolition activity contributed to disturbance of the majority of the site, along with development of improvements associated with the Lake La Quinta project surrounding this site. The site is isolated on three sides by developed roadways, and is not viable as habitat or would facilitate the transitional migration or movement of species. While the site is within the CVFTL habitat fee area, the site is not viable as habitat for this species. No significant stands of trees or other vegetation exist on the site, as verified in observations in the cultural resources survey. Impacts to any biological resources are determined to be insignificant. V. A Phase I (survey level) cultural resource assessment was prepared for the proposed site. The assessment found that no cultural or historic value can be attributed to the site, but that monitoring during project development activities needs to be conducted. As a result, while unlikely based upon findings of the assessment, there is unknown potential for impacts to historic/cultural resources. Standard monitoring requirements will be conditioned upon project approval to ensure detection and retrieval of any uncovered resources. C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea200l405.wpd -1 J VI. a.ii) The proposed project area lies just inside the Zone III groundshaking zone. It is close to the Zone IV designation that includes much of the Highway 111 and northern La Quinta areas. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures already constructed within the area have been required to conform to Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones. 1 . All proposed structures will be subject to conformance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans for all development proposed on the site. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. XV a) There will be an increase in traffic volume associated with the project's development (i.e. vacant to urban transition). The proposal was reviewed by the City Public Works Department. Caleo Bay and 47`" Avenue are designed and built as Collector status roadways, with adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes. No traffic issues were identified and no studies of area -wide traffic patterns or generation were requested. No impacts have been identified that would require mitigation at this time. C:\W rkgrp\EAdocs\ea2001405.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-049, ESTABLISHING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 53,500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-049 McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 271h day of March, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on the Environmental Assessment for Specific Plan 2000-049, a request by McDermott Enterprises to develop a 53,500 square foot commercial/office complex on a 4.9 acre site located at the southeast corner of 47`h Avenue and Washington Street and more particularly described as: A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 9618, AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST QUARTERS OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application has complied with the requirements of 'The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Specific Plan could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that recommended mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1 . The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of M/RC and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. 2. The proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, as the site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental C:\Wrkgrp\PCreso\resopcsp049.wpd S ry Planning Commission Resolution 2001- to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract and surrounding area, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 3. The proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially equivalent to those permitted under existing zoning for permitted uses, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, development of existing CR-zoned land is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan. 4. The proposed Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, development of the site as M/RC land use is considered to be suitable and appropriate due to the General Plan designations for existing and approved residential and commercial development/land use in the surrounding areas. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 2000-049 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27`" day of March 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Resolution 2001- STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California ],— PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-049 McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES MARCH 27, 2001 ENERA L CONDITIONS OF APPROVA 1. Specific Plan 2000-049 (SP 2000-049) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, the specific plan document, and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and other exhibits submitted for this application and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SP 2000-049, the conditions shall take precedence. 2. 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 specific plan or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. 3. All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Site Development Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent shall submit amended documents within 30 days of City Council approval of the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit, or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 4. SP 2000-049 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2000-405 • Site Development Permit 2001-691 • Tentative Parcel Map 29889 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 5. The specific plan document for SP 2000-049 shall be revised in conformance with the following: A. Table 2, page 12, Minimum Building Setbacks - Other Streets, shall be revised to require all buildings within 150 feet of Caleo Bay to be restricted to 28 feet in height. C:\Wrkgrp\COA\coarecsp049.wpd / J PC Resolution 2001 - Specific Plan SP 2000-049 - McDermott Enterprises March 27, 2001 B. Page 12, Trash Enclosure locations - The Specific Plan shall include a satellite trash enclosure location plan which has been reviewed by Waste Management per Condition 7 of SDP 2001-691. C. Figures 9, 12 and 13 for the temporary bank, shall be revised to show one access point, oriented to the southernmost edge of the temporary site at the existing driveway approach. D. Page 14, Temporary Bank Facility - Amend text: "If the permanent bank facility is not completed within a two-year period from its effective approval date, then the temporary use shall be removed unless substantial completion on said permanent bank facility has been pursued. The determination on 'substantial completion' shall be made by the Community Development Director". E. The specific plan shall require that a facility to accommodate a minimum of five bicycles shall be provided for any restaurant use (pages 12, 40). F. Drainage Plan - Section F, Page 23, shall include reference to an appendix of the specific plan which shall contain the signed drainage agreement between Lake La Quinta and the applicant. G. Page 30, Property Development Standards, shall be amended to reflect the preceding requirements 4.A and 4.C. H. Page 36, Signage (sic) Guidelines - Change all reference to 'signage' to 'sign' or signs'. Amend text: "A detailed sign program for the Specific Plan area will be submitted prior to occupancy permits for any permanent building". 6. Minor changes, as determined by the Community Development Director to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan, may be approved. Examples include modifications to landscaping materials and/or design, parking and circulation arrangements not involving reductions in required standards beyond those identified in the Specific Plan, minor site, building area or other revisions necessary due to changes in technical plan aspects such as drainage, street improvements, grading, etc. Such changes may be approved on a staff - level basis and shall not constitute a requirement to amend the Specific Plan. Consideration for any modifications shall be requested in writing to the Director C:\Wrkgrp\CO A\coarecsp049.wpd 2 PC Resolution 2001 - Specific Plan SP 2000-049 - McDermott Enterprises March 27, 2001 and submitted with appropriate graphic and/or textual documentation in order to make a determination on the request. 7. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases, operations, etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program and Negative Declaration (EA 2000-405), as certified by the La Quinta City Council. 8. All other applicable conditions of approval for SDP 2001-691, TPM 29889 and any subsequent amendment(s) shall be incorporated into the revised text for SP 2000-049 in the appropriate sections. The revised Specific Plan document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review prior to issuance of any permit for a permanent building. C:\Wrkgrp\COA\coarecsp049. wpd 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-691, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 53,500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-691 McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 271" day of March, 2001, consider a Site Development Permit application for a 53,500 square -foot commercial/office complex, located at the southeast corner of 471h Avenue and Washington Street and more particularly described as: A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 9618, AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST QUARTERS OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that recommended mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of M/RC and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially equivalent C:Mrkgrp\PCreso\resopcsdp691.wpd 7 :� Planning Commission Resolution 2001- to those permitted under existing zoning of permitted uses, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, development of existing CR land use is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that the Site Development Permit could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that recommended mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed. 4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake La Quinta tract and surrounding area, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed project with the surrounding development. 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 approve Site Development Permit 2001-691 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 27th day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: C:\W rkg rp\PCreso\resopcsd p691.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:Mrkgrp\PCreso\resopcsdp691.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-691 McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES MARCH 27. 2001 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Site Development Permit 2001-691 (SDP 2001-691) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SDP 2001-691 the conditions shall take precedence. 2. SDP 2001-691 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2000-405 • Specific Plan 2000-049 • Tentative Parcel Map 29889 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 3. This approval shall expire one year after it's effective date, as determined pursuant to Section 9.200.060.0 of the Zoning Code, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.200.080. The validity of other related applications, as identified in Condition #2, may be considered in determining extension provisions. Approval for the temporary bank use shall expire two years from the effective date of SDP 2001-691, with no provision for extension. 4. 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 development application or any application 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. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Building and Safety Department • La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading/ Improvement/Encroachment Permits) • La Quinta Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Southern California Gas Company • imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Waste Management of the Desert 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. 6. A plan for the provision of satellite refuse storage and recycling locations and facilities shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review/approval prior to any Certificate of Occupancy. Said plan shall be prepared in accordance with City standards as set forth in Section 9.100.200 of the Zoning Code, and submitted with a written clearance from Waste Management of the Desert as to locations and design detail provisions. 7. Handicap access and facilities shall be provided in accordance with Federal (ADA), State and local requirements. Handicap accessible parking shall generally conform with the approved exhibits for SDP 2001-691. 8. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases, operations, etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program and Negative Declaration (EA 2000-405), as certified by the La Quinta City Council. 9. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code. 10. All applicable conditions of approval for SDP 2001-691 shall be incorporated into the revised text for Specific Plan 2000-049 in the appropriate sections. The revised document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review prior to issuance of the first building permit. PROPERTY RIGHTS 1 1. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for the acceleration land and deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. 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. 13. 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. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot. B. 47`h Avenue -10-foot. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 tentative map. 16. 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. 17. 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 18. 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. 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. "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. FIRE PROTE= TI N 22. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be approved and signed by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." NOTE ON PLANS: "Ail buildings will be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department". Prior to the issuance of building permits, system plans will be submitted for approval. The required water system, including fire hydrants, will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required in all new structures 5,000 square feet or greater, in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code 8.08.090. 23. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet. 6 inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 28 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width of 36 feet. 24. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Standard W- 33, subject to approval by Riverside County Fire Department. 25. If public use type buildings are to be constructed, additional fire protection may be required. Fire flows and hydrant locations will be stipulated when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Department. 26. Specific fire protection requirements for each occupancy will be determined when final building plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. IMPROVEMENT AGREEME 27. Depending on 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31, 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 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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 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. 35. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant/developer shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (F!DCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and indicate time lines for any project phasing, and shall establish standards for comprehensive control of airborne dust due to development activities on site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over the entire buildout of the project:, such as for disturbed lands pending future development. 36. 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. 37. 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 38. Storm water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Lake La Quinta. Nuisance water shall be retained on -site and disposed of in dry wells, or as approved by the City Engineer, UTILITIES 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. 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 42. For temporary banking facilities, access to and from Washington Street shall be limited to the use of the one existing drive approach. 43. 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) Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Construct acceleration and deceleration lanes. 2) Extend 8-foot sidewalk in a meandering fashion along the Washington Street frontage. 3) Following removal of the temporary bank facilities on the southwest portion of the property, remove the concrete drive approach and repair curb and sidewalk to City standards. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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). 46. 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. 47. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 48. 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 flow line shall be vertical 0/8" 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. 49. Parking lot design shall conform to the requirements of LQMC Chapter 12.32 50. 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. Jf) 51 . The City will conduct final inspections only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices and pavement markings. 52. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Right turn in, right turn out only. B. 47t" Avenue (Collector) - No turning restrictions C. Caleo Bay (Local Street) - No turning restrictions. LANDSCAEl \IG 53. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. Landscaping within the overall project area shall be commonly maintained under a single maintenance contract. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, an appropriate maintenance mechanism shall be established to assure compliance with this requirement. Documentation necessary to meet this requirement shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the Community Development/Public Works Departments prior to any Certificate of Occupancy for building areas. Said documentation must include that landscape materials shall be maintained as planted in perpetuity, and that dead, dying or otherwise missing landscape improvements shall be replaced, re -planted or provided within 30 calendar days. PUBLIC SERVICES 57. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit ,and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 58. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. 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. MAINTENAfJCE 62. 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. CULTURAL RESOURCES 63. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth disturbance, the applicant shall have prepared and obtained approval from the Community Development Department for an archaeological monitoring program for the project site. The program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist, and shall include provisions for strictly controlled archaeological monitoring and data recovery, including research and field methods, lab analysis methodology, Native American consulltation and monitoring, curation procedures, report preparation and disposition of artifacts and records. FEES AND DEPOSITS 64. 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. 65. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 66. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 67. 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. MISCELLAN 68. The applicant shall submit a detailed project area lighting plan, based on the information in the Specific Plan 2000-049 application. All pole -mounted light standards shall be limited in height and coverage consistent with Specific Plan 2000-049. Under canopy lighting for drive through aisles of the bank building (Parcel 11 shall incorporate flush lens caps or similar recessed ceiling lighting. The lighting plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the first permanent building permit. 69. A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to establishment of any permanent signs for the project:. Provisions of the sign program shall be in compliance with applicable sections of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code and Specific Plan 2000-049. 70. The applicant shall submit construction drawings for plan check associated with site development of the temporary bank facility, to include plans for parking and access, landscaping, irrigation and lighting. Plans submitted shall be designed to utilize one access, which shall connect with the existing drive approach on Washington Street. 71. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using compactible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures requiring such screening. 72. The following revisions shall be made to the permanent bank building (Parcel 1) based on Specific Plan 2000-049 elevations: • Height of tower elements at the north and south ends of the building shall be reduced to 22 feet in height. 1J� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29889, TO SUBDIVIDE 4.9 ACRES INTO 12 PARCELS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29889 McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 271h day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by McDermott Enterprises to create 12 parcels, on 4.9 acres at the southeast corner of 47" Avenue and Washington Street; and, WHEREAS, the Tentative Parcel Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that recommended mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map: 1 . The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that the subdivision will result in the creation of commercial parcels, to be developed in accordance with the existing Zoning and General Plan designations as established. 2. The design and improvements for the Tentative Parcel Map are consistent with the Lai Quinta General Plan, in that all proposed parcels meet minimum required dimensions. The design of the private interior streets and the proposed residential and lettered lots are consistent with standards as contained in the General Plan. 3. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, and proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the site is vacant and has been previously disturbed by anthropogenic activity, to the degree that the site itself does not support any wildlife species. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- 4. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map and related improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project have been partially installed as part of the Lake La Quinta project and surrounding area. The health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the recommended conditions, , which serve to implement mitigation measures for the project. 6. The design of, and type of improvements for, the Tentative Parcel Map will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the subdivision, as the proposed subdivision has been reviewed for these issues with no concerns identified. The map design includes provisions for access, utility and other public easements as determined necessary during review of the proposal. 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 said Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Parcel Map 29889, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27" day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C:\W rkgrp\PCreso\resopcpm29889. wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California C:\W rkgrp\PCreso\resopcpm29889.wpd I J 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29889 MCDERMOTT ENTERPRISES MARCH 27, 2001 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . 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. 2. This Tentative Parcel 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). 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading/ Improvement/Encroachment Permits) • La Quinta Community Development Department • Riverside County 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 these agencies. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 4. 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 RI HT 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. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20 foot. B. 47' Avenue -10 foot. 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. 9. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utiiity lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 10. 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 tentative map. 11. 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. ` J� 12. 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 13. 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 AND PARCEL MAP(S) 14. 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. 15. 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 E=ngineer. 16. 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. 17. 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 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 1�1 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. 21. 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, 22. 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 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) 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 complliance with the provisions of the permit. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Lake La Quinta. Nuisance water shall be retained on -site and disposed of in dry wells or as approved by the City Engineer. UTILITIES 29. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utiility 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. 30. 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. 31. 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 IMPROVEMENT 32. 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. Construct deceleration lane with conforming geometric layout at the access on Washington Street. 163 2. Extend 8-foot sidewalk in a meandering fashion along the Washington Street frontage. 3. Following removal of the temporary bank facilities on the southwest portion of the property, remove the concrete drive approach and repair curb and sidewalk to City standards. 4. Applicant shall participate to the extent of 25% of the cost of a traffic signal for the intersection of Caleo Bay and 47`h Avenue to be installed at such time as warrants are met. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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). 35. 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. 36. KnuclKle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 37. 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 flow line 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. 38. Parking lot design shall conform to the requirements of LQMC Chapter 12.32. 16i 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Right turn in, right turn out only. B. 47`h Avenue - No turning restrictions. C. Caleo Bay (Local Street) - No turning restrictions. LANDSCAPING 42. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, common lots, and park areas. 43. Landscape and irrigation plans 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. 44. 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. PUBLIC SERVICES 45. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. MAINTENAPICE 50. 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 51. 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. 52. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. Jb Source: Dudek & auWw nne Vicinity Ma p PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS s.nssocieres TKD ' "' ATTACHMENT 1 9AW 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 7, 2001 2. Mr. Joe Digrado, architect for the project, gave/presentation the project. They were asking to keep the hipans 2 and 3 so as to maintain a lower profile of ths the buildings are fairly wide, with two houses s too massive. They are trying to achieve a lower prohave 12 color schemes and the street scene will be 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the plan alette is fine in most aspects, but some of the plants propose ill not last here in the desert. The soils are too high in alkalin nd he went on to list the plants that should be replaced. In gard to the trap fence, will there be any community pools? Staff stated no. Committee Member Bobbitt /andte a metal that will come in contact with the soils, wilt In regard to the hip roof, the roof lines do look simie needs to be some diversity. Staff suggested addingfs to give the diversity. Mr. Digrado stated there are pthe rear that could be changed. Staff stated the conceth the front elevations. Mr. Digrado stated they couldis issue on one of the smaller units. 4. Committee ber Bobbitt asked who would be responsible for the landsc ng. Mr. Tom Evans, project manager for Ashbrook Commun s, stated they would be maintained by the HOA. CommilAe Member Bobbitt stated his concern about the use of the 90ts Claw vine in regard to the HOA maintenance and recgFnmended it be replaced. 5. ere being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Reynolds/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-009 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 001-689 as modified: a. Condition #2: Plan 2 B facade shall include a gable roof. Plan 3.B. shall have over the garage storage area. Site Development Permit 2001-691; a request of McDermott Enterprises for review of architectural and landscaping plans for Phase I of the La Quinta Professional Plaza at the southeast corner of Washington Street and 471h Avenue. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. ATTACHMENT 2 �}_ " 1.03 G:\WPDOCS\AL]3C2-7-01.wpd 7 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 7, 2001 2. Committee Member Reynolds asked how much copper would be used. Staff stated minimal. Mr. Mike Mokray, representing the applicant, stated approximately four or feet by five feet and will not change the color to green, but will darken with time. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the location of the temporary building. The applicant stated it would be located away from the street, and it was their intention to construct the temporary building as soon as possible. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked when the permanent building would be built. Mr. Colin McDermott stated about 18 months; as soon as they have the Specific Plan and accompanying applications submitted and approved. Staff stated the building architecture is consistent with what is anticipated for the entire site. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2001-010 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-691, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Reynolds/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on March 7, 2001. This meeting was adjourned at 11 :40 a.m. on February 7, 2001. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Ouinta, California ] 6 :? t G:\WPDOCS\ALRC2-7-0Lwod 8 3 O K z Q K a 4 O Z OLLJ a z _ a O O o Z W � a C/') z Q O J cn Q K O O —o w UO W o AVS 037vo o Z Q K U U �Q7 d 2 2 O x W al aM � 133b1S NOl DNIHSVM N N N �N u w o N a 0 a f >.EL O U m o m o� O ! o m N N p0 m O O p 0 (0 t0 ap O ono Q)o s o w U �l Cn U W k C i � O • • Img 2' a • J • � J Q a N . N 'u I"`+><. 1L - • 0 cc • z cir"IL J0 i 0 ° $ 0` 0ffM 0 0 ° o 0 0 a 9 0 0 SQ Q cc W "° °° r ° m°° ° a€ 6➢ n n JIB o Wq 2 rz IL u F- y JO W J u If uTi n N ° E TRASH R T z I � J III i Y — _ I ! O 6 O O C V H. Q N O o g co Y � F � r Z a F C a a) W C m w Q- E n J LiF r,'j 7 � u� MAR2^14'01 �JI CiTYUf Lft UIIVlN t, cONCTRUC7101N EJ-- r aN spa � aTa�P C-�IYE TN�GUCrrI AdN� l( I Em`x24` TEMPOR4RY SAtiK i 1 T I v LAND5r-APE yTR1P �{--I�' iANi?oGAPE oTRlp I r+#Aa, =- r, ' ICCES 70 `EG%4CENT FF<C Ec i ttt Z Y` u' Ili 4 3v' BU.�Llti�s -6ET�.=CK �v z 25' EXI9TN6 ACCESS J"' Rf v# 36D WASHINGTON STREET NANNING nFPA9T j,;Flj,\n j LO r i L PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 27, 2001 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30056 REQUEST: SUBDIVIDE 5.39 ACRES (SEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS) INTO 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS APPLICANT: THE KEITH COMPANIES PROPERTY OWNERS: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. LOCATION: AT THE SOUTH TERMINUS OF WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN THE TRADITION CLUB TAKING ACCESS FROM DEL GATO DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 96-333). THE ADDENDUM HAS DETERMINED THAT THE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN IMPACT WILL RESULT FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT. PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, SECTION 15162 NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) (LDR) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) SOUTH : OPEN SPACE (OS) EAST: OPEN SPACE (OS) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) BACKGROUND: The land encompassing Tentative Tract Map 30056 was approved by the City Council in 1998 as a portion of Tract 28867. The portion of the Tract proposed to be re -subdivided consists of seven single family lots on 5.39 acres, taking access from Del Gato Drive. The re -subdivided portion proposes thirteen lots adding six residential lots which of which the total allowed units within the Tradition Club of 595 lots in the Low Density Residential Zone is not exceeded by this proposal. At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission at it's February 27, 2001 meeting, continued this project to March 27, 2001. •• •� 70WIM This Tract proposes 13 lots on 5.39 acres. All residential lots are proposed to have driveway access from a new dual cul-de-sac private street (Lot A). The new configuration eliminates steep driveway access from Del Gato Drive and adds six new lots to this enclave area. Lot sizes range from 11,455 to 19,352 square feet. Lot "B" is proposed to be a landscaped lot. An existing 20 foot landscape easement adjacent to Lot "B" and running along the south edge of the property abuts this proposed Tract. A homeowners' association, previously formed, maintains retention basins, common landscaped areas, private roads, and perimeter landscaping. The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 16, 2001. All property owners within 500-feet of the affected area were mailed a copy of the public notice as required; and all property owners within the Tradition Club were mailed a copy of the public notice. Attached is a letter from a property owner within the Tradition Club requesting this application be rejected (Attachment 3). The Tentative Tract was sent out for comments to City Departments and affected public agencies on February 2, 2001 Agency comments received have been made a part of the Conditions of Approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An EA Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Assessment (EA) 96-333, has been completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with minor changes. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that based on this Addendum to the previously certified Negative Declaration, no further L] in. environmental review is deemed necessary, pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15162. The findings necessary to approve the Tentative Tract can be made per the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, and Zoning Code as noted in the attached resolution. There are no issues. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council certification of Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333 for Tentative Tract 30056; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 30056 subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Tentative Tract Map 30056 3. Letter(s) received Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner Submitted by: C Christine di lorio Planning Manager 00 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-333 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30056 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-333 APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of February , 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, and continued said Public Hearing to the 27th day of March to consider an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333 for Tentative Tract Map 30056; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164; and, WHEREAS, the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent EA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: (1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or (3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. WHEREAS, on April 1, 1997, the La Quinta City Council certified the EA for Tract 28867 (Resolution 97-26) encompassing 148.64 acres, which allowed for 241 single family residential houses and golf course use. WHEREAS, the Revised Project involves six additional residential units of which the total allowed units of 595 in this Low Density Residential Zone for the Project area is not exceeded by this Revised Project. WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Addendum: U A A:\TT30056\PC RESO EA 96-333.wpd "'' J Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 96-333 March 27, 2001 1 . The proposed Tentative Tract will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards. The project does not have the potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory, as extensive archaeological investigations of the site have been conducted as part of the project to implement appropriate mitigation alternatives. 2. The proposed Tentative Tract will not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project is undertaken pursuant to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified. 3. The proposed Tentative Tract will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates no more single family residences at a than those already assessed under ultimate development in this Low Density Residential Zone, and previously addressed in the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333 in that the changes proposed to the project are a minor nature and do not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166 and there are no new circumstances which would require the preparation of a subsequent EA and there is no new information or change in circumstances which would require the preparation of a subsequent EA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 271h day of March, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: fiNr"*j A:\TT30056\PC RESO EA 96-333.wpd 05 J Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 96-333 March 27, 2001 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 06 A:\TT30056\PC RESO EA 96-333.wpd ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-333 FOR TRADITION CLUB CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. (CEQA GUIDELINE 15164) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30056 A:\TT30056\EA Addendum 1.96-333.wpd 1. r 3- The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment 96-333 that the City prepared and certified in 1997 for Tract 28867. The City Council certified the EA on April 1, 1997, under Resolution No. 97-26. The purpose of this Addendum is to document certain changes to the project which will be implemented through the following land use approvals: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3005E This is referred to as "the Revised Project." The Revised Project involves only 5.39 acres of the overall 141.64 acres within the project area. The 5.39 acres are located at the south terminus of Washington Street within the Tradition Club taking access from Del Gato Drive. The 5.39 acres border existing residential development and open space. The City has determined that the proposed residential development of this 5.39 acre site will be consistent with the density and character of the adjacent residential development, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan and Tentative Tract 28470, as amended. Tract 28867 which allowed for 241 single family residential houses and golf course use. The Revised Project involves the subdivision of seven residential lots into thirteen residential lots with Low Density Residential Zoning (LDR). Under LDR Zoning the Project could achieve 595 residential lots on 148.64 acres within the Tradition Club. With the additional six residential lots, no significant change in impacts will result in the areas of air quality, noise, population generation, use of natural and energy resources, traffic, public facility and services demand, and cumulative impacts. The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the EA and finds as follows: Aesthetics - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The previously approved residential development will be replaced. The scale, height, and visual impact of grading will all be induced within this area as compared with the original project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. No hazardous materials will be maintained within the 3.59 acre site. Public Services - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Since the number of residential units is below the total allowed units in this zoning category there will be the same demands for public services. A:\TT30056\EA Addendum 1. 96-333.wpd I2 Agriculture Resources - Not applicable. Air Quality -Impacts Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Since the number of residential units that could be achieved is below the total allowed units in this zoning category. Biological Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The Revised Project will have the same level of impacts on biology as the original project analyzed in the EA. Cultural Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Geology and Soils - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The geology and soil impacts remain unchanged. Hydrology and Water Quality - Impacts no greater than those Previously analyzed. Land Use Planning - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The Revised Project is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan, and Zoning Code. Mineral Resources- Not applicable. Noise - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Recreation - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Since the number of residential units is below the total allowed units in this zoning category the need for recreational facilities arising from the project are within the scope of what was originally analyzed. Transportation/Traffic- Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Since the total number of residential units approved for this project is below the total allowed units in this zoning category. Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Since the number of residential units is below the total allowed units in this zoning category Population and Housing Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. M l 3 A:\TT30056\EA Addendum 1. 96-333.wpd ,' .,; � J The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent EA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: (1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EA and the amended EA which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EA and Amended EA substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or (3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EA substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. a3 _y 10 A:\TT30056\EA Addendum 1. 96-333.wpd II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning X Transportatiott/Circulatio❑ NX Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics X Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation X Mandatory Findings of Significance Ill. DETERAIINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. VA I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a " potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated. "AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. �— Date Z — 7 -'f Signatur Printed N, me and Title I eslie Mourinttand Associate Planner For: City ofL tin Community Development Department Il • Pa .11, Pwm�ullY rirrvlei+ Sianinon l UNaa Siwiyif. Imps. MilyaleG ImpcY 3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING, Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X (source 11(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the X project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? . c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction'? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows'? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land'? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? X KI 94 1't X X X X X X VA E4 X I PolmaNly POImUay SiFln4cw lm iTan Sirry ., U� No I.P" MNpleO 1T cl I"", 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff! b) Exposure of people or property to water related X hazards such as flooding? . - c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water. quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved _ X oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body'! e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of X water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge X capability'! g) Altered direction or rate of glow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the projecr: a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations''? X ' b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or X cause any change in climate? X d) Create ohjectional odors? 1^ J i _ omna�lrtrtat pwc uaU pmmcaYY SiPYu.vY nunan S�rmYcw Unleu d No sw Imp>a t., \LU}asp Impel Imps 3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) 9ncreased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? )I e) Hazards or harriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X 3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest. (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X iv 1'03 . l� 0 Pamua y Lwow ..61 ly $IpIp. Si hg.. Sipufiea No Imp�n NN�uO Imgn Mgec d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal X pool) ? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans! X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X 3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Wnuld the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have till effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governatenr services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection'! X 15 V Police protection'? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? rILITIES. auld the proposal result in a need for new systerns, or bstaruial alternations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas'! Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities'? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? ESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? - pm.e ", P.I.U.Mv Sgm9aT Levi SiAiYa�l UN S.,Y Ne InIW<I MNFi1sE ITFitI ITPeI X X X X ULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical resources? I Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural value! X X X X X X X X X Restnct existing religious of sacred uses within the X potential impact area'? A r AfIU vi 0 n Polaluwy PYImuallY Apm4nm lm 1Tvl Siglu&an UNm S�pu4wl No Imps Mmro¢A Import Imps 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of other recreational facilities'? - X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cali fomia history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may he 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 analysts used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. q '-f Vtt J V TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page l INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 5 2.3 Operational Characteristics 5 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 6 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 3.1 Land Use and Planning 6 3.2 Population and Housing 9 3.3 Earth Resources 11 3.4 Water 18 3.5 Air Quality 23 3.6 Transport ation/Circulation 77 3.7 Biological Resources 30 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 33 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 34 3.10 Noise 35 3.11 Public Services 37 3.12 Utilities 39 3.13 Aesthetics 41 3.14 Cultural Resources 43 3.15 Recreation 46 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 46 5 EARLIER ANALYSES 47 .� .1 J2 19 2 INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-333 Tradition Project: Tentative Tract Map 28470 Conditional Use Permit 96-031 Change of Zone 96-081 Site Development Permit 96-599 Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001 Applicant - Tradition Club Associates, LLC 78-150 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared bv: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 //ll//v///J—Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner January 24, 1997 l� 3 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Tentative Tract Map 28470 to subdivide 746.6 acres into 241 single family lots, a golf course lot, private street lots, and 2 other lots. In addition, there is a request for a change of zone from the existing RL (Low Density Residential) to GC (Golf Course) for a portion of the proposed golf course, and a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the creation of six residential lots and golf tee boxes in the Hillside Conservation Zoning District. Finally, there is a request for approval of the architectural designs for a clubhouse, maintenance building, cart barn, and half -way house to service the golf course. The existing historic hacienda will be rehabilitated for use. as administrative and sales offices for the project. The project site is located on Avenue 52, at the southern terminus of Washington Street, in La Quinta. California. The property is the historic estate known as the Marshall Ranch. The historic property is known as the Hacienda del Gato, which is listed on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Formerly the property had been ranched with dates and citrus. Several out -buildings and a workers house are also located on the property. The Applicant proposes to develop the estate into a private country club with golf course and custom home sites, and an administrative/sales center. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the land use designations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed Tentative Tract Map, Change of Zone, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed subdivision and future development of the land. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the tentative tract map, zone change, and development applications; J .: 0 3 0 • 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project site is a portion of a 746.6 acre parcel of land. The land involved in this project has been farmed in the historic and recent past, and developed in the 1930's with a large home, workers house, and several out -buildings to service the former ranch operation. The property is located adjacent to and within the Coral Reef Mountains, located at the mouth of the La Quinta Cove area. The proposed development will be largely contained on the flatter alluvial fan area. Six residential lots are proposed at the mouth of an alluvial fan that will require approval of a Conditional Use Permit due to the slope considerations and development restrictions contained in the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. A large area of the property was subjected to mass grading in 1988, by the Coachella Valley Water District, in conjunction with the East La Quinta Flood Control Master Planned iFacilities and a previous development project that was not constructed. Thus, a large portion of the project area has been highly disturbed. The agricultural activities on the ranch ceased several years ago in anticipation of proposed development. There are only a few date and citrus trees left, except for those around the cluster of houses and out- buildings. Several eucalyptus trees line the south side of Old Avenue 52 which is located within the project site, and the original driveway leading into the hacienda. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed tract will create 241 single family custom residential lots for house construction, and for an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, maintenance building, and cart barn. A circulation system of private streets is proposed to provide access throughout the tract. The development will be a private gated community. Five retention basin are proposed for the project, which will supplement the existing stormwater retention system. The historic mansion will be rehabilitated and -used as an administrative/sales center for the country club. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed subdivision is to create 241 new single family custom residential lots within a planned private development for profit. These lots will be offered for sale by the applicant. The Applicant proposes to develop an upscale private country club development with an 18-hole golf course. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS. A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The.proposed tentative tract map and future development will require discretionary approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning 9 9 To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta. to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared. thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; To assist the preparation of an Ea should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project: To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project applications were deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended development and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared far review by the City of La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts for some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist (Earth Resources, Water. Noise. Public Services.. Utilities, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources). Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed subdivision and related development applications which will reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County. California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside Countv, on the north by Riverside County, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. • 0 Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of the Environmental Assessment 96-333, Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001; Approval of Tentative Tract Map 28470; Approval of the Final Tract Map 28470, Approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-031; Approval of Change of Zone 96-081; Approval of Site Development Permit 96-599 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS The project consists of a proposed tentative tract map, grading plan, various approvals under a Certificate of Appropriateness for the historic structures, a proposed Change of Zone. Conditional Use Permit, and a Site Development Permit. Four previous projects (San Pebbles Country Club, Heritage Club, Crystal Canyon Country Club, and The Tradition at La Quinta) proposed for the project site have been reviewed by the City in the past dozen years. All of the previous proposed projects were resort oriented developments which included a range of 330 to 890 homesites and a golf course. Most of these prior approvals and plans have expired. Environmental studies were prepared for these previous projects. The Coachella Valley Water District graded the project site for construction of retention basin facilities in 1988. In 1985 and 1997, the City approved the vacation of portions of Avenue 52 (now referred to as Old Avenue 52) in order to facilitate future development of the immediate area. A new alignment for Avenue :52 was designed, approved, and constructed by the City that is located adjacent to the northern property line of the project site. SECTION 3: ENVTRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use, subdivision design, architectural design, and historic architectural approval of. the proposed development. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental .Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastem portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The �J, 23 topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains. the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the vallev. Local Environmental.Setting The proposed project is located at the southern terminus of Washington Street, at Avenue 52, east of Avenida Bermudas. The land is partially vacant cove property that has been farmed in the past, and partially developed with a clustering of two houses and two out- buildings. The southern end of the property is dry and sparsely vegetated with some natural desert vegetation. Relic trees from the past agricultural use are located near the existing structures at the north -central portion of the property. Previous grading activity has disturbed a large portion of the property. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potential Impact Unless Mitigated. In 1992. a portion of the property was rezoned from R-1-10,000 and R-2-20,000 to R-2, and from Hillside Conservation (HQ to R-2 through realignment of the R-2 to the toe of the slope. Those areas above the toe of the slope remain HC zone. The toe of slope is determined according to the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance. In 1996, through a city-wide Zoning Ordinance Update, .the R-2 designation was reclassified as RL (Low Density Residential District), and the HC to Open Space (OS). That area included in the flood and drainage facilities on -site is designated as FP (Flood Plain District) on the City's Zoning Map, and W (Watercourse) on the General Plan. The La Quinta General Plan requires that golf courses be designated with the special golf course (GC) zoning district. The applicant has submitted a request for a Change of Zone from RL to GC Golf Course District for that portion of the proposed golf course not in the FP designated area. This application will be processed concurrently with the tentative map application. The change of zone will serve as mitigation for land use designation compliance. Adjacent land uses and their designations consist of new Avenue 52 along the northern boundary, with scattered residential north of that, cove residential to the west, vacant natural areas and flood control facilities to the south, and ranch properties and steep hillsides to the east. At the northwest corner is a City park and a fire station. The adjacent land use designations and zoning districts consist of RC (Cove Residential) to the west, OS (Open Space) to the south and southeast, RL (Low Density Residential) to the east and north. MC (Major Community Facilities) and PR (Parks and Recreation) to the northwest. These adjacent land uses and designations are compatible with the proposed land use of this project. The proposed development in the hillside alluvial fan areas is demonstrated that those areas meet certain criteria contained in the, Zoning Ordinance 141 , 24 r i, J 7 pertaining to development on slopes. Those residential lots that encroach into slopes 20& or greater will be required to have conservation easements dedicated to the City in )erpetun-v to ensure that those areas remain in open space. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over :his project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project includes development of a golf course tee box (#17), holes #2 and 18, and six residential lot sites (Lots 230 through 236) located apparently above the toe of slope. These areas are within the Hillside Conservation Zoning District. The exact line of demarcation between the RL and H-C Zoning Districts according to the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance through the preparation of a detailed slope analysis. A slope analysis for the six residential lot area that depicts the toe of the slope, and the various slope gradients within the limits of proposed grading. The slope gradient was differentiated into 0% - 10% slope, 10.0% - 12.4% slope, 12.5% - 14.9% slope, 15.0% - 17.4% slope, 17.5% - 19.9% slope, and 20% or more slope (Source: Keith International Inc.). Those areas within the 20% or greater slopes will not be permitted to be developed and, will require conservation easements dedicated to the City in order to preserve open space. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation although there are agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern portions of the City. Historically, there has been farming activity in several sections of the City, however, that has largely been replaced by resort and residential development over the past 115 years. The property involved in this project has been disturbed by farming activities since 1902, and periodic flood events. Active farming of the property ceased several years ago in. anticipation of development. There are only relic farming activities adjacent to the east of the project site. The historic ranch located adjacent to the east is not currently under cultivation. Thus, no impact on any agricultural resources or operations in the immediate area is likely to result from the proposed subdivision (La Quinta General Plan: Site Survey). J `1'71 25 s D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? No Impact. The project site will be developed with single family lots for general market sale. A private clubhouse and 271 acre I8-hole golf course will be developed, along with a clubhouse,. maintenance building, cart barn, and a half -way house. The half -way house is a structure mid -way in the golf course that will have a snack bar and restrooms. Residential land uses are located in all directions of the project site, except for the mountains adjacent to the east and southeast, and the south where there are flood control dams, retention basins, etc,.. The future development of these lots will not disrupt or divide the community. The proposed development will not affect the physical arrangement of the existing neighborhoods (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan). The project is proposed to be developed in four phases, with Phase I consisting of the golf course. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time period, the number of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18,050. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been approximately 10% in recent years. The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: Community Development Department). The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population (Source: 1990 Census). In addition to permanent residents, La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source: Community Development Department). The total housing stock as of 1996, is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 68 percent of the available. housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8.624 detached single family, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.15 (Source: Department of Finance 1996). Median home prices in La Quinta are approximateiv $112.000 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120,950), but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overview 1996 Edition). 26 • 0 Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population is 70% Caucasian. 26% Hispanic. 2% Afro-American. 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American. The 1990 Census indicates that 81% of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21% are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). Local Environntental.Setring The project site consists of a 746.6 acre parcel of largely vacant cove and hillside land. There are two existing housing units on the property. One unit is a caretakers unit scheduled for demolition, and the other is a large hacienda that will be incorporated into the project as a sales and administrative office. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact. The development planned for this project will ultimately result in the construction of 241 new custom built detached single family units. While the City's average population is 2.85 per dwelling unit, the proposed project is projected to have a lower per unit population given the fact that it will be a private country club with high -end custom home lots. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living with them. Often they will be seasonal residents, as opposed to permanent residents. Using the factor of 1.94 people per unit, the potential build -out population for the project could be 467.54 new residents in the City. Temporary construction -related jobs will be created as the new units, clubhouse and other buildings are built. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There may be new jobs created for administration.and maintenance of the country club anal golf course, managers and servers for the half -way house and clubhouse, and security personnel for the country club. The number of new jobs generated by the project is estimated by the applicant to be 80 to 90. No jobs will be lost as a result of the project as no one is currently living on the property. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive impact. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed subdivision and related development will make an impact in the surrounding area as major infrastructure could be altered or required to be extended to the project site (Source: Site Survey). This impact is not anticipated to be significant, as there is existing development to the west, north, and east of the project site with infrastructure already in place. Some of this development first appeared in the mid-1930's (Source: Draft Historic Context Statement for City of La Quinta). The immediate area around the project site has been developed to the point that AW • A Preliminary Soil Investigation was conducted on the project site, in November 1984, by Buena Engineers, Inc. The report was prepared for Tract 20328, the Sand Pebble Country Club. This report identifies three soil types on the property, light brown slightly silty fine to course sand and gravel, light brown silt and very fine sand, and brown silty fine to medium sand with some gravel. The investigation included ten borings drilled in various portions of the project site. The report states that the bearing soils showed expansion indices of zero when tested. All indications are that the soils on the site will allow for the proposed development. According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared''by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service in 1979, indicates that there are seven different types of soils present on the project site. These include: CAC - Carsitas gravely sand. RO - Rock outcrop, RU - Rubble land, MaB - Myoma fine sand, GbA - Gilman fine sandv loam. Ip - Indio fine sandy loam, and CcC - Carrizo stony sand. Each of these soil types has distinctive features and characteristics. The CdC soil is found on alluvial fans within slopes of 0 to 9 %. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard is moderate. The best uses of this soil are for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation, and homesites. The shrink -swell potential is low. Corrosion to uncoated steel is high, but low to concrete. This soil tends to cave at cutbanks. The higher taxonomic classification for this soil is mixed, hypenhermic Typic Torripsamment. The RO soil type does not include any real soil, but rather rock outcrop consisting of granite, gneiss, mica, schist, and sandstone. These rocks are typically covered with Desert Varnish. The RU is found on very old alluvial fans. Riverwash is found alongside the main drainageways among the steep slopes. Desert Varnish is commonly found on rocks in the Rubble land. The best uses consist of watershed, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Vegetation in Rubble land commonly consists of brush, creosote bush, barrel cactus, bush sunflower, ocotillo, and some clumps of annual grass. mo soil is found on level to gently sloping alluvial fans where it is merged with finer textured flood plain and basin soils. Runoff is very slow, and erosion hazard is slight. The best uses are for truck crops, citrus, grapes, alfalfa hay, homesites, and recreation. The shrink -swell potential is low. Corrosion of concrete is low. Uncoated steel will corrode easily in this soil. Cutbanks will cave in shallow excavations. The higher taxonomic classification of this soil is mixed, hypenhermic Typic Torripsamment. GbA soil is found in nearly level areas. Runoff is very slow. Erosion hazard is slight. Blowing; soil potential is moderate. Best uses are for truck crops, alfalfa hay, citrus, and grapes. The shrink -swell potential is low. Uncoated steel will easily corrode in this soil, however, concrete will not easily corrode. This soil type is subject to flooding. It is classified as coarse -loamy, mixed (calcareous) hypenhermic Typic Torrifluvent. I' 29 wV V 1 V j, U there are few vacant parcels remaining. An existing telephone company fiber optic cable line will need to be relocated from its present location along Old Ave. 52 to a location approved by the telephone company. The applicant is responsible for coordinating and paying for the relocation. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. Two existing residential units are located on the project site the hacienda and a caretakers house. The future development plan is to create 241 custom single family homesites utilizing private funds. The proposed project will result in the removal of one existing housing unit that has been used historically as housing for the ranch caretaker. The house is not currently occupied. The applicant has requested permission to demolish the structure. Demolition will be subject to approval by the City Council (Source: Site Survey; Application Materials; Historic Preservation Ordinance). 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside area on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion of the City reach 1,400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local E'nvironntental.Setring The area where the parcel is located is in a historical part of the City. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site has been farmed. The elevation of the property ranges from approximately 42 to 1,482 feet above mean sea level (Source: VTTM 28470: USGS La Quinta Quad Map). A large portion of the project site will not be developed, as it is located in the steep, rocky Coral Reef Mountains. There is an inferred earthquake fault line located approximately 1/2 mile to the south of the southern boundary of the parcel, and one 3/4 mile to the east. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. The Citv of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III with Zone 12 being the most hazardous (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan: La Quinta General Plan: La Quinta MEA). 09u (p soil is found on nearly level areas. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard is slight. Blowing soil potential is moderate. This soil is best used for farming. The shrink -swell potential is low. Uncoated steel will easily corrode, but concrete will not. It is classified as coarse -silty, mixed (calcareous) hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent. CcC soil is found on alluvial fan slopes between 2 and 9 %. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard is slight. The best uses of this soil are for watershed and wildlife habitat. The shrink -swell potential is low. Cutbanks are subject to caving. There tend to be large stones in this soil. This soil tend to flood. The classification of this soil is sandy -skeletal, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Torriorthent (Source: Soil Conservation Service 1979). In 1986, a grading plan review of Tract 20328 was performed by Leighton and Associates. The report reviewed the geotechnical aspects of proposed grading at that time. In addition, a review of the Buena Engineers soil study was also conducted, as well as additional exploratory work to further evaluate the project soils. Conclusions of the study included that the types of classifications of soils exposed at the surface had not been fully mapped in order to better correlate grading recommendations; that the depth to ground water had not been determined; that the potential seismic hazards and effects had not been discussed in the earlier report; that lots proposed along the foot of the boulder strewn mountains could be subject to rock fall in the event of severe ground shaking by an earthquake; that depending on the degree of weathering, excavation of rock could become difficult, possibly requiring blasting in some areas; that premoistening should be anticipated to require a week or more prior to grading; and that certain overexcavation requirements for two- and three-story structures were not discussed in the earlier soils report (Source: Leighton and Associates 1986: 4-5). A letter update of the geotechnical investigation was conducted for the project site by Earth Svstems Consultants, dated October 10, 1996. The letter addresses the areas previously graded by CVWD and the special attention needed to verify adequate compaction for density and moisture conditions. Proposed building pads located at the toe of the slope are discussed, including the recommended mitigation against rockfall hazard. This mitigation consists of constructing a Swale near the toe of the slope and a fence on. the house side of the swale. Site drainage is addressed in the letter with six recommendations offered: 1. Control of surface drainage is important to the successful development of the property. Surface drainage control should be provided throughout the completed project to protect the future stability of foundations and other site improvements. A positive gradient should be provided away from structures and should be directed towards an approved drainage discharge area in a nonerosive manner. Down spouts from the roof of the houses should discharge collected rainwater onto splash blocks, adjacent paved areas, or be tied into a water -tight drainage pipe. which would carry the collected water away from the houses to approved point(s) of discharge. ;. Rear and side yard surface drainage should not be allowed to be blocked From flowing to approved points of discharge by future sidewalks, patios, or landscaping. 4. Landscaping should be such that excess irrigation water is not allowed to pond on or near the structure or areas to be paved. Additionally, care should be taken so as not to over water landscaped area. Irrigation should be only sufficient to sustain plant life. 5. Failure to control excess moisture could result in settlement and soil erosion, whhich could compound the problem by rupturing water lines or other services and/or utilities, thus introducing additional moisture into the underlying soil. 6. No grading or excavating should be undertaken within the subject site without review by the geotechnical engineer (Source: Earth Systems Consultants 1996). The report concluded with the request that the project plans. be submitted to Earth Systems office for review of the geotechnical aspects to verify the recommendations contained in the Buena Engineers (1984) soils study and to provide supplemental recommendations as necessary. Another Geotechnical Update was prepared by Sladden Engineering, dated December 12, 1996. The report reviewed the rough grading plans for the proposed golf course. This review stated that the previous geotechnical reports contained useful information concerting site soil conditions and that the recommendations remain valid for the design and construction of the project. Clarification of previous recommendations was offered. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There is an inferred fault line located as close as 1/2 mile south of the project site. This fault is considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. All homes developed on the proposed lots would be required to be constructed to current Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic standards in order to mitigate risk of collapse to the extent feasible (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta M -A; UBC). While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, significant geologic information and statistical analysis have been complied, analyzed, and published intensely by various avencies over the past 25 years. It has been reported that a 22% conditional probability occurrence for the 30-year period from 1994 to 2024 that a magnitude 7.5 event or 31. 1U:5 greater would occur along the Coachella Vallev segment of the San Andreas Fault. The primary risk to the project is the San Andreas Fault. The Coachella Valley Segment of the fault comprises the southern 115 km of the fault zone. This segment has the longest elapsed time of any portion of the San Andreas Fault, last experiencing an event about 1690 AD based on USGS dating of trench surveys near Indio. The San Andreas Fault zone is considered to have characteristic earthquakes that ruptures each fault segment. The Sari Andreas Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996). Fault rupture is not anticipated to occur at the project site because of the well -delineated fault lines through this region as shown on United States Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and Geology maps are not near the project site location. However, because the site is located in an area of high tectonic activity, the potential for surface rupture on undiscovered or new faults that may underlie the site can not be discounted (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:8). B. Would the project results in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The future residential development will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who could be subject to these hazards. The .Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the lots are within. Groundshaking Zone III. A Zone III is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12 which is the highest level. Any homes constructed will be required to meet current seismic standards of construction to reduce, or mitigate to the extent feasible, the risk of structural collapse:. The recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared for this project shall become, conditions of approval. The land is generally suitable for the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta MEA). The primary seismic hazard at the project site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto (Source: La Quinta MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan). C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not in an area that is anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events due to the distance from regional fault lines. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface (Source: La Quinta MEA. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan). 2U-U. _ 32 Liquefaction is not considered a potential hazard since the groundwater is believed to be deeper than 50 feet (the maximum depth that liquefaction is known to occur) (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:8). D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley, separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect this project in the event of a levee failure or seiche because the lake is on the other side of the Coral Reef Mountains (Source: La Quinta MEA, La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map). E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? Potential Impact Unless Mitigated. The terrain within and surrounding the project site is that gently sloping alluvial plain abutting steep rocky hillsides. The parcel is adjacent to the Coral Reef Mountains, thus, there is a potential danger from landslides and rockfall at those areas adjacent to the toe of the slope. No mudflows are anticipated for this project, as the adjacent hills and mountains are formed of rocky granitic material. The general area of the project site is protected from flood waters by earthen training dikes and retention basins that are located at the southern boundary of the project, and existing retention basins and drainage channels within the project site. Additional on -site retention basins are proposdd for the project site that will be incorporated into the 18-hole gold course features (Source: La Quinta MEA, La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map; TT 28470). The Earth System Consultants (1996) geotechnical report update prepared for the project states that there is a potential for rockfall hazard at the toe of the existing rock slopes. The Sladden Geotechnical Update report also stated that the potential for rockfall affecting the building pads along the toe of steep natural rock slopes should be acknowledged. The potential rockfall hazard appears to be limited to several building pads along the south and east edge of the site. The drainage swales indicated along the toe of the native rock slopes as indicated on the rough grading plans appears to approximately address rockfall hazards at this time. The rockfall hazard potential should be evaluated after rough grading and lot specific mitigation measures should be incorporated into individual fine grading plans and building layout determination. F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 33 Less Than significant Impact. The soils on the project site and geotechnical studies done in the vicinity of the project site show that the area is underlain by alluvial deposits of Pleistocene age. The soils on the site consists of Carrizo Carsitas sand in the alluvial fan, Mvoma Fine Sand and Gilman Loam abutting Avenue 52, and Granite and Metamorphic Rock in the Coral Reef Mountains. Carsitas soils are generally used for citrus and grape Crowing, agricultural uses, wildlife habitat, recreational uses, and watershed areas. Carsitas and Gilman soils are permeable. Myoma soils are generally used for crops and homesites, and are excessively drained and include rapidly permeable soil. The MaD soil type is found on 5 to 15% slopes in alluvial fans. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. The hazard of blow sand is high. This soil type is acceptable for homesites, recreation, and agriculture. The taxonomic class for this soil is mixed hyperthermic Typic Torrispaments. The MaD type is calcareous (Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area; EA 92-240). Approximately 1,888,730 cubic yards of mass grading involving balanced cut and fill is projected for the project (Sources: TTM 28470 Grading Plan). Compliance with the recommendations of the grading plans and geotechnical studies for the project will ensure structural integrity of development on the site. Such compliance will be a condition of approval for the project. Monitoring of compliance will be provided by the City's Public Works Department staff. On December 17, 1996, the La Quinta City Council approved the issuance of an at -risk grading permit for the proposed golf course with the condition that the applicant post a bond equal to one-half the total cost of the grading in case the project is not approved or is modified at the public hearing so that restoration of the property can be performed. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land?. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in an area designated for subsidence hazards. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: La Quinta MEA). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the parcels have a low potential for expansion, thus future construction is not expected to be subject to problems from soil expansion. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits (Sources: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area). 34 0 • 1. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Coral Reef Mountains represent a unique geologic Feature in the La Quinta area. This unique feature is located within the project site boundaries and could be affected by the proposed project. The proposed golf tee area that is elevated into the mountain and the six proposed homesites that at the southern high cove area of the project may require grading measures that will cut into the mountain. A geotechnical report prepared for a previous project on this project site stated that .."Depending on the degree of weathering, excavation of rock could become difficult, possibly requiring blasting in some areas (Sources: Leighton and Associates 1986:5; La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; Site Survey; TT 28470). The applicant has stated that no blasting will be utilized. No blasting would be permitted by the City for this project due to the impacts to the wildlife and associated habitat within the Coral Reef Mountains, as well as potential geologic hazards. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped 1From the underground aquifer via domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway l 11. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing (potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearbv areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet are considered excellent. 35 2,,03 Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a necessary in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir; lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated uroundwater; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. La Quinta is protected from this runoff by the existing flood control facilities located throughout the City. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams. including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction was completed in November 1986 (Source: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989:1). Local Environmental Setting The project site does not have any natural standing water. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir is located approximately two miles to the southeast, on the other side of the Coral Reef Mountain. The Whitewater River channel is located slightly over 3 miles to the north of the project site, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta Stormwater Channel is located approximately I mile to the north is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities. The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse. Watershed and Conservation Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow development in flood prone areas based upon the submittal of a drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. 36 0 0 Existing flood control facilities on the proposed project site are a part of the City-wide Stormwater Project - East La Quinta System. The facilities were designed by a previous developer's engineer, with the design reviewed by Bechtel. Construction of these facilities was completed in mid-1988, by E. L. Yeager Construction Company. The East La Quinta System intercepts and controls runoff originating in the drainage area in the foothills east and southeast of Avenida Bermudas, and from the presently developed area of the City of La Quinta south of Calle Durango. The system consists of the Upper Training Dike. Calle Tecate Detention Basin, East La Quinta Channel, Avenida Bermudas Detention Basin, the proposed) Tradition project site facilities, and a 60-inch diameter buried stormwater conduit. The detention basin on the project site has a storage volume of about 520 A.F. below El. 59, while maintaining a minimum one foot freeboard (Source: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989). A Hydrology/Hydraulic Report was prepared for the project site, in October 1996, by Keith International. Inc.. The project proposes areas north of the detention basin to provide for on site retention. Runoff from the residential, clubhouse. and golf course areas will be conveyed to depressions located within the golf course. The retention areas have been integrated into the golf course grading plan as golfing amenities. The basin sizing is based on the total run off from a 24 hour - 100 year event. Five basins are proposed with the following locations and capacities: Elasin Hole 9 Basin Capacity 1 16 7.90 acre feet 2 Driving Range 83.50 acre feet 3 4 14.50 4 2 & 3 31.30 1 41.80 (lake) The hydrology study modeled the 100-year and 10 year storm events to determine which storm will generate the greatest storm volume. The results will be utilized to determine the size of the retention basins. It was determined that historic flows are retained onsite, thus the proposed development must retain all of the flows onsite (Source: Keith International. Inc. 1996). A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. An approved drainage plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit, based upon the recommendations and results of the Drainage study prepared by Keith International, Inc.. October 1996. There will be changes in absorption rates, but not drainage patterns or surface runoff as a result of the proposed project. The absorption rate will be altered by the paving of streets, building of homes, and landscaping of yards, landscape lots, and the golf course. The. traditional historical 37 •J V {.A 1 1 .. 0 drainage pattern will be maintained as is required by the City. Retention basins and other facilities will catch and hold the surface runoff storm water on -site. The proposed Tradition project (241 lots) is significantly less dense than the former "Heritage" project (330 homes), and the even earlier project "Crystal Canyon" with 890 units. reducing the runoff rate and flood volumes to these existing structures. Since the on site development has a reduced density (compared with the original design assumptions used for the Heritage Country Club) with fewer homes and increased landscaping, peak runoff flows and flood volumes will also be reduced (Keith International, Inc. 1996). B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is partially within the AO designated flood hazard area in the northeastern portion of the project site. The AO designation is the 100 year flood plain FIRM zone in which the hazard factors have been determined. There are existing on -site flood control or drainage facilities on the property, that were constructed by the Coachella Valley Water District as part of the East La Quinta Storm Drain system. These improvements were coordinated with an earlier planned golf course development, formally known as the "Heritage Country Club". The proposed project intends to fully utilize these existing improvements and integrate them into the overall development and drainage system. The existing structures and basins will remain in place. The new design will maintain ail structure capacities and volumes. The proposed Tradition project is significantly less dense than the earlier "Heritage Country Club", reducing the runoff rate and flood volumes to these existing structures. The proposed development has submitted a drainage plan which will include 5 additional retention basins and drainage improvements onsite (Source: Keith International, Inc. 1996). C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site will be required to be directed into the five proposed retention basins and be controlled by both existing and proposed drainage facilities. There are no existing bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the project site. Five lakes are proposed for the golf course which will also function as retention areas (Source: Site Survey; Coachella Vallev Water District; TT 28470). D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no bodies of surface water on the subject parcel. Five man-made lakes within the golf course are proposed. Runoff water is designed to flow into these lakes. Although a substantial amount of runoff volume will come from the Coral Reef Mountains, it is not expected to significantly impact surface water. The size 2i b 38 : 0 0 of the project represents a sizable percentage of the drainage tributary area for the City (Source: Site Survey' Keith International, Inc. 1996). E. Would the project realest in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Less Than significant Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial natural bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural reservoirs are still in use, as well. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man-made stormwater channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. The future. development of the project site with the proposed land use designations will not affect, to a significant degree, any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survey; TTM 28470, La Quinta MEA). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdraw[, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? Less Than Significant Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. The proposed development of the project site will consist of single family units and the golf course. Potable water to service this development will most likely come from existing groundwater wells in the near vicinity and a new well to be located by the third green. The proposed golf course will be irrigated from existing wells on the project site. These wells were formerly used for agricultural irrigation and are in working order. The Planning Standard for residential water consumption is 315 GaVDU/Day. The day water consumption would be 241 units x 315 Gal(DU/Day = 75,915 Gallons for the single family residential use. Other uses proposed for the project include the rehabilitation of the historic mansion for use as administrative offices, the future construction of a clubhouse, maintenance building, half- wav house, and cart barn. The Coachella Valley Water District has stated that it will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the project, but will need additional facilities to provide for expansion of its domestic water system. These new facilities may include wells, reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. Water from the Coachella Canal is also available for irrigation of the golf course and green belt areas that are within Improvement District No. 1 (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Application Materials: Coachella Valley Water District). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed subdivision might have a significant effect on eroundwater wells. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant alteration to the direction of flow of the groundwater supply, however, the rate of flow may be impacted due to high demand for water. No deep cuts are proposed with this project that would reach the depth of the groundwater, other that the drilling of a new water well. The proposed well would reach a depth of potable water which would impact 39 the local groundwater rate of flow and possibly direction (Source: Tentative Tract 28470). The Coachella Valley Water District stated that local groundwater supplies may not be adequate to supply lone -term domestic or irrigation demands. Groundwater pumping will be subject to a replenishment assessment to provide a funding mechanism for importation of additional water supplies (Source: CVWD letter of Nov. 14, 1996). 11. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development of the project site will .include concrete and asphalt pavement of portions of the site, and golf course pathways. This pavement will reduce the absorption ability of the ground. Storm water runoff will be discharged into on -site basins channels, lakes, and pipes. Following a heavy rain, contaminates could be transported into the basins or into the nearby storm drains that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. However, this potential impact is anticipated to be less than significant. Golf course lake best management practices will be required to be implemented in order to minimize surface water pollution. The applicant will be required to line the golf course lakes with an impermeable product with a hard edge grouted in. 15 AIR QUALITY Regional' Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular, the Southeast. Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance .of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air at over 32 monitoring station in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but of a lesser extent than the SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM- 10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds. grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, among other causes. 40 ' •�l l 0 • Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an arid climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall. and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The station has been collecting data for ozone and particulates since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate and has been in operation since 1985. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The South Coast Air Quality Management District CEOA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the threshold for significance in single family development is at 170 units. Above 170 units may result in a significant impact to the air quality, unless mitigation is implemented. To assess the potential impacts of this project, a computerized air quality analysis was conducted by Community Development staff. The assessment indicated that the proposed project would produce temporary construction emissions during the construction of the 241 single family home sites. Emissions produced during construction would vary daily depending on the type of activity. Emissions would be generated during grading, framebuilding and other construction activities. Grading and construction would result in a less than significant air quality impact (Source: Screen.xls). The table below quantifies the emissions: Construction Emissions: Project Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO PM 10. 40.7 64.5 253.2 146.7 SEDAB Thresholds (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO PM l0 75 100 550 150 (Source: SCREEN.XLS) 41. s 11 Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term direct and indirect air pollutant emissions. Direct emissions would be generated by the use of motor vehicles and natural Pas appliances. Indirect emissions would be generated during the use of electricity. No wood burning emissions would be generated by the proposed project except for residential fireplaces. Emissions from motor vehicle operation are anticipated to result in the greatest long-term air quality impact associated with development of the proposed project. The report concludes that the significance thresholds would not be exceeded for ROG, CO, PM-10, and Nox. This impact is considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not contribute significantly to regional or local air quality impacts. The following construction emission mitigation measures will reduce Nox emissions: I. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. 2. Provide temporary traffic control during busy construction periods to improve traffic flow. 3. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours. 4 Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts. 5. Prevent construction trucks from idling longer than two minutes. 6. All construction equipment shall be maintained to prevent visible soot from reducing light transmission through the exhaust stack exit by more than 20 percent for more than 3 minutes per hour and use low -sulfur fuel as required by SCAQMD regulation. However, even with the implementation of the above measures, the construction -related Nox emissions would continue to exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions of Nox would be considered significant and unavoidable. To mitigate for the over-all air quality impact that may result for the project, the following SCAQMD mitigation measures will be required: Best available mitigtion measures for construction: 1. Low emission on -site mobile equipment (tractor, scraper, dozer, etc.) will result in an approximate 60% emission reduction efficiency. 2, Energy use - use electricity from power plants or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel powered generators. This will reduce emissions by 50 to 98%. 3. Fugitive dust from roads - Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of less than 50 daily vehicle trips to reduce fugitive dust by 90 to 99%. 0 • Best available mitigation measures for operation activities: Residential energy use: 1. Use solar or low emission water heaters for a 40% emission reduction. 2. Use central water heating systems (emission reduction not quantified) 3. Use built-in energy efficient appliances for a 10 to 20% emission reduction. 4. Building orientation should be to the north for natural cooling (efficiency not quantified) 5. Provide shade trees to reduce heat for a 55% energy reduction. 6. Use energy efficient and automated controls for air conditioners for a 30% energy reduction. 7. use double -glass paned windows for a 20% energy reduction. Clubhouse: Construction phases: 1. Implement on -site circulation plan in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing (emission reduction not quantified) Energy use: 1. use energy efficient low sodium parking lot lights for a 55% energy reduction. 2. Use lighting controls and energy efficient lighting for a 60 to 75 % energy reduction. 3. Require recycling bins in addition to trash bins and contract for recycling services. 4. Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements for a 5 to 9 % energy reduction. 5. use light colored roof materials to reflect heat. 6. use building materials that do not require use of paints and solvents for an 80 to 100% emission reduction. 7. Provide dedicated parking spaces with electrical outlets for electrical vehicles. With the implementation of the above recommended mitigation measures, the potentially significant air quality impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance (Source: SCAQJvlD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers. parks and recreation centers, medical facilities. rest homes. and other land uses that include concentration of individuals recognized as exhibiting .particular sensitivity to air pollution. The adjacent land uses consist of residential to the west and north, residential development to the northeast, and open space to the south and east. The closest schools located to the proposed project are the new Adams Elementary School located north of Calle Tampico and west of Washington Street, and the La Quinta Middle School and Truman Elementary School located east of Washington Street and north of Avenue 50. The closest existing public park is the Fritz B. Burns Park located near the northwest corner of the project. The Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "sensitive receptors." (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Site Survey). C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to result in any significant impact upon this issue area. All proposed 241 home sites will be required to meet freight and setback requirements, maintaining a low profile. Two-story units may be approved for construction. Moisture content may increase as the golf course and individual yards are planted and irrigated. Swimming pools would add to the moisture index of the area. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the future development of the parcels. There is no feasible mitigation for this issue other than to not construct the golf course or to reduce the golf course to 9-holes. The applicant is not proposing any alternative designs. for this project. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in development which may create objectionable odors, such as waste hauling or chemical products. Vehicles traveling on nearby and internal project streets generate gaseous and particular emissions that may be noticeable on the project site. However, these would be short-term odors that should dissipate quickly (Source: Site Survey). 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental.Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway I11, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation. with the late - winter. early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. There is a relatively low incidence of automobile accidents at the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 52. According to the City Engineering Department, there were 15 vehicular accidents at this intersection between 1988 and 1989 (Source: Traffic Collision Data. City of La Quinta; La Quinta General Plan). Between January 1993 and December 1994, there were six accidents. In 1995, there were two accidents. And, in 1996, there was one accident between January and March (Source: SWITRS; Public Works Department). Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Aeency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate alone Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The subject project site is located south of the southern terminus of Washington Street, east of Avenida Bermudas. Washington Street is classified as a major arterial with a 120 foot right-of-way. The intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 52 is currently controlled by 4-way stop signs. Avenida Bermudas is classified as a secondary arterial with an 80-foot right-of-way. Avenida Bermudas is located along the westem boundary of the project site. It is designated as a bikeway corridor. The La Quinta General Plan gives design standards for the various street classifications. According to the standards for major arterials, the projected buildout traffic volume for Washington Street, north of the subject property will exceed the volume range. It is projected that Washington Street will experience a daily traffic volume of 52,600 south of Avenue 5'0, at buildout, providing a Level Of Service D (LOS-D). LOS-D has unstable flow with poor progression and frequent cycle failures. This is considered the limit of acceptable delay. LOS F has oversaturation with arrival flow rates exceeding the capacity of the intersection and is considered unacceptable to most drivers. A more detailed explanation of buildout traffic conditions and levels of service is found in the La Quinta General Plan. The current average daily traffic flows for Washington Street, south of Avenue 50 are 13,697 vehicles per day and 16,354 vehicles per day south of Eisenhower Dribe. The existing traffic volume at the intersection of Avenue 52 and Washington Street is 7,982 vpd with 4,271 vpd entering or leaving Washington Street. This intersection has met warrants for a signal (Source: Public Works Department), A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Housing units for this project site are less than what was used in the "build -out" traffic model for the 1991 La Quinta General Plan. Potential development The project is incorporating mitigation improvements as identified and required by the General Plan of the project site is forecasted to generate 2�J 45 approximately 4,588 daily vehicle trips from the 241 single family lots. the 271 acre golf course. and approximately 1,000 square feet of administrative office space within the historic hacienda (Source: Trips.xls, Keith International, Inc.). Additional daily vehicle trips may be generated by the proposed buildings. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no identified hazards from design features in the existing roadways or the proposed circulation system. Automobile, motorcycle, and golf cart traffic are the only types of vehicles that typically use private residential streets, with the exception of delivery trucks. A golf cart path system will be constructed within the country club (Source: TTM 28470). C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development of the project site would not be permitted to obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. This requirement would be made a part of project conditions of approval. Review of development plans by the Eire Department did identify that a secondary access is required along Avenida Bermudas. Additional emergency accesses will also be required by the City for the project. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. Parking will be required for each custom-built housing unit as it is constructed, which will consist of a two to three car garage, and tandem parking in the driveway. On -street parking will not be available (Source: La Quinta Zoning Ordinance. La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance: Application Materials). Parking for the clubhouse, maintenance yard, and administrative offices will be required to meet the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes a total of 158 parking spaces, four of which are designated for handicapped vehicles. The Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 129 spaces for the proposed uses. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. The east side of Avenida Bermudas and the east side of Washington Street are designated bikeway corridors. It is anticipated that hazards to bicyclist and pedestrians will not be increased significantly as a result of the proposed development (Source: La Quinta General Plan). The bicycle and pedestrian corridors will be outside of the project perimeter wall, along the east side of Avenue Bermudas. There will not be any identifiable increase in hazards than currently exist. U 0 F. . Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. Bicycle racks are only required for commercial land uses. The Zoning Ordinance does not require bicycle racks for residential projects. The proposed project will be reviewed by the Sunline Transit Agency for needed' bus turnouts (Source: La Quinta Zoning Ordinance). Bicycle racks should be provided for the Clubhouse. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impacts. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is. approximately six miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately six miles north of the project site and the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; Site Survey). 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental.Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two ecosystems are found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). Local Environmental.Setting The project site is located in the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land within this ecosystem is rich in biological resources and habitat. However, the project site has been disturbed by agriculture and mass grading in the distant and recent past. The Sonoran Desert Scrub is the most typical environment found in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water uses, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and /or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The black - tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal species found in this area is the Peninsular Biehorn sheep which is found at the higher elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. The Desert Transition areas are found in the alluvial fan areas and slopes of the surrounding mountains. The transition is gradual and involves an intermingling of vegetation types typically found in the Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland near the top of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plant species in the desert transition zone benefit from slightly higher rainfall. Where creosote bush and bur -sage dominated in the desert scrub areas, cacti become more abundant and ocotillo dominate on the upper portions of alluvial fans, bajacias, and rocky mountain slopes. . The La Quinta General Plan identifies the property as being within the habitat of the Fringe -toed Lizard. In addition, there have been sightings of the endangered plant. California, ditaxis, in the general area of the project (Sources: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment identifies the project site as within the habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard, and the California ditaxis. The project site is not within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, even though a portion of the project area is within the lizard's traditional habitat. There is no required mitigation for this species for this project. The California ditaxis is considered a "Species of Special Concern" and the State of California has ranked the plant "Endangered." The property has been highly disturbed since 1902 when date trees. and later citrus trees, were planted on the property. Over the years, the agricultural use of the property expanded. In 1988, the Coachella Valley Water District constructed flood control facilities on the project site which involved mass grading. Due to the extensive and lengthy disturbance of the property, no natural undisturbed plant communities remain on the property. The Prairie Falcon has been observed in the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south of this project site. The falcon is listed as a Species of Special Concern. The California desert is thought to support the largest remaining falcon population although new sightings have not been noted in the La Quinta area in recent years (Source: EA 92-240). The Bighorn Sheep have also been sighted in the Santa Rosa Mountain Range, of which the Coral Reef Mountains are a part of. The Bureau of Land Management Santa Rosa Ed • • 0 Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan states that the largest population of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep is found in the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plan requires that the public use must be adjusted to minimize impacts on the wildlife habitat area. Summer bighorn use area& particularly those around water sources, are the most sensitive to human impacts. This project is north of the BLM habitat area, thus there are no anticipated impacts to the bighorn sheep from the proposed project. So as not to create barriers across habitat corridors for migrating species, development of this property should be limited to areas within the residentially -zoned district with no development in the Hillside Conservation designated areas. The mountainous areas should be retained as open space and either managed by the City or a non-profit organization. The hillside areas should not be fenced in order to permit access across the open space areas by native and migrating wildlife (Source: EA 92-240). g, Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California. Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). There is a wind row of several large eucalyptus trees along Old Avenue 52 that are of historic significance. Staff has required that a qualified arborist evaluate the trees for preservation and incorporation into the project. The project proposes to remove the dead trees and retain about 14 trees. C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found in or near the project site. Some of the surrounding parcels are developed with homes, a golf course, or roadways. The parcels have been disturbed by off -road vehicles and farming activities to the extent that there are no existing or relic plant communities left (Source: La Quinta MEA: Site Survey). D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no natural wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools on the project site or nearby. It is possible that during the last stand of the ancient Lake Cahuilla, the project site might have been within a marsh community along the lakeshore or may have been partially inundated by the lake. However. the lake dried approximately 500 years ago and the land has been dry since. The project site has become covered by sedentary deposits since the prehistoric lake dried (Sources: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA; Draft Historic Context Statement for City of La Quinta). E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 49 0 10 Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is surrounded by developed parcels on these sides which have effectively cut off migration corridors to and from the project site except to and from the Coral Reef Mountains. Wildlife corridors are still open in the Coral Reef Mountains which provide access to the higher mountains to the south. (Source: La Quinta MEA, Site Survey). 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies. Local Environmental.Setring There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources on or.near the project site. While the project site is undeveloped, there is no significant resource to be mined. such as rock or gravel. The project site is located within MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. The MRZ-I designation is applied to those areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral despots are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The MRZ-3 designation is for those areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The northern portion of the project is within an area of Prime Agricultural Soils (Source: La Quinta MEA, Site Survey). A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management ordinance in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel and travel to large commercial centers. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. Future development will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this proposed project include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel. timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction and operation. Title 24 requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's 50 9 0 landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: La Quinta MEA, Water Conservation Ordinance; Coachella Valley Water District). 3.9 RISK OF UPSETIHUMAN HEATH Regional AEnvironmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet present in the City of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such material out of, and around, La Quinta takes place. Local En vironmental ,Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing or industry, and there has not been any known dumping of hazardous substances on the property (Sources: Site Survey; Aerial Photos). A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk of exposure from swimming pool chemical:; and pesticides that may be used by residents of the future homes within the project. No other risks are anticipated by the land division, future custom homes, clubhouse, or other proposed structures. B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities will be confined to the project site, except for minimal off -site work -as is necessary for project roadways, curbs, and gutters. These activities will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Needed measurers to divert and control traffic shall be implemented whenever required (Source: Site Plan). Emergency accesses will be required for the project to meet the requirements of the Fire Department. - 51. 0 0 C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the proposed project beyond t!:ose normally associated with a construction project (Source: Site Plan). D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards.? No Impact. There are no identifiable health hazards on the project site. The proposed development is not expected to create any health hazards. Future development will be required to conform to zoning standards and all applicable health and safety codes. E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is on an alluvial fan with sparse natural vegetation due to disturbance from previous mass grading for the Flood control facilities on the project site. The adjacent mountains have only very sparse vegetation. The dead eucalyptus trees along Old Avenue 52 will be removed. Thus, there is a very low fire potential from brush, grass, or trees. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental.Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources within and outside the City boundaries. The major sources of noise include vehicles on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterial roadways. Local Environmental.Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise from Washington Street and Avenue 52. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. The nearest residential use is located adjacent to the east and north of the project site. The State Building Code requires that interior noise level in buildings do not exceed CNEL 45. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL 60 (Sources: Site Survey). A noise study has been prepared for this project. J� A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. An acoustical study of the project site were conducted in December, 1996, by Gordon Bricken & Associates. The reports state that noise levels are dominated by vehicular traffic on Avenue 52 to the north, and Avenida Bermudas to the west. No other significant sources of noise were noted during the site visit. The report discusses the design of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to protect the proposed homes from street noise. Mitigation includes the construction of at least a 6 foot solid wall along the perimeter of the project, and constructing to meet certain criteria to ensure an outdoor -to -indoor noise intrusion of no greater than 45 dBA. These criteria are contained in the acoustical study and shall be made part of the Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project (Source: Gordon Bricken & Associates 1996). The height of residential lot pads is subject to sound, attenuation along Avenida Bermudas. In order to ensure compliance with the recommendation of the acoustical study, the pad elevations on several lots have been reduced. There is an existing single family house located at 51-485 Calle Guatemala that abuts the project site along the northern property line. This house is constructed either on the lot line or possibly over the lot line. In order to mitigate this issue, the applicant will be required to process a lot line adjustment to provide a five-foot setback for the Calle Guatemala property. The perimeter wall which will be constructed along the entire length of the project's northern boundary would then have a five-foot "jog" in the wall at the Calle Guatemala property. The wall will not only define the project's boundaries, but will serve to mitigate sound attenuation impacts. B. 'Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Residential land uses should have a maximum exterior noise level of up to 60 CNEL. If the ambient noise level is higher than this standard, then it will serve as the standard. The existing CNEL along Washington Street, Avenue 52, and Avenida Bermudas corridors adjacent to the project site is 60+ dBA. The interior of the project site, next to Ave. Bermudas, is between 50 and 60 dBA for that area close to the Coral Reef Mountains is less than 50 dBA (Source: La Quinta MEA). The proposed development will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels are not anticipated nor permitted after construction, or during the "operation" of the development (Source: La Quinta General Plan). It is possible that blasting may be necessary to grade those areas in the higher fan and slopes to create pads sites and golf tee boxes (Leighton and Associates 1986). However, the 53 �� ! � developer has stated in a letter to the City that blasting will not be used during grading. Blasting will, be prohibited for this project. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting La w enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within City Hall. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station 932 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved (Source: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District :serve the City. There is one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school within the City. Another elementary school is under construction within the City. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but overserved in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta 54 Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in the III Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The nearest City fire station to the project site is Station 432 located at the northwest corner of the project site. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be serviced by the local schools. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of residential units, a clubhouse, and other facilities. Development of the project shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirennents (such as sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) shall be complied with (Source: Fire Department). B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Comments have been received by the Sheriffs Department for this project. There will be a cumulative impact upon police protection services by the construction of new residential units that will generate calls for various types of police services and protection. Traffic collisions, patrol requests, and calls for service will impact the Sheriff's Department. This will generate a need for additional staff in the future. C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A response was received from the Desert Sands Unified School District, dated October 24, 1996. The letter states that the proposed project will potentially result in an impact on their school system. School overcrowding is a District -wide concern for Desert Sands. The District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, 55 state. and federal budget cuts that have had a devastating impact on the financing of new schools. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued will be required of this project (Source: DSUSD letter of October 24, 1996). D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site is not served by existing, but limited infrastructure connected with the past ranching operation. The proposed project will not require new and altered services for the maintenance of roadways or other facilities, as internal streets will be private. Additional public roads at the entrances to the projects will require maintenance by the City, which may impact current staff and budget concerns. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the proposed project will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection fees charged to the applicant and contractors. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional! Environmental ,Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quints, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectricpower generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Colony Cablevision serves the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD. which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. 1� " J�i 0 E Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The project is adjacent to developed areas on the west. north, and east. The site is former farm land that has been under cultivation until recent years. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Power, sewer, and natural gas lines have been brought in to the community and are available to the project site. It is not anticipated that the project: will require a significant level of electricity or natural gas to result in the need for new systems or alterations to existing systems. The project developer will have to coordinate: with IID. CVWD, cable company, and TGC for the timely provision of utilities. A response letter from IID, dated October 28. 1996, was received by the City. The letter states that the proposed project will impact electric service to the area. The cumulative impact of projects of this size do increase the electrical demand on the IID's existing facilities at peak leading periods, and result in the need for additional generation, transmission, substation, and distribution facilities. When additional facilities are needed, projects of this magnitude directly impact power rates in the IID's service area and may result in higher electric rates in the future years (Source: IID letter dated October 28, 1996). B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration t1D communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development will require service from General Telephone Exchange (GTE) for telephone communication. The developer will be required to coordinate the installation of telephone service infrastructure with GTE. A fiber optic cable is located along Old Avenue 52. This cable will need to be relocated prior to grading in that area. Relocation is the responsibility of the applicant (Source'. Richard Tyree, GTE: Jan. 2, 1997). C. 'Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water service. It is not anticipated that the project will result in a significant adverse impact upon the water resources of CVWD, with the construction of new facilities, including wells, reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. Potable water consumption has been discussed in 57 section 3.4 of this document. A response letter from CVWD has been received that states that the district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the project. The project will be required to be annexed into improvement District No. 55 to obtain sanitation service (Source: CVWD letter dated November 14, 1996). D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection and installation of an on -site sewer system. A response from CVWD has been received. See discussion above in subsection D (Source: CVWD letter dated November 14, 1996). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is vacant farm land. The project will result in substantial construction of buildings, pavement and landscaping. Additional on - site retention facilities will be required for the development of the project. The Whitewater River Storm channel is located approximately 3 miles south of the project site. There will be no significant impacts to the channel (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta General Plan). F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require solid waste disposal services from Waste Management of the Desert, the current purveyor of solid waste collection. Solid waste may be transported to the three existing landfills in the Coachella Valley These landfills are reaching capacity and may be closed in the near future. Development must comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling policies. However. other sites or alternative types of waste disposal projects are being considered. Any on -site programs will be coordinated with Waste Management. Solid waste generation is calculated at 4.00 lbs.'per person per day (La Quinta General Plan). 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Vetdng The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. MENEEMAN ., 2 J 2 be required to avoid flat planes in order to soften the impact of grading. Grading will only be permitted within that area that was previously scarred by CVWD flood control construction activities on the alluvial fan. All areas graded on the alluvial fan are subject to restoration of existing or project -related scarring. The applicant will be conditioned to revise the slope study to include a dashed line indicating the limits of the existing scarred area. Any modifications to the alluvial fan area subject to Conditional Use Permit 96-031 will require a revision to the CUP, subject to the environmental and public hearing process. The 15 foot slope between lots 230, 231, 232, and the lower road will be required to be landscaped to soften the visual impact of the grading. C. Would the project create light or glare? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project will include exterior security and low level landscaping lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare in the City. All such lighting fixtures shall be required to comply with the Clark Sky Ordinance and other policies of the City, in order to reduce the impact. A lighting plan will be required to be submitted for review and approval for the proposed development. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Serving A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmenral.Serting The project site is located in the southern portion of the City. There are recorded archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the project site as well as sites on the project site. The project site was previously surveyed for archaeological or historical resources. with both archaeological or historical sites recorded on the property. In 1984, the first archaeological investigation took place on the project site in conjunction with a similar proposed golf course/country club project. This Phase I investigation was conducted by UCR ARU. Six archaeological sites were recorded at that time. Local Native .American consultation for these sites was included in the analysis and determination of mitigation measures to, be required for the sites. 60 Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a predominately residential zoned area in the southern portion of the City. The Cove residential area immediately to the west, allows a maximum of 17 feet for a single family residence. The proposed project site is in the RL district that allows up to 28 feet in height with the exception for houses along Ave. Bermudas which will be restricted to 17 feet height limitation. Views from the project site consists of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the south and southeast, the alluvial fan area to the southwest, and the open valley floor to the north and northeast (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). A. would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within designated viewshed No. 1, which includes both distinctive and attractive types of viewsheds. The vistas from the project site include the Coral Reef Mountains adjacent to the east and south, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west, and the valley floor to the northeast. Less than significant impacts are anticipated by this project as the majority of proposed development will be located on the gently sloping alluvial fan area (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). The applicant has submitted a viewshed study of the six residential lot area and tee boxes 917, 2, and 18, as required for the Conditional Use Permit. The six lots are proposed for an alluvial fan within the Coral Reef Mountains. Slopes vary widely within this alluvial fan. The fan was scarred by construction activities by the CVWD, in 1988, when nearby flood control facilities were constructed. There is a distinct color difference created by the scarring. The proposed six lots on this fan will in effect eliminate the scarring through proposed development and restoration of any remaining scarring. B. would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect'. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City in effect at the time of development. It is possible that the alluvial fan where six residential lots are proposed for approval under Conditional Use Permit 96-031 would have a negative impact upon the local environment as the proposed street to access these lots would result in a 10-foot scar wall in one area where the road is proposed to be constructed over an elevated ridge line. Staff has determined that there is an opportunity to realign the road off the ridge line to a lower area to prevent the scar wall and keep development out of the 20% slope areas. The realignment of this road will be a condition of approval for the Conditional Use Permit. The six proposed lots under the Conditional Use Permit also have small portions of the lots within the 20% or greater slope areas. Development is not permitted above 20% slope. However, those lots that have small areas at the rear within 20% or greater slopes will be required to have conservation easements recorded on them, with no grading permitted in these areas. The applicant will have to redesign the grading plan for this area to eliminate all grading in areas above 20% slope gradient. The grading on the six lots will 59 2.3':. 171 6 deposits, it is recommended that archaeological monitoring during the clearing and grubbing, grading and trenching of the project should be done for all on -site and project - related off -site work (Source: Wilke 1984; UCR ARU 1986). C. Would the project affect historical resources? Potential Impact Unless Mitigated. There are historical resources located and documented on the project site. The resources consist of the Hacienda Del Gato and related buildings. In addition there are fixtures related to the ranching operation of the property that are of historic age and significance. The property was purchased from the state by John and Belle Marshal in 1902. They established a date and citrus ranch and constructed a large hacienda -style home in the 1930's. The first structure on the ranch were a small adobe house, equipment barn, and later a caretakers house. The ranch is discussed in the City's Draft Historic Context Statement and documented in a focused historic investigation by Mellon and Associates, in November 1996. It has been determined that the hacienda and adjacent grounds are significant historic resources to the community and that every effort to preserve, rehabilitate and adapt the property is to be made. A Certificate of Appropriateness was applied for by the applicant to seek approval of various treatments to the hacienda, and the surrounding grounds, from the City. The proposed treatments are independent from the project in that they can stand alone even if the project is never constructed, and that they further the goal of preservation of an important historic resource. Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001 was recommended for City Council approval by the Historic Preservation Commission on January 16, 1997. (Sources: La Quinta Historical Society; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA; Mellon and Associates 1996). In December 1996, The Keith Companies documented Old Avenue 52,which had been identified by staff as a potential historic road. The Historic Preservation Commission concluded that the road was significant as a historic resource, however, due to the loss of the road's integrity, this resource does not warrant preservation or additional mitieation beyond the documentation prepared by the consultant. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic values? No Impact. There is no identifiable unique ethnic value to the proposed project site. The project site has been a ranch that was first established in 1902. However, development of the property has been anticipated and promoted since the early 1980's. The historic house and grounds will be preserved and incorporated into the proposed development. There are no unique ethnic values identified with the property, other than local historic and prehistoric significance. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known current religious uses or sacred uses on the proposed project site. The archaeological investigation for the project transmitted letters of inquiry [� Jv J. D� • 0 As mitigation for the archaeological sites for the project under review at that time, an extensive Phase II investigation was conducted in 1989, by UCR ARU, to test several of the sites and determine their perimeters and significance. Eleven human cremations were recovered from site Riv-1179, as well as numerous artifacts. The additional mitigation for this site was determined to be capping in order to preserve the remaining subsurface deposits and to memorialize the burial ground. The six sites found on the project site are connected with a prehistoric village area, located partially on the property. Over the past years there has been frequent looting of the sites and casual pothunting by people trespassing onto the property. In 1988, the Coachella Valley Water District undertook construction of a large detention basin, drainage channels, and related flood control facilities on the project site. In the Environmental Assessment prepared by CVWD, the archaeological resources were not given consideration (CVWD File No. 0121.3198). At least two of the archaeological sites were destroyed at that time by the water district's actions. There is no record of archaeological monitoring or other mitigation by CVWD at that time. Thus, two of the sites are lost. The remaining sites consist of bedrock milling stations located at the toe of the slope. These site can easily be preserved and incorporated into the project as cultural features, and thus preserved. Riv-1179 was capped by Keith Companies archaeologists Paul G. Chace. Ph.D., and Charles Reeves, J.D., in December 1996. The capping consisted of carefully placing at least three feet of clean, fine sand over the top of the designated site area. The heavy equipment did not touch the site area. The capping was photodocumented. Annual inspections of the capped site will be required by the City staff to ensure the stability and proper maintenance of the capping. The capped site will be required to have a conservation easement placed on it with the deed going to the City in perpetuity. The site will be preserved for the sensitive memorial of the human remains and for future scientific study. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. It is known that marine -associated paleontological resources are found at elevations below 42 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project site is located at elevations ranging between 42 and 1600 feet above MSL. Thus, it was determined that the project site was just outside of the area designated by the Lakebed Paleontological Determination Study. The project site will have archaeological monitoring of the earth -moving activities, which will provide for a contingency in the event that paleontological resources are uncovered as well (Source: Lakebed Paleontological Determination Study; Wilke 1994; UCR ARU 1986). B. Would the project affect archaeological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. There are numerous archaeological sites within close proximity of the proposed project. The archaeological survey conducted on the project site did locate and record six prehistoric archaeological sites. A discussion of these sites and their current status is provided above. Because of the potential for subsurface cultural ��i 61. • 0 to the local tribal councils requesting their comment of this and other issues. No responses were received. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The Citv of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The project site is former farm land with an historic house and out -buildings. There is no evidence that there have been any organized or approved recreational uses on the property. The proposed project includes an 18-hole golf course that will provide recreation to the country club members. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project will impact the existing park and recreation facilities by the construction of 241 new residential lots. Park fees in lieu of parkland dedication will be required for this project in order to mitigate this impact upon local, parks. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan states that Planning Area C, within which the project site is located, is significantly deficient in park and recreation facilities. The paying of the parkland fee will assist in acquiring the necessary funds to develop future parks and other recreation facilities in Planning Area C (Sources: Parks and Recreation Master Plan). B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project of 241 residential lots will affect existing parks and recreation facilities through added users. There is a significant deficit in existing parks in the northern area of the City. However, the Fritz B. Burns Park is located at the northwest corner of the project site. Added users would result in an increased demand upon the existing park facilities and recreational programs. Payment of the parkland fee will mitigate this impact by contributing funds toward the construction of new park facilities and added recreational programs. 63 u SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in the checklist and addendum. Some of the issue areas could have a potential significant impact if appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity. * The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECTION 5: EARL�R ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. In 1992, EA 92-240 was prepared for Tentative Tract Map 27613. The current proposed project site is the same location encompassed by Tentative Tract 27613. EA 92-240 assessed the potential impacts to the environment from the project proposed at that time. That project consisted of 399 residential units and an 18-hole golf course, and was known as The Traditions. Much of the general environmental information on resources and hazards assessed in 1992 is still valid for the current proposed project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for that assessment. Also utilized in the current analysis was the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), prepared in 1991, in conjunction with the 1992 General Plan Update and related EIR The special studies prepared for the proposed project consist of: 1, Preliminary Soil Investigation of Tract 20328, La Quinta, California. November 1984. Buena Engineers, Inc. 64 0 2. Grading Plan Review, Tract 20328, City of La Quinta, California. July 3, 1986. Leighton and Associates. 3. La Quinta Stormwater Project, Coachella Valley Water District - Design Report. April 1989. Bechtel Civil, Inc. 4. Update of Geotechnical Engineering Report. October 10, 1996. Earth Systems Consultants. 5. Hydrology/Hydraulic Report for the Tradition Golf Course Project in the City of La Quinta, Tentative Tract 27613. October 1996. Keith International, Inc. 6. An Archaeological Assessment of the Bums Ranch and Adjacent Properties, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Philip J. Wilke, Ph.D., June 1984. 7. Archaeological Investigations at La Quinta, Salton Basin, Southeastern California. Mark Q. Sutton and Philip J. Wilke, Editors. September 1986. 8. Acoustical Analysis: Tract 12480 (sic), City of La Quinta. Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 13, 1996. 9. USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Coachella Valley. 1979. l0. Marshall Ranch/Hacienda del Gato Historic Resource Evaluation. Mellon and Associates. November 1996. l 1. Environmental Documents for the La Quinta Stormwater Project (File No. 0121.3198 and 0121.3198.1), Coachella Valley Water District. February 12, 1985. 12. Historic Resource Evaluation Report, The Old Avenue 52, City of La Quinta. Paul G. Chace, The Keith Companies, December 1996. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. The archaeological issues have been thoroughly addressed in the archaeological reports for the project site. All other potential impact/issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the enviromnental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan containing these 65 0 L measures will be included as part of the Environmental Assessment and project conditions of approval. 66 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 THIRTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENITY LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 5.39 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTH TERMINUS OF WASHINGTON STREET TAKING ACCESS FROM DEL GATO DRIVE WITHIN THE TRADITION CLUB CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30056 APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 271h day of February, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing , and continued said Public Hearing to the 27`" day of March to consider the request of Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: LOTS 115-121 OF TRACT 28867; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said Tentative Tract Map 30056: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan. The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the General Plan; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element (Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract Map 30056 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent: of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment (EA) 96- 333. B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance. All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. Access for the single family lots will be provided from a street built under the tentative tract map. A:\TT30056\PC RESO TT 30056.wpd 67. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Tract Map 30056 March 27, 20011 The design of the proposed lots is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the subdivision has on -site drainage, flood water retention, and internal circulation system acceptable to the City Engineer. C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the slope and topographic relief is acceptable, and the soil type is suitable for residential development. D. The design of the lots, or type of improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish, or wildlife, or their habitats in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for EA 96-333 April 1, 1997. An Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with minor changes in the project. The Community Development Department has determined that no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated will result from this project. Therefore, no further environmental documentation is necessary. E. The design of the lot, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the Fire Marshall, Sheriff's Department, and the City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate. F. The design of the lot, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easennents acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in the proposed internal streets will be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned improvements with the tentative tract map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: U 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 30059 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 27`h day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: ,, 68 AATT30056\P1: RESO TT 30056.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Tract Map 30056 March 27, 20011 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 2 3 69 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30056 MARCH 27, 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. 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 • 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 A:\TT30056\PC.COA.TT30056wpd.wpd J i ?[ 70 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 RIGHT 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. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential: 33-foot width. B. CULS DE SAC 1) Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-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. 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. 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. 71. A:\TT30056\PC.COA.TT30056wpd.wpd 2�. 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 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. 14. 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 15. 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(S1 16. 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. 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 A:\TT30056\PC.COA.TT30056wpd.wpd A1(� 72 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 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 A: \TT30056\PC. COA.TT30056wpd. wpd 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. 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 Regulatioins)• 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 full (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. 74 A:\TT30056\PC.COA.TT30056wpd.wpd 2 �: 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 tracts and 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 32. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Tract 28470. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 33. 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 34. 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, 2 9 75 A:\TT30056\PC. COA.TT30056wpd. wpd and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 35. 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 36. 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. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential: 33-foot width measured back of curb to back of curb. Width may be reduced to 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association. B. CULS DE SAC 1) Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-foot curb radius, minimum. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 76 A:\TT30056\PC.COA.TT30056wpd.wpd 9. ; : 2 J [) 40. 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 11/8" 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. 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 44. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 45. 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. 46. 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. J A:\TT30056\PC.COA.TT30056wpd.wpd I 47. 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 48. 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 49. 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 MARSH IL 50. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. r) 78 A:\TT30056\PC. COA.TT30056wpd. wpd ATTACHMENT #1 9 ATTACHMENT #2 \ �\ LOT 106 TR 28W .., MB 276/69-78 PE=148.5 \ ,s-er LOT 105 TR 28867 YB 276/69-76 PE=154.5 55 I 10' 313IP 1 32' P.UE TAMPICO 16 52 0.5' O5' L9 N TWA STREET SECTION PWATE STREET Nu MAP / THE TRADITION CLUB TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30056 ERNE TWLYIION CUIR ASSOCUTES AND HIMPIuv REVJCIBIF MST z8-505 DID AYFNUE 52 U QU WA M CONTACT: MOD CW. (760) 54A-M55 MKLWER CHWWP COIF DEKLOPNFNI, LLC 78-505 OLD MExIR 52 A OUINTA CA CmcT MOD CHWWAN (760) 564-} FNQNEfR THE NEITH COMPANIES PNM XSM ONN, 41-865 BYM SILTS 101 PAN DESERT, CA 92211 CONTMT: NMYS S,MUE (760) 346-9 5.39 ACRES f%ImN6 INID USE ON OENSOY RE90ENML LOW MISLAY REsoE Ex mxG zaxxc RL SDFR CMCHEW VALLEY WATER ASTRET .MR: CMLNELLA VPLLEY WATER MIRItT G4S: SCNNERN FAUECRNN N TF EIECIRICIry IYPERAL IRRIG4TCN BE RICE TELETiKK1E MNER0 DUR!ONE MPASYM: CONTINENTAL TELMSION SCNOGL ®9TRn DESM SANDS UWMD SCEM DISTRICT mv�YN c MNEhSMP 1H15 IEMAIM MW CLES BF NCLUCE THE MIRE CONTICLWs bMNERSHIP OF THE LWDDMDER. CUT n 15,455 OY. HLL 19,839 CY IAPYU = 4363 CY. IIA:WS BROTHFRS RDERN' PM.E 8]9. H-1 LOTS 115 THROUGH 121 OF TRACT 28857 A5 SHOWN IN MAP 800K 278, PAGES 69 THROUGH 78, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF RryERSIDE COUNIY, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. (io SCALE YaB 20 40 0 120 h Com Pen... I 1wc 41-865 Avhd1, S,0 1m, . Cont. cA —11 Psu) J46-9eq JANUARY, 2001 (REN 2/21/01) TENTATIVE,IRACL 30056 m ATTACHMENT #3 f i n I F-y %Lpfian2I 6067 LIDO LANE • LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA TEL: (562) 439-6221 FAX: (562) 439-3271 February 22,2001 v � •_u i City of La Quinta yl Community Development Department � La Quinta Civic Center 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Chapman Golf Development LLC Tentative Tract Map 30056 Lots 115-121 of Tract 28867 Sirs, My wife, June L. Williams and the undersigned are trustees of the Pacific Heritage Trust, owner of Lot 78, Tract 28867 within the Tradition Community. I write in opposition to the application by Chapman Golf Development LLC to amend the plan of sub- division by subdividing seven parcels into thirteen residential lots. 1. We request continuance of the PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for February 27, 2001 on the grounds that not all the property owners within the Tradition Community were notified by the City of La Quinta of this application by Chapman Golf Developments LLC, which we believe to be a violation of California Department of Real Estate law. 2. Notwithstanding our request for a continuance until ALL the property owners are properly notified of this application, we vigorously oppose this application on the grounds that the Developer has from the outset sold lots and club memberships on the basis that there MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 30277. LONG BEACH. CA 90853-0277 81, would only be 290 residential lots, and consequently only 290 voting members. 3. We further oppose this application on the grounds that the Developer has chosen not to give notice of this proposed amendment to the plan of subdivision to the property owners within the Tradition Community. We contend that this proposal changes the character of the community by diminishing the value, desirability and attractiveness of the properties, and we request that the City reject this application. Yours faithfully, Lindsey F. Williams 02/23!2001 10:15 8183418123 TOM TREINEN PAGE 02 Tom Treinen 10457 Laramie Ave Chatsworth Cs 91311 Tei: (81a) 341-8123 Fax: (81 a) 34"123 Feb 23, 2001 City of La Quinta Community Development Department La Quints CA 92253 i Re: Chapman Golf Development LLC Tentative Tract Map 30056 Lots 115.121 of Tract 28867 Gentlemen, I am the owner of Lot 111, Tract 28867, address 53-840 Del Gato Dr. I am venting in opposition to the application of Chapman Golf Development LLC to amend the plan of subdivision by further subdividing seven current lots into thirteen lots. My reasons are as follows: 1. I request a continuance of the Public Hearing scheduled for February 27, 2001 on the grounds that I did not receive sufficient notice- I received the notice on Feb 22, only after I called the Community Development Dept. (Betty Sawyer) and requested a copy. According to your office the county records list the Tradition Golf Association as the registered of my lot. This in itself disturbs me because I have owned the lot for almost 2 years. 2, 1 further oppose this application because the developer sold me the lot on the premise that there would be only 290 lots and therefore only 290 memberships (1 membership per lot). I further oppose this application on the basis that the Developer chose not to present and 1ove notice to the Tradition property owners of this proposed amendment. I believe this amendment changes the character of this community of large single family homes by adding condominiums or whatever Chapman Golf Development has in mind 'This will dirninsh the value and attractiveness of the entire Tradition community, and in particular the lots such as nine that directly adjacent to my lot. For the above reasons and others that I may present at the hearing, I request that the City reject this application. TyoM�¢S �. Tied/NFN uwpv Tvrn VPnM:R1R3418123 P•02 March 6, 2001 City of La Quinta Community Development Department La Quinta Civic Center 78-745 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92.253 RE: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT LLC TENTATIVE TRACT - MAP #30056 LOTS 115-121 OF TRACT 28867 Sirs; My wife and I are owners of 3 lots in the Tradition Community; A) #86 - Masters Circle (Lot 86 Tract 28867) B) #87 - Master Circle ( Lot 87 Tract 28867) C) 52-728 Claret Cove' (Lot 13 Tract 28470-2) 'Personal Residence I am writing in opposition to the application by Chapman Golf Development LLC to change and amend this plan of subdivision by further subdividing seven lots into thirteen lots. My reasons are listed below: 1.) Not all property owners in the Tradition Community have been notified. 2.) Residents that were notified received insufficient time to properly evaluate this information. 3.) 1 do not believe the records in your office are current and up to date, according to your records the county lists the Tradition Golf Club as owner of lots that have in fact been sold to private parties. 4.) When I bought my lots the developer represented a maximum of 290 lots with a corresponding number of golf course memberships (one per lot). 5.) I further oppose based on the fact that the developer intentionally chose not to communicate to the residents of the Tradition Community its intent to change and alter the make-up of the community. I feel strongly that this proposed change of lots and golf memberships adversely alters the character, value, and desirability of the community and request that this application is rejected. Thank you. 03/27/2[4@1 13:30 G133413123 TOM TREINEN PA_,E u-, TOM TREINEN 104571ARAMIE AVE CH.;TSWORTH CA 01311 March 27.2001 City of La Quinta Community Development Department La Quinta, CA, 92253 Re: Chapman Golf Development LLC Tentative Tract Map 30056 Lots 115-121 of Tract 28867 Gentlemen, I am the owner of Lot 111, Tract 28867, address 53-840 Del Gato Dr_ I am writing to request the continuance of any approval of the proposed plan until the developer does a more thorough job of informing the homeowners of the Tradition Community of the the scope and impact of this Change in Plans. All of the homeowners will be impacted but in particular those owners of lots 105-114. I talked to the Garners, owners of lot 110 today and they did not know anything about the planned changes. I find it appalling that neither the City of La Quinta or the developer has trade an attempt the lot owners of a planned revision that could have direct and serious effect on their property. Again, I request a further continuance so that more information can he distributed to the homeowners. Thomas 1F. Treinen P. 03-27-01 13:11 RECEIVED FROM:8183418123 c�J � PH #E DATE: CASE NO. REQUEST: LOCATION STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-074, AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-098 RECOMMENDATION FOR: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 2. APPROVAL OF A PRE -ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION 2B (2-5 UNIT PER ACRE) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-4 UNITS PER ACRE) TO GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UNITS PER ACRE) 3. ZONE CHANGE FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION OF A-1-20 AND R-1-9000 TO GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND MONROE STREET. VILLAGE AT THE PALMS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-074 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 213/2-5 UNITS/ACRE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-4 DU/AC) PROPOSED CITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COUNTY ZONING: A-1-20 AND R-119,000 PROPOSED x, G:\WPDOCS\PCStfrptAnnexl l.wpd ` `� 1� CITY ZONING: GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: The subject property is currently located outside the City limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence and located at the southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street. The applicant has requested annexation into the City of La Quinta. Prior to annexation, the City requires that the General Plan designation and pre -zoning be established to City standards. Project Request The General Plan and Zoning designations proposed by the applicant are for Golf Course and Low Density Residential development. Riverside County approved Tract Map 28983 which has been developed with The Palms Golf Course and residential lots, of which some have been developed with residential units. The Palms development covers approximately 200 acres of the 280 acres of the site. The remainder 80 acres has the development potential of up to 320 residential units. The requested land use and zoning designations are compatible with the surrounding development in the area which is characterized by single family residences around golf course development. Public Notice These applications were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 6, 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 heave been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. CONCLUSION: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Pre -annexation Zone Change are consistent with General Plan goals, policies and programs for a varied housing stock. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-408. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-074, subject to the findings. 02 GAWPD0CS\PCSt6ptAnnex1 l.wpd '1 a L y Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-098, subject to the findings. Prepared and submitted by: ity Development Director u3 G\WPDOCS\PCStfrptAnnex1 l.wpd '� 7 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 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-074 AND CHANGE OF ZONE 2001-098, ESTABLISHING PRE - ANNEXATION DESIGNATIONS FOR 280 ACRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408 APPLICANT: THE VILLAGE AT THE PALMS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of March, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-408 for General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098, located at the southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows: TRACT 28983, THE PALMS GOLF COURSE PARCELS AND APN 761-720-017, 018, 019, AND 020 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 2001-408) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 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 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: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 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 2001-408. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 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 04 G:\WPDOCS\PCResEAAnnex.wpd , sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 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. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 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. 6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 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. 7. There: is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001- 408 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. M G:\W PD0CS\PCResEAAnnex.wpd 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-408 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. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-408 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERIMAN, Community Development Director City of La O.uinta, California 05 G:\WPD0CS\PC,Res EAAnnex. wpd (' 1V I Environmental Checklist Form ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408 1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-074, Change of Zone 2001-098 and annexation of 280 acres to the City of La Quinta. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: South of Airport Boulevard, North of Avenue 58, West of Monroe, and East of the City limits 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Village at the Palms 81-910 Arus Indio, CA 92201 6. General Plan Designation: County: Agriculture, 2-B (2-5 d.u./acre), LDR (0-4 d.u./acre) City Proposed: Golf Course, Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: County: A-1-20, R-1-9000 City Proposed: Golf Course, Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Pre -annexation General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for 280 acres located immediately east of the existing City limits, and ultimate annexation of the area to the City. The property is developed as golf course, a residential subdivision, and lands in agriculture. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Golf Course, Low Density Residential and Agriculture South: Agriculture, scattered residential East: Agriculture, scattered residential West: Agriculture, golf course 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Local Agency Formation Commission 07 G AW PDOCS\EAAnnexCklst. 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 & 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 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 1-1 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. [ 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 project, Printed Name Date CITY OF LA OUINTA For .08 G:\WPD0CS\EAAnnexCk1st.WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I) 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) "Neeative 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. g) 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 09 J G:\WPDOCS\EA AnnezCHSI WPD i mlYllll�® Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: 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) IL 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 non-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 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact 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 protect 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) G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD 4 X X X X X Fi M d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application materials) X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) I I I X 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) 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, p. 5-2 ff.) 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? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000) 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)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech,10/18/2000) X X X X X X G1 V G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD' . I ! I� c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM Tech, 10/19/2000) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000) 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 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) 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 FIR, page 4-30 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 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) 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) 9 M X X X 0 X X X X X X 2 G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD 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) Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: IX. 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 4-59 ff.) 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 4-59 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 4-59 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) LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) 0 X X ri R1 :4 9 X X F7 X G:\WPD0CS\EAAnnexCkIst.WPD 13 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? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5- 5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: XI. XII. 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) 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, p. 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General Plan EIR, p. 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 FIR, p. 4-157 ff.) 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? (Application Materials) 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) G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD X km X KI RN M 17 X X X X X 14 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. ) 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. ) 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: 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 EIR, p. 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, p. 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? (Application Materials) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) 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)? (Application Materials) 0 X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD 15 9 2 XVI. 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) 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. " 13 X KI X G1 ON X M 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 FIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. 16 G:\WPD0CS\EAAnnexCk1st.WPD 10 1 � !J a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside were used in reviewing the potential impacts of the proposed project. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 18, 2000. "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 19, 2000. 17 G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD �) 1 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-408 Introduction This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a proposed annexation of 280 acres into the City of La Quinta. Approximately 200 of the 280 acres proposed for annexation are under development (low density residential) or fully developed (golf course). The balance, approximately 80 acres, has been in agriculture, and does not have imminent development proposed. The annexation action, in and of itself, will not have an impact on the environment. However, the continued development of the area, particularly the 80 acres which have yet to develop, will have an impact on the environment. These impacts, however, can be reduced to a level of insignificance through the imposition of mitigation measures. The purpose of this environmental assessment, therefore, is to review and quantified all known potential impacts to the environment. Where appropriate, mitigation measures associated with the physical development of the undeveloped property have been proposed. II. c) The proposed annexation area is not listed as significant farmland, nor is it currently subject to Williamson Act contracts. The land has a County General Plan designation of Low Density Residential, and is zoned Agriculture, 1-20 acres under the County Zoning Ordinance. The annexation action will not change the current use of the land for agriculture. Its ultimate development in low density residential, however, will result in the loss of 80 acres of agricultural land. The currently undeveloped 80 acres is bordered on two sides by roadways, and adjacent to existing golf course and residential development on the other two sides. It does not represent agricultural land of high value, and its ultimate loss is not expected to be significant. III. a), c) & d) Annexation of the proposed lands will not, in and of itself, have an impact on the air quality of the area. The air quality impacts for development of the 200 acres already developed have been previously assessed, and found to be less than significant'. The 80 acres in the southeasterly quarter of the annexation area have the potential to generate up to 320 single family residential units. These units could generate up to 3,062 average daily trips2. These trips could Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98- 39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. z "Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Volume I" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Single Family detached housing (210) used. G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD generate the following emissions. The Table below also includes the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for each potential pollutant. Based on these calculations, the Table clearly demonstrates that development of the proposed 80 acres will not have a significant impact on air quality. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 158.17 6.08 32.45 0.68 0.68 Daily 150 Threshold* 550 75 100 Based on 3,062 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 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). 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 for future development: 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM10 Management Plan. At the time of development of any portion of the annexation area, the project proponent(s) 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 piece of land to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 19 G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPDIJ � 7. Watering of any portion 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 any portion 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 shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 13. Any project on the annexation area lands shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation measures. 14. Any project proposed on the annexation lands which generates more than 3,062 trips per day shall be required to prepared revised air quality calculations which provide an accurate analysis of the potential impacts caused by the project. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed annexation 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. IV. a) The potential impacts to biological resources have been previously analysed for 200 of the 280 acres proposed for annexation3. Impacts on this acreage were found to be less than significant. Biological resource analysis has not been 3 Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. 20 G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD 2 r? performed for the 80 acres at the southeasterly portion of the annexation area. However, the land has been in agriculture, and as such does not represent a likely area of valuable habitat for native species. The land is not in an area of concern for known sensitive species. The land is outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts from either annexation or development of the 80 acres are not expected to be significant. V. a) & b) Cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject property°. The survey found that no resources occur on the site. The report further finds that it is possible that buried artifacts could be encountered during the construction process on any portion of the area. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Should any earth moving activity uncover a potential archaeological resource, all activity shall stop until such time as a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource, and recommended mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site. V. c) A paleontological resource study was performed for the 80 acres at the southeasterly portion of the annexation area, and the balance of the site has been previously assessed for paleontologic resources5. The annexation area has exhibited signs of mollusks, being within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla, but no vertebrate remains have been located. The mollusks found are abundant in this area, and do not represent a significant resource. As such, the on -site investigation and report found that the impacts on paleontologic resources are less than significant, and that no further analysis of the site is necessary. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed annexation area lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures already constructed Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, October, 2000 for the 80 acres at the southeasterly portion of the annexation area. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, October 2000. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Arad. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. 1 i J G:\WPD0CS\EAAddAnnex.WPD within the annexation area have been required to conform to Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans for any development proposed in the future on the site. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. a) iii) The annexation area is located in an area with the potential for liquefaction. The development of the residential and golf course portion of the annexation area was analysed and mitigation measures proposed at the time of development of those sites6. Site specific geotechnical analysis of these lands determined that the liquefaction hazard potential was not significant, due to the highly consolidated nature of soils on these sites. It is therefore likely that the 80 acres in the southeasterly portion of the annexation area has similar soil condition. The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Annexation effort will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on the liquefaction hazard within the annexation area. However, in order to ensure that proper mitigation measures are implemented at the time of project development, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Any new construction proposed within the annexation area shall be required to submit a site- and use -specific geotechnical analysis prior to the issuance of grading permits. Such analysis shall include recommendations for over -excavation, and other methods known to reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts on a structure. VIII. b) The annexation will not, in and of itself, have an impact on groundwater supplies. All development within the annexation area will, however, have an impact on the demand for groundwater. 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 annexation area is also served by Canal water for agricultural irrigation. The overall water usage rate on the site, once developed for residential development, may represent a positive impact, insofar as water usage may be reduced when agricultural irrigation no longer occurs on the site. Future projects will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. Future development will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures, and to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving 6 Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track 998-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. w2 CUj C;-\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex. WPD landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c)-e) The annexation will not, in and of itself, have an impact on drainage patterns in the area. Development in the future, through the construction of buildings and parking lots, will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. The project site is located in a C Flood Zone. The project will, be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the future project during a storm. The drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer at the time development is proposed, prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. XI. a) The annexation area does not occur in an area currently impacted by noise. The development of the area will result in increased noise levels, but these are not expected to be significant, given that the ambient noise level is, and will continue to be low. Development on any portion of the site will include landscaping, berms and walls which will further attenuate sound in the area. The impacts from noise are therefore not expected to be significant. XIII. a) The proposed annexation will have a direct impact on the provision of services. The project area is currently served by County Sheriff and Fire Department. The City contracts with the County for these services. The project area will generate, at buildout a population of approximately 1,053 persons. This will generate a need for one additional police officer, based on the national standard of 1 officer per thousand. This cost will be added to the City's contract for such services. A similar national standard for fire personnel can also be expected, with a corresponding additional cost to the City's contract. The project area will generate property tax from construction which currently exists, and from the buildout of the project area. These revenues will be used by the City to offset the costs of police and fire services. The project area will continue to pay the mandated school fees as development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to schools. The project area includes a golf course, which provides residents with recreational amenities. The residents will also have access to existing and future City parks and other municipal facilities. The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax from these residents' disposable income, will generate revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of `' 3 G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD 1v municipal services. Builders within the project area will be required to participate in the C;ity's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvements. Annexation is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XV. a) 200 of the proposed 280 acres proposed for annexation have been previously reviewed for traffic impacts, which were sound to be less than significant'. The proposed land use designations are consistent with those currently in place under the County's jurisdiction, and would therefore have been analysed as part of the County General Plan EIR. Since development in the future may vary from the anticipated 320 residential units discussed, above, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented should new development be proposed on any portion of the annexation area. 1 . New development projects on any portion of the annexation area which propose a more intense land use than the Low Density "Residential designation currently proposed shall be required to submit a site -specific traffic analysis, which includes mitigation measures to maintain levels of service at standards in place at the time of development. 2. The annexation area will be added to the City's Impact Fee program. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level. XVI. a)-f) Annexation of the project area will not have a direct impact on utilities and public services. The eventual buildout of the site, however, will require service from the utility providers. The overall impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents or businesses for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required at construction of any project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 7 Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. 24 G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD ►_ 0 0 N U r M O\ O 0 0 N 0 N w 0 to as U Old a Y N W as N E o ° � z x W A U W d W M a A U m z a� U Oar. � W O 'r' UU U L � L obn m to o to ro a p m O Y O O to a Q.a aL a as a a.a: o`n Eo z W� s� � o z z ai " aL� a"i ro Ct Q U U U U U W U z F U 0 25 1L: W F Q A U � zo ¢w � W ox V U U vi R 3 U R sU. � V � O F � bn a a a RY O � � zZ Q° U L Ua c 0 z O F m o ¢ b� �l 0 0 Lt N L A G U w w y U W zQ zc QW �w a k U M. W O U U V -o d � a N > w a a E u U yro a a o �° 0b y R z u G T o L E' L F U Y 0. � •= eCa o tD on o ❑ o o aa. t on a m a Q. p a DW� b o �z " G Vai C crto per U C] c R o w o a � R to b Fc4 Y tz R zs \ \\ \� .0 u k \ / k e / \\ \/ �) } 2 )2 A § ; �( ( k� t � \ ) q � \ ILL \� k) Eu � < § \w § \ .\ / \ ƒ i 2 � \ \ \\ � \ (/ 2/ } !, »t � , \\ J3 2 ( \) \\ E *\ § \\ z § d \� CA 27 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ASSIGN PRE -ANNEXATION LAND USE DESIGNATION OF GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO APPROXIMATELY 280 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND MONROE STREET. CASE NO.:GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-408 APPLICANT: VILLAGE AT THE PALMS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of March, 2001, held duly noticed Public Hearing the Village at the Palms for review of a General Plan Amendment to assign a pre -annexation land use designation of Golf Course and Low Density Residential to approximately 280 acres located at the southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street, more particularly described as: TRACT 28983, THE PALMS GOLF COURSE PARCELS AND APN 761-720-017, 018, 019, AND 020 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 General Plan Amendment: 1. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and supports the development of a range of housing opportunities. 2. The General Plan Amendment 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. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. The General Plan designation is compatible with the parcels on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses as an extension of existing residential uses in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G =PDOCSTCResoAnnex 11 GPA.wpd '_ g V Planning Commission Resolution 2001 General Plan Amendment 2001-074 1. 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 2001- 408 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2001-074 as contained in Exhibit A and made a part hereof, 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 251h day of March, 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:\WPDOCS\PCResoAnnex11 GPA.wpd 29 r n 1V.1 CHANGE OF GENERAL PLAN THE NE 714, THE NW 714 OF THESE 714 AND THEE 112 OF THESE 714 OF SEC. 22, T. 6 S., R. 7 E., S.B.M. CITY OF LA QUINTA AVENUE 56 AVENUE 58 LEGEND L R LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 44 UNITS PER ACRE © GOLFCOURSE 61 n 2 cc) ,_ e7'7+ 8 n SCALE: 1 "=500' 30 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 ZONE CHANGE, ASSIGNING GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 280 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND MONROE STREET. CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2001-098 APPLICANT: VILLAGE AT THE PALMS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 271h day of March, 2001 held duly noticed Public Hearing for Village at the Palms for review of a Pre -Annexation Zone Change to allow the pre -zoning of approximately 280 acres, pending annexation to the City, at the southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street, more particularly described as: TRACT 28983, THE PALMS GOLF COURSE PARCELS AND APN 761-720-017, 018, 019, AND 020 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 Zone Change: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The Zone Change 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. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it supports the development of a range of housing in an integrated community. 4. The Tone Change, to be effective upon annexation of the property, supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G\WPD0CS\PCResoZCAnnex1 l.wpd 31. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Zone Change 2001-098 1. 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 2001- 408 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 2001-098 as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution effective upon annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27`h day of March, 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 0Gt\WPD0CS\PCResoZCAnnexl 1.wpd 3� CHANGE Of ZONING PLAN THE IVE 1/4, THE NW 714 OF THESE 714 AND THEE 712 OF THESE 714 OF SEC. 22, T. 6S., R.7E., S.B.M. CITY OF LA QUINTA AVENUE 56 �jIII AVENUE 58 LEGEND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY GC GOLF COURSE SCALE: 1 "=500' 3 DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March, 27, 2001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-699, PATTY BONAFEDE 43-875 GALAXY DRIVE, STARLIGHT DUNES DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Section 9.60.300 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Charter requires that new units being constructed in existing developments be "compatible" in design and appearance with those already constructed. A building permit application has been made for a 2,517 square foot single family dwelling in the Starlight Dunes development. Staff has reviewed the proposed structure and has determined the following: 1. The proposed structure is one story. The existing development contains one and two story dwellings. 2. The perimeter fencing for the project is already in place and proposed fencing on the parcel under consideration will match the existing neighborhood. 3. The proposed dwelling is similar to the existing structures in architectural materials with the exception of the window treatment. The structure under consideration proposes a fixed "fan" window over the typical aluminum framed sliding windows. 4. The colors, roof lines, lot area, and building mass and scale are compatible with existing dwellings in the neighborhood. 5. The footage for existing dwellings in the neighborhood ranges from 2,525 to 3,380 square feet. The proposed dwelling is 2,517 square feet which is within the allowable parameters for 10% deviation from existing structures. 6. The applicant will provide at least three specimen trees (minimum 24" box size and ten feet tall measured from the top of box) as was provided by the original developer. S:\b&s\Toms Template.wpd RECOMMENDATION: All required findings can be made and staff recommends approval of the Site Development. Permit with the following condition: All "fan" style window treatments shall be eliminated from the front elevation of the structure. Prepared and Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Pla Wing Manager 2S:\b&s\Toms Template.wpd DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March, 27, 2001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-700 HAMILTON - GAMBOA 48-236 VISTA DE NOPAL - LAGUNA DE LA PAZ DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Section 9.60.300 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Charter requires that new units being constructed in existing developments be "compatible" in design and appearance with those already constructed. A building permit application has been made for a 2,743 square foot single family dwelling in the Laguna de la Paz development. Staff has reviewed the proposed structure and has determined the following: 1. The proposed structure is 12-feet high and one story. The existing development contains one story dwellings. 2. The perimeter fencing for the project is already in place and proposed fencing on the parcel under consideration will match the existing neighborhood. 3. The proposed dwelling is similar to the existing structures in architectural materials and design. 4. The colors, roof lines, lot area, and building mass and scale are compatible with existing attached and detached dwellings in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed square footage will be within the range of the existing dwellings in the neighborhood. The proposed dwelling is 2,743 square feet which is within the allowable parameters for 10% deviation from existing structures. 6. The applicant will provide five specimen trees (minimum 24" box size and ten feet tall measured from the top of box) as was provided by the original developer. v �j RECOMMENDATION: All required findings can be made and staff recommends approval of the Site Development Permit. Prepared and Submitted/bp: ! ristine di lorio, Plan G:\WPDOCS\PCStfRptHam-Gamb.wpd •; u City Of La Quinta OFFICE USE ONLY Community Development Department Case No. 81- 7 � 78-495 Cagle Tampico Date Recvd.Fee: _4y_�1 5D. La Quinta, California 92253 RelatedApps.: ('760) 777-7125 FAX: (760) 777-1233 Logged in by: APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT applications are reviewed and approved at a public hearing by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.210.010, of the Zoning Code. The purpose of the review is to ensure the development and design standards for permitted uses are complied with. aCheck here if for amendment a Check here iffor time extension + + + & . . . . g. $. & 3. . . . . . . APPLICANT /V — OVl 13C1 (Print) MAILING ADDRESS i one No�'1ra41 CITY, STATE, ZIP:_IL�E�(In1 IPA L G Fax No. ° Gil � O DPROPERTY OWNER (If HMAR 2 3 W different): (Print) CITY OF LA QUINTA FINANCE DEPT MAILING ADDRESS: Phone CITY, STATE, ZIP:_ Fax No. PROJECT LOCATION: Y n i 3 r 2 PROPOSED USE AND/OR CONSTRUCTION: ) L LCI i f✓ Al\focm.408 7"� LEGAL DESCRIPTION (LOT & TRACT OR A.P.N.): 1`gININ 1IM SUBMISSION RE W RFM NM ❑ Development plans (see separate plan submittal requirements sheet). ❑ A completed Environmental Information form with required fee, unless categorically exempted by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, or determined to be previously assessed. ❑ A public hearing notification package containing Assessors map pages marking the subject property and all parcels within a 500 foot radius of the subject property; a typed list of the parcel owners within the 500 foot radius, which has been certified by a title company, architect, or engineer; and two (2) sets of typed, self-adhesive, addressed labels for the above parcel owners. ❑ Filing fee for. Site Development Permit. If filing multiple applications, the most expensive application will be charged full fee, with remaining related applications discounted 50% for each. This discount does not apply to Environmental Information form. NAME OF APPLICANT 11J ZS lease Print) S DATE 2 3 —O SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/a A a A (L IY�i ti� 3 — NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER I r� � 67 L tt{ /j� I LI ('f fi (Please Print) SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) IF NOT SAME AS APPLICANT: DATE DATE (Separate written authority by owner to submit application may be provided) I hereby acknowledge that this application will not be considered complete until I have submitted all required documentation and have been notified in writing from the Community Development Department, within thirty (30) days of submission, that.the application is complete. I hereby certify that all information contained in this and materials required by the City's application submission requirements, is, to application, including all plans the best of my knowledge, true and correct. FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION GIVEN IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BEcGRa cI GROUNDS inspections FOR tDENYING d to post required public notices.ION. I grant the City authority LICAT to enter onto the property to Al\form.408 v `� L--HIL6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 27, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-694 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: RJT HOMES, LLC (CHAD MEYER) REQUEST: REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURE PROTOTYPE PLANS FOR SIX HOUSES EACH WITH TWO FACADES AND THE GUARDHOUSE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 50 AND JEFFERSON STREET ARCHITECT: DOWNING, THORPE AND JAMES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: FORREST HAAG, ASLA SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: ACROSS AVENUE 50, VACANT SOUTH: CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB (RESIDENTIAL) EAST: ACROSS JEFFERSON STREET, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN INDIO WEST: ESTANCIAS DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL) BACKGROUND: Site Information The project site is currently vacant. The site is surrounded by single family residential development on the south and west, and Jefferson Street and 50`h Avenue on the east and north, respectively. Specific Plan 2000-048 (City Council Resolution 2000-152) The adopted Specific Plan provides the design guidelines and standards which will guide the future development of 178 single family houses utilizing detached or attached construction methods (Attachment 1). The project is designed around a series of water features, which will provide open space views to adjacent homes. StRpt PC Palmilla - 47 Greg (3/13, Ret 3/22) Nicole's Form Page 1 of 4 9 c v J Sections 2.8.1 and 2.8.3 of the Specific Plan defines the architectural and siting guidelines for the Palmilla project, and is generally summarized as follows: • The use of earth tone colors with smooth finish exterior stucco walls highlighted by stacked stone and/or cobble walls and clerestory windows offset by flat roof planes and pitched roofs. Wood, tile and wrought iron may be used as accent materials. • Perimeter fences are envisioned to be constructed primarily of masonry highlighted by stacked stone columns. • The use of multipane windows is encouraged for front elevations. The use of many different styles of windows on one building plane shall be avoided. • Front entrances shall be articulated as a focal point by using roof elements, columns, porticos, recesses or projections, windows or other architectural features. Tentative Tract Map 29585 City Council Resolution 2000-153 allows a mix of 90 single family attached residences and 72 detached single family homes on lots ranging from 8,208 square feet to 21,136 square feet. The average lot size for the attached product is 10,446 square feet and 15,534 square feet for the detached product. The attached product is located on the eastern half of the property, closest to Jefferson Street. Many of the residential units are located on common area lakes, which total 11.1 acres of the project site. Since approval by the City Council on November 21, 2000, the developer has reduced the number of residential lots to 159 from 162 (Attachment 2)• REQUEST: The residential proposal calls for building types in the desert contemporary style as follows: Mesquite Palo Verde Ironwood 0111 Plan 2 Plan 3 3,572 sq. ft. 3,978 sq. ft. 4,017 sq. ft. 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 3 car garage 3 car garage 3 car garage Note: Detached unit designs. three casitas ranging in size from .3oo sq. H. 10 oy0 sq. ft. are also being offered. These accessory units have similar architectural elements to the primary units and vary in size and placement depending on the unit type. Plan 3 offers a second level casitas. 3 0 r I StRpt PC Palmilla - 47 Greg (3/13, Ret 3/22) Nicole's Form Page 2 of 4 Arnria Palo Brea Ocotillo 3,204 sq. ft. 3,284 sq. ft. 2,894 sq. ft. 3 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 2.5 car garage 2 car garage 2 car garage Note: Paired unit designs for zero -lots. One and two-story houses are being offered for this development ranging in height from approximately 19 feet up to 24 feet. Front elevations have a varied building plane through the use of front- and side -loaded garages, location of bedrooms and projecting columns. Exterior surface textures consist of stucco and rock veneer accents (i.e., chimneys, planter walls, etc.) in earth tones. Front elevation windows are fixed pane in rectangular sizes with copper eyebrows located above. Roof slopes are 4:12 and topped with concrete tile. Flat roof areas are used sparingly in each plan type for garages and small portions of the house, usually in front entry areas. Large roof eave projections of three feet provide shading of windows in summer months; rear yard patios provide additional shade for inside living areas. Front yard landscaping consists of a combination of box -specimen trees, shrubs and decomposed granite ensuring low-water usage. Palm trees provide additional vertical elements to the plans. Front yard enhancements include decorative driveways using stone and colored concrete combinations serving front- and side -loaded garages. The proposed guardhouse on Avenue 50 complements the architectural design of the prototypical homes within the tract. The proposed roof consists of a shed or parapet design measuring 16'-8" high. Walls are stucco or precast concrete stone. Fixed pane windows and doors and glass block are proposed and the colors will complement those of the houses. Parkway landscape is designed to reflect a desertscape design of the development and primary focal points have water elements and turf to diversify the project. The applicant has made minor changes to the location of the decorative perimeter walls from your review in September 2000 to account for residential lot size and parkway width changes. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRCI The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 21, 2001, and on a 3-0 vote, recommended approval of the prototype unit plans and conceptual landscape plans, subject to the attached recommended conditions (Attachment 3). FINDINGS: The findings needed to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached recommended conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Site Development Permit 2001-694, subject to the attached findings and conditions. StRpt PC Palmilla - 47 Greg (3/13, Ret 3/22) 301 Nicole's Form Page 3 of 4 Attachments: 1 . Specific Plan Exhibit 2. Revised Tract Map 3. ALRC Draft Minutes 4. Architectural Booklet (Commission only) Submitted by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager StRpt PC Palmilla - 47 Greg (3/13, Ret 3/22) Nicole's Form Page 4 of 4 3Uy MINUTE MOTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-694 RJT HOMES, LLC MARCH 27, 2001 FINDINGS A. The applicant has provided considerable articulation on all sides of the buildings, which will create visual interest and break up the building mass. Exterior surface textures consist of stucco and rock veneer accents (e.g., chimneys, planter walls, etc.) in earth tones. A minimum of two facades is proposed for each prototype unit to further enhance the development program. The building architecture is similar to the architecture found elsewhere in the City, and consistent with the guidelines of SP 2000-048. B. The desertscape plant palette is acceptable and in compliance with the design parameters outlined in SP 2000-048. GENERAL The property owner 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 thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. 2. This site development permit shall comply with the requirements and standards of Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). This site development permit shall expire within two years of approval, unless extended pursuant to the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. LANDSCAPING 4. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit two sets of plans for approval by the Community Development Department once the applicant has obtained signatures from the CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. Plans are not approved.for construction until signed by the Community Development Department. 5. A final landscaping plan, which shows plant size, location, berming and walls shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval Cond SDP Palmilla 47 Greg T. (SS Pom,/SDP663) Planning Commission Minute Motion 2001-_ Site Development Permit 2001-694 R]T Homes, LLC March 27, 2001 prior 1.0 issuance of building permits. A minimum of ten 5-gallon shrubs are required per homesite. Compliance with the City Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance shall be included. 6. Tree caliper sizes per industry standards shall be specified. 7. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. MISCELLANEOUS Primary entrance signs shall not be internally lite nor exceed a size of 24 square feet. The final sign program shall be submitted to the Community Development for review and approval pursuant to Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code. Production houses shall be restricted to privacy wall not exceeding 6 feet high for side and rear yard areas, unless they back up to an Arterial Street. 10. The "Thematic Wall" proposed for the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street shall be revised to ensure that the 60" high columns are lowered to 42- inches for sight visibility needs if located in "triangle of visibility"; no decorative columns shall be located within the City's right-of-way. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits for the building authorized for this property, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 12. Buildings within 150 feet of an Arterial Street shall be limited to 22 feet (roof ridge line) pursuant to Table 9-2 of the Zoning Code. 13. The applicant shall comply with any applicable conditions of Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29585. FEES AND DEPOSITS 14. 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. Cond SDP Palmilla 47 Greg T. (SS Fo,,,,!SDP663) ATTACHMENTS 3ii: a! § { ) i ! § \ \ \] » > 4 i II 23l»I©f° Attachment / r - ] } \ / � ) ( \ ( !! \ )� > ;§ ATTACHMENT #2 J <s�� s 13311s. N 0 S 8 3 1 A 3 r � ------------------------------- rl 00CD e u N 7 m cz Li M 00 aY � M to ..yyyy wr�- O M it v u ZM O 1l7 O m. I� co m O N W O ^ N / �i z m p N Co ^y� .. In O ^ LOr+% 1p- O O O O m n m 8 m v°Di N � i O �Oy�1 m aO� I p" 0 0 Ln �o m N O m NN co m m e h also Ad "m I lefil I �Awb 04 I�"IMIMIMIM I 3Nn ammo O o ® M d cm N r- co �° 00 M `/ ppco "---------- co to w co _____ Attachment 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 21.2001 3. ommittee Member Reynolds asked if staff knew what the City of In io would be requiring. Staff stated that was unknown. Ms. Ma y Butler, Century Homes, stated they were coordinating their wall olors and design with the project across the street. 4. There b ing no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committ a Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-01 2recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-686, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2001-694; a request of RJT Homes, LLC for review of landscaping and architecture plans for the residential component of a 73-acre site located at the southwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated the project was impressive and he had no objections. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the drought tolerant planting is becoming a real issue and asked what type of irrigation would be used. Mr. Haag stated that had not been determined. Because of the way the plants are being put together and the limited use of turf, there will be very little spray and mostly drip. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it was an excellent plant palette which will be easier to irrigate. 5. Committee Member Reynolds asked how the homes would be marketed. Mr. Chad Meyers, RJT Homes, stated they would be built as tract homes. Committee Member Reynolds stated his concern was that the homeowner would change the plant palette. Mr. Haag stated the landscaping was under the control of the developer and not the homeowner. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds adopt Minute Motion 2001- 013 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001- 694, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. G:AWPDOCSVALRC3-21-0l .wpd 2 3(/