Loading...
2001 04 10 PCIO � Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 10, 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 2001-045 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-009 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 27, 2001 B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA . ,roe, 001 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-057 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-695 Applicant........... USA Petroleum Corporation Location............ Northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road, within Specific Plan 99-036 (La Quinta Corporate Center). Request ............. Review of use and development plans for a gasoline facility, convenience market and automated tunnel car wash. Action ............... Resolution 2001 and Resolution 2001 B. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-287 ADDENDUM, SPECIFIC PLAN 94-025 AMENDMENT #1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-047, &TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28817 Applicant........... Agiotage Limited - Mainiero, Smith and Associates Location............ Bisected by the future Jefferson Street, approximately one half mile south of Avenue 58. Request ....... 1 . Certification of an Environmental Impact Report Addendum allowing a new access road for an approved master planned residential community of 277 hours; 2. Development of a private road on a hillside slope exceeding 20 percent; 3. Amend the Specific Plan allowing a 3,000 foot long private access road along the north side of a 330.70 acre property to serve ten custom lots; and 4. A Tentative Parcel Map subdividing 330.70 acres into four parcels and other lettered street lots. Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001-, Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-068 Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. An Amendment to Section 13.20.1 15 - Amending Maps, of the Municipal Code to allow approval by the Community Development Director. Action ............... Resolution 2001- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of April 3, 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 27, 2001 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 Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of March 13, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 2, Item #2 be corrected to read "Second, how long will the temporary..."; Page 16, Item #11 "...parking lot south of the Beerhunter. Chairman Robbins asked that Page 9, Item #20 under Roll Call be amended to show that he voted in favor of the Environmental Impact. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wod.wod 1 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 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. Staff noted Condition #1 needed to be deleted. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Joseph Rounaghi, the applicant, stated he was pleased to be in La Quinta and was available for any questions. 3. There being no questions of the applicant and no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and opened to Commission discussion. 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-032 approving Village Use Permit 2001-008, as amended. a. Condition #1: deleted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. B. Environmental Assessment 2000-396 General Plan Amendment 2000- 067 Zone Change 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677; a request of Evergreen, La Quinta Limited Partnership for 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. 1 . Commissioner Abels excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and withdrew from the dias. 2. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wod.wod 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked why a specific plan was required. Commissioner Kirk asked why a specific plan was prepared for this project. Staff stated the City required specific plans for all phased commercial and in particular mixed commercial uses to analyze circulation. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to give a history of what this site was originally zoned for, what its current zoning is, and why the change. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the current designation is Office/Commercial. Commissioner Kirk noted he was asking for the zoning designation at its origin. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in 1992 General Plan Update it was redesignated as Office/Commercial. The 1985 General Plan designated it as Residential and the current designation is Office/Commercial. Commissioner Kirk asked why it was changed. Staff stated they did not remember. The reason for this applicant's requested change in zoning is because the current zoning of Office/Commercial permits up to a 10,000 square foot retail buildings. In order to go beyond the 10,000 square foot limitation they need a zone change. Commissioner Kirk stated the reason he is questioning the use of the specific plan is because specific plans change land use designations for properties and in this instance the applicant is providing new land use designations. Staff noted that this specific plan changed zoning development standards. Commissioner Kirk stated that wherever the specific plan or development project was different than our existing Zoning Code, we have gone back and conditioned the project, therefore he is questioning why even do a specific plan. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the other issue with a specific plan is that it allows staff to use the environmental review for the later site development permits that are submitted to see that they are in compliance with the specific plan. This allows a more expeditious review process. 2. Commissioner Butler asked about the permitted uses under the current zoning designations. Staff stated the office portion could go on as proposed, but the 14,490 square foot Walgreens would not be allowed. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were not approved, could they still build the office building and Walgreens. Staff stated they could G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 build the office building, but unless they reduce the square footage of the Walgreens building to less than 10,000 square feet, it would not be allowed. Commissioner Tyler asked about the information contained in the staff report regarding the traffic analysis. In one area it states that Walgreens would have more traffic than the office building, but elsewhere in the staff report it states the office buildings would generate more. It appears to contradict itself. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated the Walgreens is 14,000 square feet and the offices are 63,000 square feet and this is where the discrepancy appears. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a reason as to why the Commission did not receive the traffic analysis as it would be helpful in analyzing the projects. Is it sufficient to have the hours of operation stated in the Specific Plan only, or should they be in the conditions as well. Staff stated it could be added to the conditions if the Commission wanted them added, but the Specific Plan does govern the project. Commissioner Tyler questioned how you could enforce a condition requiring a truck to turn off its engine while unloading and he would recommend the hours of operation be added to the conditions. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the 10,000 square foot limit. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that in the Zoning Code, under Table of Uses, it breaks down retail use sizes and as an accessory use under Non-residential retail stores under 10,000 square feet of floor area per business are allowed. Under Office/ Commercial uses it is allowed as an accessory use and can be free standing. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were two businesses in the two office buildings, could they have two 20,000 square feet of commercial retail. Staff stated the Code implies it would be allowed. Commissioner Kirk stated that based on this, it is his interpretation that the Government Code that provides for specific plans does provide that the specific plan can be the zoning for the site while the statement earlier suggested it was focused on the development standards and infrastructure. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated that by law you cannot modify a land use designation with a specific plan. You have to do concurrent general plan amendments and zone changes. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that under State law the Government Code section providing for specific plans allows the specific plan to amend or serve as a zoning tool. To the extent that the specific plan overrides zoning, yes. Commissioner Kirk stated it sounds that as if there were changes perhaps in the uses one could design a project and still have a retail use here without changing the zoning designation. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wod.wod 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 5. Chairman Robbins stated the staff reports states this project is over parked. The City has set minimum standards for parking and now when they do more than what is required, we ask them to justify this. Why would we make them justify what the City has set as a minimum standard and they go beyond that? Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated that if the requirements of the parking standards in the Zoning Code provide for adequate parking for the use as they have been developed and adopted by the City, then it is staff's belief that additional open space is preferred to additional asphalt. Chairman Robbins questioned Condition #10 where it states that all structures within 150 feet of Washington Street or Avenue 50 shall not exceed 22 feet in height and staff has stated the tower is 35 feet in height. Is staff saying that the tower would not be allowed? Staff stated that was correct but staff was recommending that the entire building be reduced in height. Chairman Robbins stated the condition should be rewritten to be more clear if staff wants the building elevation to be redrawn. He questioned Condition #42 as to why staff is requesting a six foot sidewalk at this location and in a separate project they are requesting an eight foot sidewalk; is there a reason why staff is asking for different widths of the sidewalk. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that at the other location there is an existing eight foot sidewalk that has to be tied into. This project does not have an existing sidewalk therefore the six foot is being required. Chairman Robbins stated it was confusing that on the south side of Avenue 50 you have a bikepath and when you get to the side you do not. Staff stated that all the improvements north of Avenue 50 have not been completed, but at the other site they are tying into an existing eight foot sidewalk. They could do a narrowing effect at this location if that is what the Commission wanted, but it is a change in size between major intersections. Chairman Robbins stated he thought there was a master plan for Washington Street that called out a specific sidewalk size. Staff stated it did not call out the size. 6. Commissioner Tyler questioned the grading height. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they have defined their pad and parking level elevations. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated Washington Street is shown at 42.35 feet at current grade. The pad elevation for Walgreens is 45 feet. The parking lot elevation goes from 43 feet to 44 feet. Commissioner Tyler stated the question he had was in the staff report where it states the G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 5 '. i 007 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 proposal includes filling the site to raise it above the current grade of Washington Street. Staff stated the elevations of Walgreens will be at 45 feet so the building pad at Avenue 50 will be a 45 foot contour. The parking lot will be depressed and the building will be at grade. 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Greg Albert, representing Evergreen, gave a presentation of the project. He stated one of his concerns with the staff report was in land use issues. The site does allow for office commercial uses. One of the major issues is in regard to property rights. There are several conditions that deal with extensive off -site improvements to Avenue 50 as well as Washington Street. Generally, they do not take exception to the off -site improvements. The problem is that with Avenue 50 the City does not have enough right of way to allow the off -site improvements being requested. No the developer would be required to dedicate land that the developer owned to accommodate the requested off -site improvements. Under normal circumstances that is what they would do. This is not a normal circumstance. A large portion of the frontage on Avenue 50 is property that currently owned by CVWD. They have been actively engaged with CVWD to negotiate an appropriate easement that would allow the driveway access to Avenue 50 as well as all the landscaping and off -site improvements being required of them. Evergreen cannot dedicate the land because it is owned by CVWD and CVWD is not willing to grant an easement to improve the Avenue 50 frontage. He questioned how the City can require them to acquire land they do not own, at their expense, for improvements that are for the public's benefit and does not have much to do with this project. If the City were able to acquire the right of way from CVWD then they would be happy to do the improvements at their expense. Second issue is the building height. The project as designed is in full compliance with the City's Zoning Code. The Code requires for a distance from 150 feet from both Avenue 50 and Washington Street, a cap on the building height of 22 feet in height. The staff report states that a significant portion of their building exceeds the 22 feet; that is not true. They have done their calculations and 95% of their building area is contained within the 22 feet and they are set back 150 feet from Washington Street. The only issue is on Avenue 50. Per the City's Zoning Code it states architectural features not containing usable floor space are permitted to extend 15 feet above the maximum structure height. He pointed out the only G:\WPD0CS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 6 WFv'. 0 0 S Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 areas on the building that extend above the 22 feet height limitation was primarily on the four corners of the building where the architectural elements extend to 24 feet eight inches and the tower element at the corner which is 30 feet eight inches. It was their understanding this was no longer an issue. It is their belief that the signage as proposed is more appropriate than what staff is suggesting. Where staff is requesting two monument signs they are proposing one monument sign at the corner of Avenue 50 and Washington Street along with another sign at the entrance on Washington Street. In regard to wall signage, there is a condition that restricts them to 50 square feet maximum. This is not what they believe City Code permits. They have two building sites that face streets and according to there interpretation they would be allow them 100 square feet of area and they are proposing 119 square feet. They were led to believe that with a specific plan, as long as what was designed was of good architectural character and appropriate in scale, they could in fact have a greater area. Therefore, they are requesting approval of what is proposed. In regard to the sidewalk on Washington Street, there is a question as to whether or not it is to be in City's right of way or CVWD right of way. If they use the City's right of way it is a straight sidewalk. If meandering, they need CVWD right of way. In regard to sight line and whether or not the rooftop units will be seen, they have designed the building and shown in their sight line study that the roof mounted mechanical units will not be seen. A condition has been added requiring them to demonstrate that what is designed will screen the units. They do not understand why they are being required to do what they have already shown. One of the landscaping issues is changing out 50% of the palms on the west side of the building to canopy trees. The Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) approved understory trees. He does not understand what the difference is between the two, but their concern is that big bushy trees will block signs. Lastly, there is a question as to what happens with Phase II after Phase I develops in regard to soil stabilization. What they are proposing is soil cement and staff is recommending wild flowers and they think this is excessive. In regard to all these issues, they are requesting additional time to resolve these issues with staff. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to hear staff's response to some of the applicant's concerns, such as the amount of signage. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that in the Code under Building Mounted Identification Signs for Individual Commercial or Office Building it is one square foot per lineal foot of building G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 7 0011) Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 frontage along each street up to a maximum of 50 square feet aggregate. Staff was looking at it being aggregate for all street frontages or it could be aggregate for multiple signs on one elevation and those could not exceed 50 square feet and that would be each street frontage. The Planning Commission can interpret it either way. With regard to the building height and Condition #10 of the Specific Plan, staff has made the interpretation that on any Primary and Secondary Image Corridor projections are not allowed above the 22 feet. The parapet elements, in the past, have been interpreted as part of the building wall and not projections. The tower within the 22 foot height limit is considered a projection. Commissioner Kirk asked about the landscaping issues and the CVWD property rights. Staff stated it was unknown what an understory tree was. In regard to signs staff was looking at signs being directional and having them at the entrances for identification. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that the strip of land owned by CVWD was acquired by CVWD for maintaining a flood berm. In order to widen the street they need to get into that flood berm and set it back an additional 12-15 feet on Avenue 50. The City is asking them to acquire the property or the City could purchase the property through eminent domain. State Subdivision Map Act allows the City to do this at the developers expense. The issue of the sidewalk width on Washington Street is that the City likes to have a meandering, but as you approach the bridge between the developers property line and the bridge, there is 60 to 70 feet that belongs to CVWD. Behind the curb there is a six foot flat spot and then a 2:1 down slope. Staff is requesting they build the sidewalk on flat spot. What staff does not know is whether all the land on the flat spot is in public right of way. What they are trying to achieve is to connect the sidewalk to the bridge. 9. Commissioner Butler questioned the use of soil cement as it does not hold up over time and as they are adjacent to a school which lends itself to pedestrian traffic and they should have the wild flowers. In regard to the store hours being 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., he would condition the store to stay at those hours. One of the issues that bothers him is that here is no guarantee that the office buildings will be built and serve as a buffer between the residential and Walgreens. Also, the traffic study concerns are not alleviated. Mr. Albert stated that on the issue of soil cement, he defers to the landscape architect. They regularly use soil cement or decomposed granite. Wild flowers become a maintenance and G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 8 " 019 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 cost issue. In regard to the hours of operation, 10% of their stores nationwide are open 24-hours. There is no intention to have this store open 24 hours and they have no objection to a condition that limits the hours as not earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. In regard to the traffic study, they were required to produce a study at the worst possible scenario for a Neighborhood Commercial zone. That generated very high traffic generation numbers. Those numbers are not real and do not relate to the development that is planned. They are submitting a letter from their engineer representing the trip generation figures for their project. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated that since the information presented by the applicant and that given by staff are different, maybe they should continue the project to allow time to work out the issues. 11. Commissioner Butler stated that in regard to the height of the building he would support the applicant's request, but if the consensus of Commissioners was to lower the building, would it be an issue with them. Mr. Albert stated it is not a realistic option given the kind of architecture they are proposing. 12. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on this project and noted a petition that had been received in objection to the project. 13. Ms. Mary Frances Soltys, 50-400 Spyglass Hill Drive, asked the height of the sign that would say "Walgreens". Will they have pickets and what are the hours and dress code and will they have enough room on the sidewalk. She suggested fines be imposed for delivery trucks operating outside the approved hours. 14. Mr. John Squier, 78-735 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated his concern was with sight distance off the entrance off Avenue 50 due to the grade crest. When the property on the north is built will this cause a safety concern? How can Walgreens be allowed a left turn access off Avenue 50 because of this safety issue. A mitigation measure states the two office buildings will screen Walgreens from the residential and yet there is no idea when those buildings will be built; so how can these office buildings mitigate the effects of Walgreens? G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 9 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 15. Mr. Hovak Najarian, 78-395 Palm Garden Place, stated he has lived in La Quinta for 35 years and he is concerned about La Quinta's image. He has taught image design at the College of the Desert for 30 years and has given a lot of thought into how things should look. In this design he sees an architecture cliche and he does not understand why there is a need for a tower. 16. Ms. Kay Wolfe, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated this is an inappropriate project for this site. There is a location near by for commercial called the Village as well as Highway 1 1 1. She is not sure we need another pharmacy, but certainly not at this location. With the school near by it will become a skate park. It is a beautiful design, but not in the City's corridor. 17. Ms. Sandra Hawks, 78-775 Spyglass Hill Drive, president of homeowners' association for the Fairways, stated staff's recommendation is based on a flawed Environmental Assessment. It is a piece of fiction. How can you mitigate the visual blight this project will have by planting trees, parking lots with lights that glare into the neighboring homes, and noise from delivery trucks. Additional traffic issues are not mentioned. 18. Mr. Wayne Nystrom, 78-094 Calle Norte, stated he was not for or against the project, but wonders what will we end up with if this is not approved. Speaking for Duna Gardens -Duna Fairways and Villa Vista who are the closest and most impacted by this development and their only issue is the parking lot lights interfering with the darkness of their streets. If we don't accept it they could get something a lot worse. 19. Mr. Joseph Bruido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, stated that while he has been trying to upgrade his home he has seen changes that are to the detriment of La Quinta. The parking problems at Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street are great and now you want to bring commercial into the residential part of La Quinta with no commitment from Walgreens to build office buildings. 20. Ms. Carol Adams, 78-740 Spyglass Hill Drive, Vice President of Fairways HOA, stated so many of the questions raised could have been answered before this meeting. She agrees that this needs to be continued. Traffic study questions should have been answered. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 10 012 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 Take the buildings down to 22 feet, take the parapet and tower down and you have a concrete building with a mansard facade. You are sending artificial positive signs to Devco and putting off the residents of this City. 21. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 22. Commissioner Kirk asked what would happen if they did not approve this. The 10,000 square foot accessory building is thought to be a secondary use to a main use. An applicant could not build the main use without the office buildings being built. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated that in the Commercial/Office designation that was correct. It would have to be an office/retail use with an accessory use. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the office came in the accessory use could be a separate building. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees this is the best designed Walgreens. It is well designed. Mr. Albert made his issues and it is an excellent specific plan. His thoughts are that the specific plan process is being underused. He largely agrees with staff's recommendations. His disagrees with staff regarding the height issue. If they stick to the 22 feet they are going to have boxes on the Image Corridor. In terms of the comments made, he agrees with most, but does not agree that the Environmental Assessment was bad. Competition should not be a reason for denying a project. He agrees with public testimony that this is the wrong use in the wrong place. He is also concerned with continuing this as it might be sending the applicant the wrong message. If this is not the right use in the wrong location, they should not send the applicant away asking him to redesign and spending unnecessary money. He would suggest they reject the application and make a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration and allow the applicant to make any changes they believe appropriate before going to the City Council. 23. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with Commissioner Kirk. Some of the issues he agrees with and some he does not. There has been a tremendous amount of change on Highway 1 1 1 and to some these changes are difficult. The land on Washington Street is zoned Commercial. The designation of this site is to serve the surrounding residents. It is a wrong use in the wrong location. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 11 •..�.. 013 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 24. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with the other Commissioners. There is growth on Washington Street. As to this site, the applicant has a well designed building. His concern is that the office buildings will not be built. Walgreens not being built will not solve any problems because the site is zoned for Office/Commercial. Traffic is a concern no matter what is built on this site. 25. Chairman Robbins stated he too agrees with what has been stated by the other Commissioners. The building, as designed, is excellent and he agrees with the applicant on the design of the tower. In regard to the soil cement, it is probably the best answer, but it needs to be conditioned to keep it up. The issue of whether or not this is the proper place for this development is one that he is torn with. This is a far less intense project than what is on the other side of the bridge. He does believe La Quinta is in a position where it can be relatively picky as to what type of development that is allowed in the City. What could we get if this does not go on this site is unknown and could be more obtrusive. 26. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees that this project is not far from intensive commercial development over the bridge. When the underlying General Plan and zoning says this should be office and that is the expectation of those surrounding people, the City should be careful about changing the zoning. 27. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-033 denying Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-396, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. 28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-034 recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 2000-067 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 12 ' 014 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 29. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-035 recommending denial of Zone Change 2000-093. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: Commissioner None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-036 recommending denial of Site Development Permit 2000-677. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 P.M. Commissioner Abels rejoined the Commission. C. Environmental Assessment 2000-405 Specific Plan 2000-049, Parcel Map 29889 and Site Development Permit 2001-691; a request of Colin McDermott for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and design guidelines and development standards for a ±53-500 square foot commercial/office building; subdivision of a commercial parcel map to subdivide ±4.9 acres into 12 parcels; 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 to be located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler clarified that they were approving the two bank buildings and asked if the color was to be bright yellow as shown on the elevations. He agrees with staff's recommendations to the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit. He also agreed with using the existing curb cuts and again the Commission did not receive the traffic analysis. Staff stated the Commission was only approving the permanent and temporary bank buildings as part of the Site Development Permit. Staff was uncertain as to the color proposed. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 13 015 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 3. Commissioner Kirk asked about the elevator shown on the elevations as located in the southeast portion of the site plan that does not appear to be attached to any of the buildings. Staff stated it was associated with all the buildings. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the right -in access on Washington Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that for the most part if you have frontage on Washington Street and can comply with the General Plan you can have access on that frontage. The Planning Commission at this time has the right to deny that access or make them consolidate it with an adjoining property. Commissioner Kirk asked if this project was conditioned to have access to the project to the south. Staff gave a history of the accesses on Washington Street for this site. Commissioner Kirk stated that within the site plan there is a parking lot at the south border that could have an access to the development to the south. Staff stated it could be opened and there is a conditioned to connected to the project to the south and indicated where on the site plan. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City normally approves temporary structures before future permanent building. Planning Manager Christine di lorio indicated this was done for the Arts Foundation project. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was an intent to have both an acceleration and deceleration lane. Staff explained the turning plan. Commissioner Tyler asked about combining the access for both projects at the property boundary. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the City's did not force the consolidation. They are a separate project and have their access pattern in place and the City let them have their access closer to the intersection and they do comply with the General Plan. The City does try to get reciprocal access across properties to avoid forcing shoppers to go onto an Arterial street to go to an adjacent property. The long term plan for Washington Street is to have extremely heavy traffic in this area with particular congestion between Avenue 47 and Highway 111. In trying to improve traffic flow and streets, the first thing staff looks at is side friction and cutting down on the number of driveways cuts down on the side friction. 5. Commissioner Kirk stated all the exhibits show two driveways onto Washington Street. Staff stated they have conditioned the project to only one driveway. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Colin McDermott, the applicant, stated the temporary building would be in earth tones and there would be G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 14 016 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 one elevator with walkways combining the two buildings. They do have an easement and access agreement with the adjoining property owner to the south. They, however, have not given them an easement onto their property. Initially they had no interest in joining them for the access, but the opening will be closer to Caleo Bay. Their only concern was the spire and turret in their bank building. They comply with the 22 feet, but the turret goes to 24 feet and the spire goes to 24 feet six inches for a total of 18 inches and 24 inches respectively that would be encroaching. They believe the architectural elements are important to their design. With respect to the 28 feet they do not have an issue. It is the one building and they are 135 feet as opposed to 150 feet. If they have to move the building to comply they wanted to be sure the additional two feet would be allowed or if a portion of the building was within the 150 feet setback they could then raise the building up to hide any mechanical equipment. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked why it would take two years to build the permanent building. Mr. McDermott stated they are in the process of developing the permanent structure, but wanted the two years to allow for any contingencies. 8. Commissioner Abels commended the applicant on his presentation. 9. Commissioner Butler asked if there would be three rows of ATM drive throughs. Mr. McDermott stated they have found at their other banks that this is what is needed. 10. Commissioner Tyler confirmed that there would be no more than two stories. Mr. McDermott stated only two story buildings. 1 1 . Mr. McDermott questioned the height of the spire. Staff stated Condition #72 would be amended to read with the exception of the 24-foot turret. Condition #5 would be amended to read northeast building. 12. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 13. Chairman Robbins stated he liked the architecture of the buildings, but there is no indication what the signage would be. Mr. Mike Peroni stated that on Figure 20, Item I of the Specific Plan there is a notation on the location of the signs. 017 G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wod.wod 15 RTIIlIIin1III111111111AN11111711�1111 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 14. Commissioner Tyler asked where the monument sign would be located. Mr. Peroni indicated the location on the site plan. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-037, recommending Certification of an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-405, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-038, recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-049, as amended. a. Condition #5.A.: The northeast corner two story building shall not exceed 28 feet. 17. Commissioner Kirk asked that a recommendation be forwarded to the City Council regarding the potential for a joint use for an access off of Washington Street between the two property owners. 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 2001-039, recommending approval of Parcel Map 29889, as amended. a. Condition #32.A.1 . and #43.A.1 . Fix the inconsistency. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-040, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-691, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 16 ,"J'- 018 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 a. Condition #72: The height of the building shall not exceed 22 feet with the exception of the 24 foot high turret. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Environmental Assessment 96-333 and Tentative Tract Mao 30056; a request of The Keith Companies for Chapman Golf Development L.L.C. for certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333 and the subdivision of 5.39 acres into 13 parcels located at the south terminus of Washington Street within the Tradition Club taking access from Del Gato Drive. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioners discussed with staff the number of units approved and built. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Kris Schultz, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 4. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. Randall Jackson, 78-915 Zenith Way, attorney representing property owners within the Tradition, stated their concern was that proper notice was not given to the adjoining property owners and that this is a substantial change to the character of the community. None of the proposed lots are as large as those existing. Other aesthetic concerns as well as the access to these lots need additional time for them to investigate the impacts. 5. Mr. Tom Lange, Talking Rock Turn, stated his concern that the City of La Quinta is operating under a false process. By asking a developer to provide a certified list of homeowners the City is not receiving accurate information. He has no trouble getting his tax bill from the County or mailings from the HOA. The City receives a list certified by a company not even in the City and most of the G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 17 `. 019 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2001 lots in this project were still listed as belonging to the developer. He asked that the property owners have suitable time to respond to the development theme. 6. Mr. Gary Lohman, 44-836 Deep Canyon Road, Palm Desert, representing the applicant, stated they followed the procedure as required by the City for noticing. This project was continued to this meeting to allow them time to send a letter out to all the property owners inviting them to a presentation on the project. Of all those attending, there was a favorable response to the project. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a site plan of the existing approved tract map showing these lots. He understood that access to the seven lots was taken on a separate driveway off Del Gato. Mr. Schultz stated the existing seven lots are approximately 20 feet higher than the street. Each of the seven lots would have a driveway approach traversing up the slope to the upper lots. The current land plan eliminates the seven individual driveways creating one centralized access point leading into the two cul-de- sacs with a landscape plan on the west and east side of the properties. 8. Commission Kirk asked for a copy of the letter that was sent to the property owners and what addresses were used. Mr. Lohman stated the addresses were provided by the staff at the Tradition. Commissioner Kirk asked if anyone else had received this letter. Mr. Jackson stated none of the property owners he represents received the public hearing notice. In regard to the landscaping proposed by the applicant that will be on the slope replacing the driveway, their concerns are that they are going to have a 75-foot slope to get a 3:1 ratio to achieve the building pads that will be 25 foot high above Del Gato Drive. These are some of the concerns the property owners are requesting time to consider. 9. Commissioner Abels stated the Commission had a letter from the developer to the property owners. Mr. Lange stated that of those he represented, they did not receive any formal notice. The only information they have received has been by word of mouth. 10. Commissioner Tyler asked what the City was required to do in regard to the noticing. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the City's Zoning Code Section 9.200.1 10 requires the City notify property owners within 500 feet as reflected in the last G:AWPDOCSVPC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 18 � � � Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 assessment roll. The City has complied with the Zoning Code in regard to the noticing requirements. In fact the Zoning Code goes further than what is required by State law which is 300 feet and the owner went beyond the City's mailing list. 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 Kirk stated he was concerned about the notification process, but believe a good faith effort was made and there is another opportunity for the property owners to present their objections at the City Council meeting. 13. Commissioners Abels and Butler concurred. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-041, recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-042, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30056. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-408 General Plan Amendment 2001- 074 and Zone Change 2001-098; a request of Village at the Palms for 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 located at the Southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 19 021 r)J Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked if the remaining 80 acres was owned by The Palms. Staff stated no, but the property owners concur with the annexation. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers, stated he was available to answer any questions. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-043 recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-408, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-044 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-074, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-045 recommending approval of Zone Change 2001-098, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 20 022 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2001-699; a request of Patty Bonafede for Compatibility review of a single family dwelling for the property located at 43-875 Galaxy Drive within the Starlight Dunes development. 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. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk suggested this type of issue be addressed by staff or the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) in the future. 3. Commissioner Butler asked staff why the fan window treatment should be removed and how it was not compatible with the surrounding residential units. Planning Manager Christine di lorio explained the element was not on the surrounding residential homes. 4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Keith Miller, 42-503 Rancho Mirage Lane, owner of the house in question, explained the project. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if this had been reviewed by the ALRC. Staff stated no. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-006 approving Site Development Permit 2001-699, deleting the condition requiring removal of the fan light windows. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2001-700; a request of Hamilton-Gamboa for compatibility review of a single family dwelling for the property located at 48-236 Vista De Nopal, within the Laguna de la Paz development. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 21 023 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Lench, representing the applicant, explained the project. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abets/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-007 approving Site Development Permit 2001-700, as proposed by the applicant. Unanimously approved. Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 10:19 p.m. and reconveyed at 10:23 p.m C. Site Development Permit 2001-694; a request RJT Homes for review of landscaping and architectural plans for three prototype units each with two facades, a guardhouse and common parkway amenities to be located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, within the Palmilla Specific Plan. 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. Chairman Robbins asked staff to clarify that no grass was proposed for the front yards. Staff stated that was correct. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked about the roof lines with hip roofs as he did not see any variation in the roof lines. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Abets to adopt Minute Motion 2001-008 approving Site Development Permit 2001-694, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman reminded the commission of the joint meeting with the City Council. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 22 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. on March 27, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 23 J PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 10, 2001 CASE NO(S).: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-057 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-695 APPLICANT/OWNER: USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036 (LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTER) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A GASOLINE FACILITY, CONVENIENCE MARKET AND AUTOMATED TUNNEL CAR WASH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-383 FOR WHICH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 (RESOLUTION 99-110). NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PRC SECTION 21166. MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) NORTH SOUTH WEST: EAST: CR-VACANT CR - LA QUINTA AUTO MALL CR-VACANT CR- VACANT C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\perptUSAgas.wpd %J 1 0 2r The 1.44-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 111 and Dune Palms Road, and is a part of the La Quinta Corporate Centre (Specific Plan 99-036) approved in September 1999 (City Council Resolution 99-111)• This proposal is a re - filing of plans previously approved under CUP 99-046 and SDP 99-657, which expired on December 14, 2000. The applicant has submitted a request for a Site Development Permit for the architectural design and development of a fueling station with convenience market and automated tunnel car wash. The proposed architectural elements are in conformance with the plans previously approved. A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit the car wash and service station use within the CR Zoning District. The site plan (Attachment 2) depicts the convenience market building with attached automated tunnel car wash and fueling canopy. Eleven on -site parking spaces (one handicapped) are provided, with the remaining 11 required parking spaces to be provided within the La Quinta Corporate Center in the future. The proposed single - story convenience market (Attachment 3) features 2,940 s.f. of area. The building height is 23' 8" at the highest tower extension, which is above the automated car wash structure exit. The pump canopy has been designed with a mansard roof, at a total height of 20 feet. The station will be open on a 24 hours/7 day basis. The convenience market will include a Java Jons coffee concession inside the store. Drainage - The grading plan indicates that the project site will be graded to include underground fuel tanks, landscape berming, and a pad height that is 4 feet above the curb elevation (62.25) on Highway 111. The finished floor elevation of the mini mart is proposed at 66.20, and the fueling area between 63.85 to 65.23. A temporary off - site retention basin is proposed for stormwater drainage. The basin will be removed with the development of the adjacent parcel, after which stormwater will drain to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Architecture and Landscaping - The architectural elements as proposed for the project remain unchanged from that originally approved.A Mediterranean architectural style is proposed for the project, utilizing exterior plaster walls and concrete "S" the roofing. The color and materials exhibit feature a natural desert color scheme, and will be available at the meeting. The proposed building features large glass front entry doors and stationary windows on the facade, three tower elements with clerestory windows, a covered walkway around three sides of the building, and roof -mounted CAW rkg rp\Casedocs\USAGas\perptUSAgas.wpd mechanical equipment. The covered walkway is supported by stucco columns with tile -clad covered bases. Double columns are proposed on each side of the entry doors. Window frames will be dark bronze anodized aluminum, and the window glass will be clear. Exterior stucco cement plaster colors will be Adobe and Eggshell. Rafter tails will be exposed. The three tower elements consist of one located over the front entryway, a second at the southwest corner of the building, and a third at the exit for the car wash. The towers range in height from 22' to 23'8". The canopy consists of stucco columns with the tile clad base, capped with a decorative stuccoed cornice. i n - In the original application, the applicant received approval of various signs for the project, including two gasoline price/business identification signs within the landscape setback areas, and building -mounted signs for the convenience mart and car wash. No signs were approved for the fueling canopy. Staff recommends that the original approval conditions for signs remain in place. Lighting - A preliminary lighting plan was originally approved, indicating that there will be exterior pole -mounted lighting (7 single -mounted and 5 double -mounted) consists of shoe -box fixtures with 400 watt metal halide lamps and flat or recessed lenses mounted to 20-foot high poles (18-ft. Poles on 2-ft. supports). The fueling canopy lighting consists of flat lens fixtures, recessed into the canopy ceiling. A photometric study was not submitted. These requests were noticed in the Desert Sun on March 31, 2001, as well as mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. No public comments have been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting, • �• The applicant's requests were sent to responsible agencies, and any pertinent comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Findings necessary to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit can be made, and are contained in the attached Resolution. C:\Wrkg rp\Casedocs\USAGas\perptUSAgas.wpd Findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution, except as follows: Development Permi 1 . Landscape Design. As conditioned, the project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscape plan within the Highway 111 landscape setback is partially consistent with the Highway 111 Design Theme and the requirements of Specific Plan 99-036. To comply with the Highway 111 landscape guidelines, staff recommends Condition No. 49 (SDP) for the following: • show turf areas not only on the north side of the sidewalk but also on the south side; • add significant clusters of accent shrubs, medium shrubs, and signature accent plants, Ocotillo, as listed in the planting palette; • redesign the corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road to match Standard L-3 of the Highway 111 Design Theme, namely delete the annuals and replace a portion of the turf area with the shrubs; • replace the "Sonoran Palo Verde" with "palo Brea"; • replace the "Desert Carpet" with "Prostrata"; • use permion-stained (stained prior to installation and set into grade) granite boulders; • use Palm Springs Gold Fines (min. 2" thick); • remove the decomposed granite from the landscape plan. Additionally, Condition No. 48 (SDP) requires that the three California Fan Palms located near the intersection corner to be of varying heights with a minimum of 18 trunk -feet in height, to give a more natural, clustered look. 2. Site Design. As conditioned, the site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, C:\W rkg rp\Casedocs\USAGas\perptU SAgas.wpd 029 pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. As proposed, the finish pad elevation of the proposed mini mart will be 4 feet above the curb line elevation of Highway 111. The applicant had indicated during the original approval that the pad height can be reduced two feet, and as much as three feet. Staff recommends Condition No. 19 (SDP), which requires that the building pad elevation shall not exceed 63.5, and the applicant shall make a good faith effort to reduce the pad elevation to 62.5. The proposed trash enclosure does not meet the City's standard design which includes a pedestrian access gate, therefore, staff recommends Condition No. 68 (SDP) that the trash enclosure be revised to comply with the City standard. 3. Signs. As conditioned, the approved sign provisions are consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Specific Plan 99-036, except for the freestanding proposed gasoline price sign along Dune Palms Road. Staff recommends Condition No. 71 (SDP) requiring this sign to be the same design as the monument business ID/gasoline price sign along Highway 111. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-057, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ approving Site Development Permit 2001-695, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Site plan 3. Architectural Exhibits Prepared by: � < Wallace H. Nesbit, Associate Planner C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\perptUSAgas. wpd Su bmitted d by: i lorio, Plaa ning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FUELING STATION, CONVENIENCE MARKET, AND AUTOMATED TUNNEL CAR WASH WITHIN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) ZONING DISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD. CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-057 APPLICANT: USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 Uh day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of USA Petroleum Corporation, to consider allowing a fueling station with a related convenience market and automated tunnel car wash within the Regional Commercial (CR) Zoning District, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: PARCEL 4 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 99-316 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon consideration of all testimony and arguments by all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1 . Consistency with General Plan. The proposed land use is consistent with the policies, goals, and intent of the General Plan, in that such services and activities within a regional commercial district enhance the quality of life in the adjacent community and the City of La Quinta. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code and Specific Plan. The proposed fueling station, convenience market, and automated tunnel car wash land use are consistent with the intent of the Regional Commercial Zoning District, and with the La Quinta Corporate Centre Specific Plan (SP 99-036), subject to an approved conditional use permit and the attached conditions of approval. 3. Consistency with CEQA. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified by City Council Resolution 99-110 for Environmental Assessment 99-383 on September 7, 1999, for SP 99-036, of which this project is a part. No changed circumstances, or conditions, are proposed that would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. C\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\resocup057.wpd ' �! Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditional Use Permit 2001-057 - USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 4. Consistency with Surrounding Uses. The proposed fueling station, convenience market, and automated tunnel car wash land uses are consistent with the existing and planned surrounding regional commercial uses within the La Quinta Corporate Centre. The operation of these land uses will be 24-hours a day, everyday. 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 approve the above described Conditional Use Permit, 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 10`h day of April, 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 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\resocup057.wpd ."J 032 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-057 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION APRIL 10, 2001 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 Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to compliance with Sections 9.210.020 and 9.170.010 of the Zoning Code, as applicable. 3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved and contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 2001-057, except where amended by these conditions. 4. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be established within two years, as set forth in Section 9.200.080.0 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Time extensions of up to one year may be requested pursuant to Section 9.200.080.0 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 5. This Conditional Use Permit shall be used in conjunction with Site Development Permit 2001-695. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcup057.wpd ~ 033 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A FUELING STATION, CONVENIENCE MARKET, AND AUTOMATED TUNNEL CAR WASH AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD. CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-695 APPLICANT: USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 10`h day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request of USA Gasoline to consider approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a fueling station, convenience market, and automated tunnel car wash to be located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: PARCEL 4 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 99-316 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon consideration of all testimony and arguments by all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The proposed fueling station, convenience market, and automated tunnel car wash are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the use's design, low height, scale, and mass are compatible with the Regional Commercial (CR) designation of the surrounding properties, and the project is required to provide sidewalks and landscaping amenities consistent with the adopted design guidelines for Highway 111 and Specific Plan 99-036. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Regional Commercial (CR) Zoning District and Specific Plan 99-036 including, but not limited to building heights, setbacks, parking, landscape design, exterior lighting, and signs. 3. Consistency with CEQA. The Community Development Department has determined that the project has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 99-383 for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified by the City Council on September 7, C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\resosdp695.wpd ".,) n3 f Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 - USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 1999, by Resolution 99-110. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. 4. Architectural Design. As conditioned, the architectural design of the proposed project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with existing surrounding development with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The project site is within Specific Plan 99-036, and as such is subject to the architectural guidelines for the La Quinta Corporate Centre. Similarly, the project is subject to the architectural guidelines of the Highway 111 Design Theme. The proposed architectural design is consistent with these guidelines. 5. Landscape Design. As conditioned, the project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed and conditioned so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscape plan within the Highway 111 landscape setback is partially consistent with the Highway 111 Design Theme and the requirements of Specific Plan 99-036. Conditions of approval are recommended that will ensure consistency with adopted design requirements. 6. Site Design. As conditioned, the site design of the proposed project, including but not limited to project enteries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City. As proposed, the finish pad elevation of the proposed convenience mart and car wash structure will be 4 feet above the curb line elevation of Highway 111. Conditions of approval are included to require the applicant to reduce the pad elevation as much as possible. C.\W rkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\resosdp695.wpd 035 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 - USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-695 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; PASSED, Quinta City Planning following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Commission, held on the 101h day of April, 2001, by the STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 0 3 pi C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\resosdp695.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-695 USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION APRIL 10, 2001 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of an improvement or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department • Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Imperial Irrigation District • Coachella Valley Water District • 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, applicant shall submit a copy of CWQCB acknowledgment of applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. Applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved and contained in the file for Site Development Permit 2001-695, unless amended by these conditions. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd 037 37 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 4. This development shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. 5. The approved Site Development, Permit shall be established within two years, as set forth in Section 9.200.080.0 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Time extensions of up to one year may be requested pursuant to Section 9.200.080.0 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 6. This Site Development Permit shall be effective in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 2001-057. PROPERTY RIGHTS 7. The easements and other property rights necessary for the proper functioning of this portion of Specific Plan 99-036 shall be dedicated or granted prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. The dedications or grants required include: A. Highway 111 - The remainder of applicant's 70-foot half of a 140-foot right of way along the frontage of the easterly segment of Specific Plan 99-036. B. Dune Palms Road - Sufficient additional to make up to a total half -width right of way of 50 feet at the north end of the specific plan frontage transitioning southward to 60 feet to allow for a dedicated right turn lane and dual dedicated left turn lanes at Hwy 111 . 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. 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. Highway 111 - 50 feet. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd 039 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 B. Dune Palms Road - 10 feet. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for the adjoining parcel(s) to construct and use the shared entry drives on Hwy 111 and Dune Palms Road. 12. If the approved access drives are located in whole or in part on the adjoining parcel(s), the applicant shall furnish proof of easements for construction and use of the drives on those parcels. 13. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage along the streets and properties except access drives described herein. 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. 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 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd 039 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 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. 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. This parcel is subject to the off -site improvement requirements of Specific Plan 99-036. Grading and building permits will not be issued for this development until the off -site improvements required of the easterly section of the Specific Plan area are complete or secured with an improvement agreement. The on -site improvements shall not be opened for beneficial use until the necessary off -site improvements are complete unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. If it is necessary for the applicant to secure and construct the off -site improvements as part of this Site Development Permit, the improvement agreement, security and plan approval process shall comply with the provisions C:\Wrkgrp\CasedocS\USAGas\coapesdp695.wpd "- 01119 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 of Specific Plan 99-036 and the City's subdivision improvement process. 19. The building pad elevation shall not exceed 63.5, and the applicant shall make a good faith effort to reduce the pad elevation to 62.5. A good faith effort shall include reasonable additional improvement cost expenditure to achieve the lower pad elevation. City staff will evaluate the reasonableness of additional expenditure. If the applicant disagrees with staff's decision, the applicant may appeal to the City Council which has final authority on this matter. 20. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a)(6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 21. 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. 22. Slopes shall not exceed 5:0 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 23. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable provisions of Fugitive Dust Control Plan 2000-80, as approved for SP 99-036. Applicant is required to operate all construction operations in accordance with pertinent provisions and conditions of said Plan. The applicant may be required to post supplemental security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Plan, subject to determination by the Public Works Department. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd - , 041 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 24. 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. 25. 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 26. Storm drainage for this development shall comply with the approved storm drainage plan for the easterly segment of Specific Plan 99-036. If applicant acquires necessary easements, the drainage may be directed to a temporary retention/infiltration facilities located on adjacent land until permanent drainage facilities are in place to receive flows from this development. 27. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. 28. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. The nuisance water retention/holding method shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. Ft. (of landscape areal and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. Ft. 29. Effluent from the car wash and drainage from the fueling area shall not be discharged into a storm drainage system or to the Coachella Storm Water Channel, unless the applicant demonstrates that such drainage can and will be reliably pre-treated to meet all current and anticipated pollutant loading limits. 30. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater to the Coachella Storm Water Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's stormwater drainage which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit 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, CAW rkgrp\Casedocs\USAG as\coapcsdp695. wpd '. 042 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land excerpting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. UTILITIES 31. 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. 32. Existing aerial lines and all proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 33. 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. STREETS AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 34. Off -site improvements required prior to development within the easterly segment of Specific Plan 99-036 are as follows. The improvements shall occur for the full frontage of the easterly segment prior to the opening of any business or other beneficial use of property within the segment. Under the Development Impact Fee program, the applicant's cost responsibility for pavement and median improvements is limited to the outside 20 feet of pavement, curb & gutter and sidewalk. The applicant will be reimbursed for the remaining pavement and median improvements as funds become available. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) S. R. 111 - The north half (58 feet) of a 116-foot street improvement including landscape median. C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.w ad 043 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 2) Dune Palms Road - Construct half -width street improvement plus a 20-foot northbound traffic lane (if the northbound half of the street has not been fully improved when this parcel is developed). Construct eight -foot sidewalk. Half -street improvement shall be 48 feet (travel width) at Hwy 1 1 1, accommodating a dedicated right turn lane, dual through lanes and dual dedicated left turn lanes, and transition to 38 feet north of the turn lanes. The applicant shall re -strip traffic lanes and modify the traffic signal at this intersection as required including, but not necessarily limited to, installation, relocation or reconfiguration of poles, arms, heads, and traffic sensor loops. 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. 35. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name sings, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 36. 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). 37. 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. 38. Right-of-way geometry and improvements 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. 39. 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 curb design is approved, the lip at the C:\Wrkgrp\CasedocS\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd � 'd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1, in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 40. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans's 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" 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" 41. 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. 42. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Highway 111 - One 36-foot shared entry centered approximately 378 feet west of the centerline of Dune Palms Road - right-in/right-out. B. Dune Palms Road - One 36-foot drive centered approximately 386 feet north of the centerline of Highway 111 - full turning movements allowed. 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas, in accordance with the standards of Specific C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd 045 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 Plan 99-036 for that are along Dune Palms Road, and the adopted Highway 111 Landscape Guidelines for that area along Highway 111 . 44. 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. 45. 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. 46, Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, final landscape plans shall be revised to include: a. a three-foot landscape berm along Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road. b. minimum 10-foot tall tree sizes (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper measuring 6-inches from ground level). 47. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the sidewalk along Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road shall be designed per City standards. 48. Final landscape plans shall indicate varying heights of the three California Fan Palms at the Hwy 111 and Dune Palms Road intersection of the project. The palms shall have a minimum of 18 feet of trunk height. 49. The final landscape plans shall indicate the following: • show turf areas not only on the north side of the sidewalk but also on the south side; • add significant clusters of accent shrubs, medium shrubs, and C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd / 04 F. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 signature accent plants, Ocotillo, as listed in the planting palette; • redesign the corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road to match Standard L-3 of the Highway 111 Design Theme, namely delete the annuals and replace a portion of the turf area with the shrubs; • replace the "Sonoran Palo Verde" with "palo Brea"; • replace the "Desert Carpet" with "Prostrata"; • use permion-stained (stained prior to installation and set into grade) granite boulders; • use Palm Springs Gold Fines (min. 2" thick); • remove the decomposed granite from the landscape plan. PUBLIC SERVICES 50. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit and/or the City. QUALITY ASSURANCE 51. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 52. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.65. 53. 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. 54. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public 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 C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd '.j O4 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 55. 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 56. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checking and permits. 57. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1,500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 58. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 ''/z" x 2 ''/2") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 59. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 60. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 61. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd .- U48 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 62. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 63. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 64. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm system, the lock boxes will require "tamper" monitoring. 65. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve (12) months. 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 the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863- 8886. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 66. The building plans shall specify that the roof tile shall be barrel shaped concrete "Terra Cotta 2000" tile. 67. Exterior finishes shall consist of Adobe and Eggsheil colored cement plaster, "Ocean Green" slate accent tile, and dark bronze anodized aluminum store front system. 68. Prior to issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure shall be revised to comply with the City's standard design. 69. This approval includes on -site signs consisting of the following: 1) Business ID/gasoline price monument sign along Hwy 1 1 1 topped with cabinet texcoated to match the mini mart building exterior color, measuring 5'4" in height, 8'11" in width, with a sign face C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\U SAG as\coa pcsdp 695. wpd • . 049 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 area of 45 sq. ft., the copy to include price section with white plexiglass price numbers and blue plexiglass background, the business ID section to consist of red and white plexiglass lettering with blue plexiglass background, and internally illuminated per the preliminary sign plan. 2) Building -mounted sign on the mini mart, with internally illuminated (white neon tubes), plexiglass channel letters with white enameled returns, copy to read"USA" in red capped in white measuring 18" by 51 % and "MINI MART" in red capped in white letters, measuring 18" by 117", to be placed on the store facade, per the preliminary sign plan. 3) Building -mounted signs on the car wash tunnel with internally illuminated (white neon tubes) plexiglass channel letters with white enamel returns, copy to read "CARWASH" in white letters, measuring 12" by 85", with one sign at each end of tunnel, per the preliminary sign plan. 70. The Java Jons sign proposed on the building is not a part of this approval. 71. The freestanding business ID/gasoline price sign shall be revised to match the monument sign along Hwy 111. PARKING 72. Eleven on -site parking spaces are required for the mini mart as indicated on the site plan. One handicapped parking space is required. 73. Vehicle stacking for four (4) cars is required for the car wash as indicated on the site plan. LIGHTING 74. Exterior building -mounted lighting shall consist of one-piece die cast aluminum luminaire housing with metal halide lamps, and flat or recessed lenses, as indicated on the preliminary lighting plan. 75. Exterior pole -mounted lighting shall consist of one-piece die cast aluminum C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-695 USA Petroleum Corporation April 10, 2001 luminaire housing with metal halide lamps, and flat or recessed lenses mounted to 18-foot high poles by extruded aluminum arms with a standard Dark Bronze baked -on polyester paint finish, as indicated on the preliminary lighting plan. 76. Fueling canopy lighting shall consist of heavy -gauge aluminum luminaire housing with flat lenses and super metal halide or metal halide lamps, recessed into the canopy ceiling, as indicated on the preliminary canopy lighting plan. C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\USAGas\coapcsdp695.wpd I Ik".,j 051 ATTACHMENT 1 N HWY 1.11 o i 4 � OO SITE �► TO INDIO = o AVENUE:48 y Z Z J • li w 3 . z ' AVENUE 56 VICINITY MAP CASE No. CUP 2001-057 SDP 2001-695 USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION ORT SCALE: NONE A.: ATTACHMENT 2 1�«w�ga � B¥ j | r })) \ � Z( \ \ \- y \ m ) / 0J 3 \ \ \)/j </ ((/ 28 E E E@eEES \ K 055 •JbRHL DESIGN GROUP• A W ix n. 4•••u•••_�� u•w••MwM. �Y Gx••u•Y•Ywww••w.an fuwwwwYw+`�� � ��w�OV�1M�MIr��wYYwu•ww•w•u• ..MI✓uwo•x•••u •.•w•uwuM•M•wwnti r.Y•M•M•N•r•••oux�� WwY Y• •,-/YM••wu•Y•x•xnw••x�NN�wr:.�.�T ��_-��— '` ' ��irnu:!.Y S^.S"� �` r' f �, iuiiii•� u� •u� �Y::=NMi1n�QMi�:w`nn a.i•.i MMw•M�Wxww4••,w!w 4�1 Mw•••• IrY •Y M •• Y AMn iiiiiiii�•ii• w• ■ „� �r a �, m;••••xMY•Yiuwi•:•� •u•••w�wuM•M:MiI:a`.Mwwi�i• :_. MM�.1�Nu ��•Muw �Y • w�wM. / � Yiu —��ru••••��=• •x ` �!M:Y Nv� M M� R SOM ®_EVATAII Solo MN•ou•i C .......:�i•""••C•u�_"iwwu xia _ �i�i�rwi _ uw•Mwn+wwu.uiw•iu• _®_y s /■: ■■m G...•.w..""w"r::asi..•..iYw.i'.m.•Y.::.wN.".".ww�•.u•w•ww��.ww �wwwxY..x..S'u.. Y:Yrwrw Y rumx.w _ _ o :: ••:•.�C:: .Yi,:iri:.ew�:C.Y.:.W..A:x�r.�::.as ....�.. :.:nlu.R�Y.iS•n.Ww...7::.4.`�- .Y ..: Riga - ATTACHMENT 3 •• . .. ii,l Il iu[I �,. it I,...IL_:.... 28-200 9:S4AM FRO RHL DESIGN GROUP 916 646 46790 p Y �4- y�y prPL W+uRi �6 AT JC1i]l]•nc^A USA MCA PCV40LEW SYATq OW w°�<c`w'".t�n.- r_» ItllNAY m A9q V l PAaC flOAD lA CLOY, CAIFOPNU USA GASOLINE 1 101 AGOVPA WA I. i33C u .c.n m.wt<�ru m, PMWL (llPj 065-9 D' ifxix! � nc �•'1 `( Y'(- 4imcl� - oca@2 v mvm•IPfa mom �}C1L N VWpy.4 CR EL YATM ATTACHMENT 3 �A-2 03-28-00 10=60 RECEIVED FROM=916 646 4679 P-03 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 10, 2001 CASE NUMBERS: EIR ADDENDUM (EA 94-287; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #94112047), SPECIFIC PLAN 94-025 (AMENDMENT #1), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-047 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28617 REQUEST: 1. TO CERTIFY AN EIR ADDENDUM FOR THE GREEN SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 94-025) ALLOWING A NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR AN APPROVED MASTER PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 277 HOUSES; AND 2. TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A PRIVATE ROAD ON A HILLSIDE SLOPE EXCEEDING 20 PERCENT; AND 3. TO AMEND THE GREEN SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWING A 3,000 FOOT LONG PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF A 330.70 ACRE PROPERTY TO SERVE TEN CUSTOM LOTS; AND 4. TO ALLOW A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBDIVIDING 330.70 ACRES INTO FOUR PARCELS AND OTHER LETTERED STREET LOTS. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: AGIOTAGE LIMITED REPRESENTATIVES: MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES LOCATION: BISECTED BY FUTURE JEFFERSON STREET, APPROXIMATELY '/z MILE SOUTH OF AVENUE 58 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EA 94-287; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 94112047) HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, SECTION 15164 (A, C, D, AND E). NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST AND NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT pc rpt sp25#1, 48 Greg - Page 1 053 EIR PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OPEN SPACE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), OPEN SPACE (OS) AND HILLSIDE CONSERVATION SURROUNDING LAND USE: THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE VACANT EXCEPT FOR THE EXISTING QUARRY DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH BACKGROUND: Previous Planning Commission Meetings Due to hydrology issues with this project, the City's Public Works Department requested a one month continuance at the October 24, 2000 Public Hearing. The Planning Commission, on a 4-0 vote, continued the case to November 28, 2000. On November 28, no action was taken by the Commission due to the application being withdrawn. The applicant has since resubmitted the applications for approval. Project History On June 6, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution 95-37, approving design guidelines and development standards for a master planned development of 277 housing units on approximately 331 acres to the south of The Quarry development in conjunction with certification of an Environmental Impact Report (Attachments 1 and 2). The adopted Specific Plan for this community outlines its long term development pattern for this residential project and conservation of hillside areas and equestrian/hiking trails. Mountainous areas account for approximately 231.2 acres (70 percent) of the Plan's area. The gross project density is less than one unit per acre. Three types of residential lots are permitted: 1) Cove lots of 8,000 square feet or more, 2) Estate lots of 10,000 square feet or more, and 3) Custom lots of 30,000 feet or more. pe rpt sp25#1, 48 Greg - Page 053 Access to the site is planned by the extension of Jefferson Street south from Avenue 58 as required by the alignment plan approved under General Plan Amendment 95-048 in 1995 under Resolution 95-41 . Street and other infrastructure improvements are required for this project as subdivision maps are processed. This planned community also has ten custom lots at the northwest corner of the Specific Plan which take access from private streets located in The Quarry development. On April 16, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a time extension and minor text changes for the Specific Plan by adoption of Resolution 99-026, pursuant to Conditions #6 and #7 of City Council Resolution 95-37. Project Request 1 . Conditional Use Permit - The applicant is requesting development of a private road into the area with the ten custom home lots with adjacent hillside slopes of greater than 20 percent. A portion of the road, approximately 1,600 feet long, will be located above the 20% slope. The proposed vertical incline of the private road in this hillside area does not exceed 14.8 percent. The road will negate the need to have access through The Quarry. 2. Specific Plan Amendment - The existing Specific Plan allows 277 dwelling units on approximately 331 acres. This Amendment request does not alter the land use plan, or propose residential development in the hillside areas. The principal modification in the Plan is a request to change the original approved access to the 10 lots in Parcel 3 from The Quarry to the north. Access is now proposed by redirection of a private street from Jefferson Street along portions the north side of Parcels 2 and 4 (Lot "B" of TPM 28617), a distance of approximately 3,000 feet. This two-lane roadway (28' curb to curb with no parking) has six foot wide pedestrian pathways constructed using decomposed granite. A double box culvert is proposed where the road crosses a natural watershed channel similar in design to The Quarry development. The applicant has with this amendment updated the document with text changes that are highlighted in accordance with the time extension approved by the Planning Commission in 1999. 3. Tentative Parcel Mao - The applicant proposes three large residential parcels, one open space parcel (21 1 .51 acres) and two lettered lots on approximately 331 acres (See Attachment #3 dated April 5, 2001)• Primary project access is planned via the extension of Jefferson Street (Lot "A") and development of Lot "B" for Parcel 3. Public Notice: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun on October 13, 2000, and readvertised for this meeting on March 20, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. A minimum 20 day review period was established for this meeting pursuant to discussions with the Department of Fish and Game. pc rpt sp25#1, 48 Greg - Page %J , II6 '1 Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comments to City Departments and affected public agencies on September 29, 2000. Agency comments received have been made a part of the Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The private alternative access road along the north boundary of the property shall conform to the alignment diagrams in the Specific Plan document. Findings to approve this request per Sections 9.210.020 (Conditional Use Permit) and 9.240.010 (Specific Plan) of the Zoning Code and Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Ordinance can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council certification of an Addendum to the Green Environmental Impact Report (EA 94-287, State Clearinghouse #94112047) for Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1), Conditional Use Permit 99-047 and Tentative Parcel Map 28617; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-047, subject to findings and the attached conditions; and 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1), subject to findings and the attached conditions; and 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28617, subject to findings and the attached conditions. Attachments: 1 . Approved Specific Plan Map 2. New Specific Plan Map 3. Parcel Map Reduction dated April 5, 2001 4. Specific Plan and Other Related Documents (Planning Commission only) Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Pla ning Manager pc rpt sp25#1, 48 Greg - Page PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 94-287 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 94-025 (AMENDMENT 41), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-047, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28617 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 94-287 APPLICANT: AGIOTAGE LIMITED WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24" day of October, 2000, and 101h day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings to consider an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #941 12047 (EA 94-287), as prepared for Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1), Conditional Use Permit 99-047, and Tentative Parcel Map 28617; 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 Impact Report 94-287 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164; and WHEREAS, the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR 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 EIR 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 EIR 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 EIR substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. WHEREAS, on June 6, 1995, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR (State Clearing House No. 94112047) for Specific Plan 94-025 encompassing 331 + acres and allowing 277 single family residential houses bordering open space, hillside areas. WHEREAS, the revised project is a minor technical addition, which will include redirecting a street from Jefferson Street along the northern portions of Parcel 2 and 4. The private street will be approximately 3,000 lineal feet with a right of way A:\ResoPC EA SPGreen.wpd - 44 Greg T. 062 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 94-287 April 10, 2001 Page 2 width of 50 feet. However, only 1,600 lineal feet will cross through Parcel 4 where there was previously no disturbance. The purpose for this modification is to gain access to 10 lots in the northwest portion of the property. WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did recommend the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation to certify said Addendum: The proposed Specific Plan Amendment and related 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. The project does not have the potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory, as extensive archaeological investigations of the site were conducted in 1994 for the project, subject to mitigation alternatives. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment and related applications will not have the potential to achieve short term goals. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment and related applications 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 the Specific Plan for which a Final EIR has been certified. 4. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment and related applications will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates single family residences, private roads and other related infrastructure improvements previously addressed in the certified Environmental Impact Report. 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 Impact Report #94112047 (EA 94-287). A:\ResoPC EA SPGreen.wpd - 44 Greg T. - 063 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of the Addendum to Environmental Assessment 94-287 for the above -cite projects. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 101h day of April, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Acting Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California AAResoPC EA SPGreen.wpd - 44 Greg.T. c) APR - 5 2001 DRAFT ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR Green Specific Plan Addendum to the Certified E/R SCH# 94112047 Prepared For City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact: Ms. Christine Di lorio _Prepared By., __ SFC Consultants 26012 Marguerite Parkway, Suite H424 Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Contact: Ms. Saundra F. Jacobs, REA (949) 348-1233 March 19, 2001 26012 Marguerite Parkway, Suite H424, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Toll free: (888) 212-1558 Telephone: (949) 348-1233 Fax: (949) 348-1433 Email: sjacobs@sfcconsultants.com 065 Table of Contents ITEM PAGE Introduction Role of the Addendum EIR 3 Decision to prepare an Addendum EIR 3 Background 4 Proiect Description 4 4 Approved EIR Project Description 4 Addendum Project Description Findings and Facts 6 6 Land Use 6 Traffic and Circulation 7 Noise 8 Air Quality 9 Water Resources 9 Soils/Geology/Seismic 9 Hydrology 10 Biology 13 Aesthetics/Visual 13 Cultural Resources 13 Recreation Population, Housing and Employment 14 Risk of Upset 14 15 Public Services and Utilities Regional Location Map 16 1 Local Vicinity Map 18 Site Plan Introduction Role of the Addendum EIR SFC Consultants (SFC) understands that the City of La Quinta, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended 1999, requires that an Addendum Environmental Impact Report (AEIR) be prepared for minor additions or clarifications to the Final EIR for the Travertine and Green Specific Plans (SCH# 94112047), certified as adequate on June 6, 1995. Regional, Local and Site Plan Exhibits have been attached to this Addendum EIR. Modifications are proposed to Parcel 3 of the Green Specific Plan by redirecting a private street from within Parcel 2 of the Green property, in order to gain access to ten lots in the northwest portion of the site (Parcel 3). A total of 1.8 acres, out of the 211.51 acres within Parcel$, will be disturbed. The private street is proposed to be extended from the northern most of three potential entry points along Jefferson (However, no tentative tract maps or internal design layouts have been approved by the City). The private street will approximately 3,000 lineal feet from Jefferson Street to the boundary of the ten lots with a n ht-of-way width of 50-feet. However, only 1,600 lineal feet (1.8 acres) will cross through Parcel were there was previously no disturbance. Refer to the project description on Page 5 for this Addendum for a detailed discussion. The private street addition is proposed within the boundary of the Green Specific Plan area and will require the following land use approvals: An amendment to the Circulation Plan within the Green Specific Plan is required because the original access to the 10 lots in Parcel was proposed from The Quarry developed to the north. Access is now proposed from one of the three potential access points along Jefferson Street within Parcel 2 (medium and low density land use), through Parcel (open space/recreation), to gain access to Parcel3 (very low density land use). A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the private street to cross the hillside within Parcel 3, per Zoning Code Section 9.1.40.040. A parcel map for the subdivision of property is required in order to separate the open space area (Parcel from developable areas (Parcels 1, 2 and 4). The private street is proposed as an easement from Jefferson Street to Parcel3. The road will facilitate the future development of Parcel3. No land use designations are proposed to change with the Addendum EIR, The AEIR is the appropriate CEQA document based on CEQA Article 11, Section 15164(a, c, d, e), Addendum to an EIR. These CEQA sections state the following: Section 15164(a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 067 Section 15164(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. Section 15146(d) The decision -making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. Section 15164(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Decision to prepare an Addendum EIR (Section 15164(e)) Pursuant to Section 15162, a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR has been included in this Addendum EIR for inclusion with the City's findings on the project. Section 15162(a)(1) — Substantial changes are not proposed and will not require major revisions to the previous EIR. The modification to Parcel 3 of the Green Specific Plan is a minor technical addition, as described by CEQA Section 15161(a)(1), which will include redirecting a private street from within Parcel 2, through the northern portion of Parcel I. The purpose for this modification is to gain access to ten lots in the northwest portion of the Green property (Parcel.1). The Facts and Findings outlined in this Addendum EIR are based on review of the previously approved Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, and Volumes I and II of the Final EIR. Volume I of the Final EIR contains the Comments and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR after public circulation. Volume II of the Final EIR contains the Mitigation Monitoring Program. No significant new environmental impacts, not previously addressed, are anticipated. Previous reports are applicable to the Green Specific Plan, as proposed to be revised. The previously approved Mitigation Monitoring Program remains applicable and enforceable. Background The Travertine and Green Specific Plans were both certified as adequate by the La Quinta City Council on June 6, 1995. The Green Specific Plan development provides design guidelines and development standards for 277 housing units on approximately 331 acres. Approximately 231 acres are above the toe of slope and have been reserved as open space. Access to ten lots in the northwest portion of the Green Property was originally proposed as an extension from The Quarry residential and golf course development to the north of the site. Subsequent to approval in 1995, access from The Quarry has been changed to the proposed private street. SFC, Consultants; The Keith Companies (TKC) previously prepared the Draft and Final EIRs for the Travertine and Green Specific Plans in March 1995. The Draft and Final EIR studied the impacts associated with development of the Green and Travertine properties. Mitigation measures were outlined within a Mitigation Monitoring Program with regard to mitigating impacts to less than significant levels. In some cases, mitigation measures only mitigated impacts to the extent feasible. These impacts were approved by the La Quinta City Council with overriding considerations. The private street addition neither adds to existing impacts nor requires additional mitigation measures, which may necessitate re -circulation of the document. Proiect Description Approved Green Specific Plan EIR Project Description The Green Specific Plan project description included design guidelines and development standards for 277 housing units on approximately 331 acres. Approximately 231 acres are above the toe of slope and have been reserved as open space. The gross project density would be less than 1 unit per acre. The three product types approved for the Green Specific Plan are as follows: 1) Cove lots (medium density) with a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size, are located on the eastern portion of the site; 2) Estate lots (low density) and Cove lots on 10,000 square foot minimum lots, with a buffer on the open space areas on the west; and 3) Custom lots (very low density) located at the northwestern corner of the project site adjacent to The Quarry development, which consists of 30,000 square foot lots. Project access would be provided via three entry points off of the proposed Jefferson Street alignment. Access to the ten custom lots in the northwest portion of the Green Property was originally proposed as an extension from The Quarry residential and golf course development to the north of the site. Subsequent to approval in 1995, and as discussed below in the Addendum Project Description, access from The Quarry has been changed to the proposed private street. Addendum Project Description The project proponent proposes a modification to the Green Specific Plan by redirecting a private street from within Parcel 2 of the Green property in order to gain access to ten lots in the northwest portion of the site (Parcel). As noted above, original access to the ten lots was proposed from the north via The Quarry. The private street is proposed to be extended westerly from the northern most of three potential entry points along Jefferson within the Green property. The private street is proposed to be approximately 3,000 lineal feet from Jefferson to the boundary of the ten lots with a right-of-way width of 50-feet. However, only 1,600 lineal feet will cross through Farcelfwere there was previously no disturbance proposed. Therefore, a total of 1.8 acres of land, out of the 211.51 acres within Parcel f will be disturbed. The access point from Jefferson for this private street will likely be from the northeast corner of the Green property. A secondary emergency access point will be required by the City through The Quarry development. Findings and Facts The Travertine and Green Specific Plan EIR identified significant or potentially significant environmental effects associated with the project covered in Section III of the EIR. The findings, and facts supporting the findings, are required by Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, The Facts and Findings previously approved in the EIR are still applicable and enforceable. ➢ Land Use: The current zoning for the Green property consists of the following: LDR-Low Density Residential. This zoning is based on Specific Plan 94-025 approved by the City of La Quinta City Council in 1995. Findings The imposition and enforcement of the conditions and mitigation measures resolve inconsistencies within existing City General Plan and zoning map designations. The proposed private street will not require the conversion of any portion of previously approved open space areas within the Green property. Emergency access to the ten custom lots would be improved by the proposed Addendum Project. No significant, short-term, or long-term negative impacts are anticipated. No cumulative negative impacts are anticipated. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not require the conversion of any portion of the previously approved open space areas within the Green property. ➢ Traffic and Circulation: A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Endo Engineering in October 1994 for the Travertine and Green Specific Plan EIR. The Traffic Impact Study provided the basis for the mitigation outlined in the Certified EIR. Jefferson Street is not currently constructed and is proposed for improvement as part of the developments for both Travertine and Green properties. The Green Specific Plan provides three possible access points from Jefferson Street. No tentative maps or street alignments have been approved by the City for the Green property. The current Addendum EIR proposed for this private street extension would utilize one of the three access points (northerly most). Access to the ten custom lots in the northwest portion of the Green property was originally proposed as an extension from The Quarry residential and golf course 6 I 1 079 development to the north of the site. Subsequent to approval in 1995, access from The Quarry has been changed to the proposed private street. Findings The capacity of a typical two-lane road is 10,000 to 12,000 vehicle trips per day. The ten lots within the Green property will generate approximately 150 trips per day. No additional traffic impacts will be generated with the extension of the private street. The private street addition will require an amendment to the Circulation Plan within the Green Specific Plan, and as such, a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the private street within the hillside per Zoning Code Section 9.1.40.040, and parcel map for the subdivision of property. Access to the ten custom lots would be improved by the proposed Addendum Project. A secondary emergency access point will be required by the City though The Quarry development. No significant, short-term, or long-term negative impacts are anticipated. No cumulative negative impacts are anticipated. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not generate additional traffic impact not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. A Noise: A Noise Impact Study was prepared by Endo Engineering in November 1994 for the Travertine and Green Specific Plan EIR. The Noise Impact Study provided the basis for the mitigation outlined in the Certified EIR. Findings Within the Draft and Final EIR, the ten lots were originally proposed to gain access from The Quarry development to the north. The noise formerly associated with traffic within The Quarry will be transferred to the new proposed access road. No additional noise impacts will be generated with the extension of the road. As noted above in the Traffic section, the ten lots within the Green property will generate approximately 150 trips per day. These 150 vehicle trips will not increase the noise levels not already discussed in the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR. T.J , U 71 Noise related to construction of the road will be required to abide by the mitigation measures approved within the Certified EIR. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not generate additional noise impacts not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. ➢ Air Quality: An Air Quality Impact Study was prepared by Endo Engineering in November 1994 for the Travertine and Green Specific Plan EIR. The Air Quality Impact Study provided the basis for the mitigation outlined in the Certified EIR. Findings The air quality impacts associated with traffic from the ten lots was originally discussed and mitigated to the extent feasible within the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR. Significant short-term impacts to air quality will result with implementation of the Green Specific Plan. However, no additional air quality impacts will be generated with the extension of the road. Air Quality impacts related to construction of the road will be required to abide by the mitigation measures approved within the Final EIR. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The Green Specific Plan will result in significant short-term impacts to air quality (as identified in the Certified EIR). b. Overriding considerations were approved by the City Council for impacts within the Green Specific Plan that remained significant after mitigation. c. The proposed private street will not generate additional air quality impacts not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. U12 ➢ Water Resources: Findings Construction of the private road to the ten approved custom lots will not increase the water supply/demand or sewer needs discussed in the Certified EIR. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not generate additional water/sewer issues not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. ➢ Soils/Geology/Seismic: Findings The private road extension would be constructed within arsitaGravelly Sanddaddition, the Green and would not result in significant impacts from a soils and geology point property, including the proposed private street right-of-way, are not located on designated prime agricultural soils, nor are they within the Coachella Valley Blowsand region. Therefore, with implementation of the existing mitigation measures from the Certified EIR, impacts associated with soil, geology and seismicity on the private road would be less than significant. No additional soil, geology or seismic impacts will be generated with the extension of the road. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not generate additional soil, geology or seismic impacts not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. ➢ Hydrology: A stormwater analysis was prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. August 29, 2000, and was performed for the proposed private street extension using the Riverside County Flood ControllAES unit-hydrograph program. A summary of the stormwater analysis has been provided below. The report in its entirety is available at the City of La Quinta Public Works Department. 0 9 1, 073 Findings Surface drainage under the proposed private street flows from two watershed areas. One watershed is approximately 320 acres in size, and the second is approximately 125 acres. These two watershed areas would result in a combined 100-year (Q100) stormwater flow of approximately 522 cubic feet per second (cfs). In order to contain 522 cfs during a 100- year storm event, a culvert at the road drainage crossing would be required. The stormwater analysis indicates that a double box culvert, 5 feet wide by 5 feet deep (each barrel) would allow the lower flows to pass under the proposed road. The full capacity of the double box culvert would be in excess of 1000 cfs without any debris. The imposition and enforcement of this condition and mitigation measure will substantially reduce the significant, or potentially significant effects of the project on hydrology. Therefore, project impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Existing local hydrology and hydraulics would be marginally affected and improved by the proposed project. No significant, short-term, or long-term negative impacts are anticipated. No cumulative negative impacts are anticipated. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed improvements will help alleviate potential "washout' of the new private road. ➢ Biology: A biological assessment was conducted for the Green property by Thomas Olsen Associates in June 1994, The biological assessment provided the basis for the mitigation outlined in the Certified EIR. Findings ✓ The imposition and enforcement of the conditions and mitigation measures within the Draft and Final EIR attempt to mitigate biologically related impacts to less than significant levels. However, the loss of natural habitat, prescribed sensitive animal species habitats (including the prairie falcon, blacktailed gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, desert tortoise, the Palm Springs Round -tailed Ground Squirrel and sensitive bat species habitat's), and the loss of sensitive plants species remained significant after mitigation. Cumulative impacts to the Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub, desert dry woodland plant and animal communities remained significant and unavoidable after mitigation. 10 %ill 0.74 In order to mitigate impacts to the extent feasible for the taking of sensitive plant species and the incremental loss of plant and animal communities with the Coachella Valley, the following mitigation measure concerning the Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was required within the Final EIR for the Travertine and Green Specific Plans. One purpose of an area -wide multi -species habitat conservation plan was to provide a vehicle for property owners to mitigate for the loss of otherwise irreplaceable biological resources. Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 states that: The City of La Quinta shall ensure, as proposed by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, that mitigation/compensation funds shall be made available to the Coachella Valley multi species planning process prior to any habitat impacting activities (grading permit), due to this project. Such funds should for calculated r feeswh h Is equitably and uniformly applied throughout he Coachella Val eya The method of verification within the Monitoring Program for this mitigation measure is "Plan Review" by the Community Development Department. The Final coEIR also goes on to to CVAGuntil such state that ttime as he MSHCP she City may choose oadopt become the trustee of fund ✓ The biological studies prepared for the Green Specific Plan did not find desert tortoise or Palm Springs Round -tailed Ground Squirrel habitat and therefore no mitigation was required for this species. ✓ Since certification of the Draft and Final EIR for the Green Specific Plan, a draft designation of both Essential and Critical Habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep has been established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Final EIR for the Travertine and Green Specific Plans requires the following mitigation measure in order to mitigate impacts to the bighorn sheep. Although this mitigation measure was developed particularly for the Travertine Specific Plan, elements of the measure are still applicable to the Green Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure 3.8.3 states that: The applicant shall ensure that a habitat management plan HMP for the bighorn sheep is prepared by a biologist, reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game, and implemented prior to issuance of grading permits. Elements of the management plant shall include the following measures. These measures will be required even if the preparation of the HMP is stalled or prevented from being adopted. See the Travertine and Green Specific Plans Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist for the specific measures. rr " - 075 The method of verification within the Monitoring Program for this mitigation measure is "Approval from California Department of Fish and Game." ✓ Since certification of the Draft and Final EIR for the Green Specific Plan, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have published new Nationwide Permits (NWP) criteria. The maximum impact allowed for most NWP's is %Z acre and formal ACOE notification is required where impacts exceed 1/10th acre. In addition, NWP 14 (road crossings) will be limited to a maximum of 200 linear feet of all waters of the U.S. The access road will require a box culvert for storm drainage of approximately 10 feet in width. According to engineering calculations provided by the project engineer, approximately 1/loth (0.10) acre of would be impacted. The same drainage was crossed within The Quarry project to the north of the site. ✓ If blueline streams are located on the subject property and are subsequently impacted by construction of the private street, the mitigation measures outlined in the Certified EIR will mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. The following mitigation measures has been added to this Addendum EIR: Based on the information obtained from a site visit by Department of Fish and Game personnel, the Department has determined that a Lake and/or Streambed Alteration Agreement under Fish and Game Code Subsection 1600 is required for this project. This mitigation measure is hereby incorporated into the Monitoring Program prepared for the previously Certified Draft and Final EIR. The method of verification within the Monitoring Program for this mitigation measure is "Approval from California Department of Fish and Game." See TPM Exhibit. ✓ The proposed private street will not require the conversion of any portion of previously approved open space areas within the Green property. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. Overriding considerations were approved by the City Council for impacts within the Green Specific Plan that remained significant after mitigation. b. Mitigation measures outlined in the Certified EIR for the Green Specific Plan will be required for implementation of this Addendum EIR. 12 01F c. An additional mitigation. measure has been added by the California Department of Fish and Game concerning a Lake and/or Streambed Alteration Agreement. d. No new impacts not already addressed in the Certified EIR, would result with implementation of this Addendum EIR. e. The proposed private street will not require the conversion of any portion of the previously approved open space areas within the Green property. ➢ AestheticsNisual: Findings The aesthetic impacts associated with ten lots was originally discussed and mitigated within the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR. No additional aesthetic impacts will be generated with the extension of the private street Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not generate additional aesthetic impacts not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. ➢ Cultural Resources: A Cultural Resources Survey was conducted for the Green property by Dr. Paul Chace, Director of Cultural Resources with The Keith Companies in July 1994. Findings The Cultural Resources analysis prepared by Dr. Paul Chase for the Green Specific Plan property found no cultural resources. Dr. Chase confirmed for SFC that the original analysis encompassed the proposed road extension therefore, implementation of the proposed private street would not impact any new cultural resources. No new studies are required. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and ' written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: 13 0 17 a. The proposed private street will not generate additional cultural impacts not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. ➢ Recreation: Findings Construction of the proposed private street would not result in the need for additional park and recreational facilities within the Green Specific Plan area. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not generate the need for additional parks or recreational facilities within the Green Specific Plan EIR. ➢ Population, Housing and Employment: Findings No mitigations were originally proposed for this issue within the Green Specific Plan EIR. However, project specific and cumulative population, housing and employment impacts were considered significant and growth inducing within the certified EIR. The addition of the private street will not increase the number of units previously approved in the certified EIR. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. Overriding considerations were approved by the City Council for growth inducing impacts within the Green Specific Plan that remained significant after mitigation. b. The proposed private street will not generate the need for additional mitigation measures within the Green Specific Plan EIR. 14 1178 ➢ Risk of Upset: Findings No impacts were anticipated on the Green Specific Plan property related to the risk of upset. Facts The City Councilas based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral hand written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not create a new risk of upset within the Green Specific Plan EIR. ➢ Public Services and Utilities: Findings Law enforcement, fire protection, medical and transit services will benefit from construction of the proposed private street. Schools, electricity, gas, telephone, cable service, solid waste issues will not be impacted by construction of the private street. Emergency access to the ten custom lots would be improved by the proposed Addendum Project. No significant, short-term, or long-term negative impacts are anticipated. No cumulative negative impacts are anticipated. Facts The City Council has based its findings upon the project's Final EIR, previous written public comments, previous written responses to comments and all previous oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings on this project and particularly the following facts: a. The proposed private street will not generate the need for additional public services and utilities not already addressed in the Green Specific Plan EIR. 15 % ,. O 19 Ji i`. 6. North LOCAL VICINITY MAP 17 J U a CL C, 61! j0x F- CL 9 t a � � opig } 9 < T N y J i6 4'VA W j R1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 94-025 CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 94-025, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: AGIOTAGE LIMITED WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 24`h day of October, 2000, and 101h day of April, 2001, hold duly a noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of Agiotage Limited for approval of Amendment #1 to Specific Plan 94-025 to allow a private road along the north side of the Plan's boundary to serve ten single family houses in Parcel 3 of Tentative Parcel Map 28617 for property located on the east and west sides of future Jefferson Street, approximately % mile south of Avenue 58, more particulary described as: Portion of the South %2 of Section 29, T6S, R7E, SBBM (APN: 761-030-001) WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council), in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 94-287 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164 Addendum. No change circumstances or conditions exist and no new information provided which would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21 166; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 1995, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for Specific Plan 94-025 (Resolution 95-36) as adequate and complete, adopted "Statements of Overriding Considerations," and adopted "CEQA Findings and Statements of Facts"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 131h day of April, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on SP 94-025 (1" Time Extension), and by a vote of 5-0, adopted Resolution 99-026 approving a first time extension and text changes to the Plan; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Ordinance to justify the recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: A:\ResoPC SP25#1 green.wpd - 44greg t - Page 1 083 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Specific Plan 94-025, Amendment #1 April 10, 2001 Page 2 A. Consistency with the General Plan The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the residential uses are proposed for Low Density Residential areas and open spaces will be preserved excluding development of a new road to serve ten custom lots. The roadway width has been kept to a minimum to reduce damage to the affected hillside areas. The Specific Plan contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in evaluating the document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Specific Plan offers guidelines promoting a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with the City's General Plan. The maximum number of residential units is 277. B. Public Welfare The Specific Plan Amendment contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in evaluating the document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Amendment offers guidelines promoting a balanced mix of residential land uses consistent with the City's General Plan. Any development within hillside areas shall comply with Section 9.140.040 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires specific engineering studies and limits the roadway grade to 15%. C. Land Use Compatibility The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram shows the surrounding properties to be primarily Low Density Residential. D. Property Suitability The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public general welfare in the proposed road extension is compatible with existing land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and A:\ResoPC SP25#1 green.wpd - 44greg t - Page 2 U� Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Specific Plan 94-025, Amendment #1 April 10, 2001 Page 3 2. This 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 Impact Report (#941 12047) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164. No changed circumstances or conditions exist and no new information has been provided which would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Acting Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\ResoPC SP25#1green.wpd - 44greg t - Page 3 085 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- Exhibit "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 94-025, AMENDMENT #1 - AGIOTAGE LIMITED APRIL 10, 2001 GENERAL 1 . The developer/property owner agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 2. Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1) shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. The development shall comply with Exhibit "A" of Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1) and those exhibits contained in the Final EIR and Addendum and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 4. The approved Specific Plan text on file with the Community Development Department shall be revised to incorporate the following conditions. Four copies of the final document shall be submitted after final approval by the City Council with an additional copy being unbound. LANDSCAPING 5. Seventy -percent of the trees planted in the parkway shall be specimen trees (e.g., 24"- and 36"-boxes) having a minimum caliper size of 1 .5- to 2.0-inches. Specimen trees shall be a minimum of 10 feet tall measured from the top of the container. 6. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 086 A:I WSP 25 GrAmeu#l.wpd - 44 Greg Trousdell. Page 1 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 94-025, Amendment #1 April 10, 2001 7. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be required for at least 90% of common planting areas. Provisions shall also be made for planting materials which provide forage and nesting areas for nearby wildlife. No building permits shall be issued for Parcel 3 houses until landscaping improvements are installed along the private hillside road. FIRE DEPARTMENT 8. All water mains and fire hydrants providing the required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Code in effect at the time of development. 9. The level of service required for this project shall be aligned with the criteria for Catalog II -Urban as outlined in the Fire Protection Master Plan and as follows: A. Fire station located within three miles. B. Receipt of full "first alarm"assignment within 15 minutes. Impacts to the Fire Department are generally due to the increased number of emergency and public service calls generated by additional buildings and human population. A fiscal analysis for this project shall identify a funding source to mitigate any impacts associated with any capital costs and the annual operating costs necessary for an increased level of service. Said analysis shall be subject to review and approval by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City of La Quinta. PROPOSED TEXT DOCUMENT CHANGES 10. Add to Page 22 (Circulation Section) - 1. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. 58th Avenue, Jefferson Street and 62nd Avenue in accordance with the Jefferson Street Alignment Plan. Development of Phases II and III, as defined in the "Phasing Plan" diagram of this specific plan, shall not begin until at least two lanes of the realigned streets have been installed from 58th Avenue to the south line of Section 29. .Jii " 087 A:I13ond3P 25 GrAmen#l.wpd - 44 Greg TrousdelL Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 94-025, Amendment #1 April 10, 2001 2. Jefferson Street (adjacent to this development) - a. Improvement section as determined by the Jefferson Street Alignment Plan. If the City finds it necessary to revise or abandon the Jefferson Street specific alignment contemplated at the time of approval of this specific plan, the applicant shall revise this specific plan as required by the City to fully address revised access routing. b. Construct 76-foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk on east side of street and 10-foot multi -use trail on west side of street (design to be approved by City). B. PRIVATE STREETS AND CUL DE SAC 1. Residential - Street widths shall comply with the requirements of the Circulation Element (Table CIR-2) of the General Plan. 2. Collector (>-300 homes or 3,000 vehicles per day) - 40-feet wide. 2. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to locations shown on the "Circulation" diagram of the specific plan, subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council during review of the subdivision map applications. Provide a secondary (emergency) access entry (20-foot wide) from Parcel 3 through The Quarry. 3. "The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City. This shall include formation of a homeowner's association or other arrangement acceptable to the City for maintenance of retention basins, common areas, Open Space lettered lots, and perimeter walls and landscaping." 1 1 . Modify Page 17 (First paragraph, Last sentence) as follows: "Ten custom lots are proposed in the northwestern corner of the site, and will gain emergency access through The Quarry and primary access from Jefferson Street via a 28- foot wide private road (curb to curb) pursuant to the design standards of Tentative Parcel Map 28617 and Conditional Use Permit 99-047. A:Tond3P 25 GrAmen#l.wpd - 44 Greg TrousdelL Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Specific Plan 94-025, Amendment #1 April 10, 2001 12. The applicant shall dedicate public 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. Dedication required by this development include: A. Jefferson Street - Full width right of way pursuant to the Jefferson Street Alignment Plan made part of/or adopted with General Plan Amendment 95-048. B. PRIVATE STREETS Residential: 29-foot width. On -street parking is prohibited and provisions shall be made for adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors. The CC&R's shall contain language requiring the Homeowner's Association to provide for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. 13. The applicant shall create a 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Easement within the required 20-foot landscape easement on the west side of Jefferson Street. MCWSP 25 GrAmen#l.wpd - 44 Greg Trousdel Page 4 of 4 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 3,000 LINEAL FOOT PRIVATE ROAD OF WHICH 1,600 LINEAL FEET WILL BE WITHIN THE HILLSIDE THAT EXCEEDS 20 PERCENT CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-047 APPLICANT: AGIOTAGE LTD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 241h day of October, 2000, and 10`h day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of Agiotage Limited, for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a portion of a private road within hillside areas with a slope over 20 percent, located approximately % mile south of Avenue 58 on the east and west sides of future Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: :I�7�1iL.YiQiXIiII�Z�S WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit 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 Impact Report 94-287 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information provided which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending to the City Council approval of said Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.020: A. Consistency with the General Plan/Zoning Ordinance Residential development planned by Specific Plan 94-025 is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. The portion of the proposed road into hillside areas of SP 94-025 is necessary to provide access within the Specific Plan boundaries (i.e., 10 custom lot). The design width of the road at 28 feet is a small as possible to limit hillside grading A:AResoPC CUP47green.wpd, 44 Greg T. - Page 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditional Use Permit 99-047, Agiotage LTD. April 10, 2001 Page 2 activities and sloped less than a 15% gradient in compliance with Section 9.140.040 (H.C. Hillside Conservation) of the Zoning Ordinance. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan or will be conditioned to be so in areas of design development standards, etc. B. Compliance with CEQA The Specific Plan EIR identified significant or potentially significant environmental effect associated with the project covered in Section III of the EIR. The findings, and facts supporting the findings, are required by Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Facts and Findings previously approved in the EIR are still applicable and enforceable. Substantial changes are not proposed by development of the road. C. Surrounding Land Uses The site design of the project is appropriate for the intended uses pursuant Specific Plan 94-025 and compatible with 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; and 2. This 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 Impact Report (#941 12047) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164. No changed circumstances or conditions exist and no new information has been provided which would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and A:AResoPC CUP47green.wpd, 44 Greg T. - Page 2 091 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditional Use Permit 99-047, Agiotage LTD. April 10, 2001 Page 3 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions, labeled Exhibit "A, PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10`h day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Acting Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California City of La Quinta, California A:AResoPC CUP47green.wpd, 44 Greg T. - Page 3 - 092 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- Exhibit "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-047 - AGIOTAGE LIMITED APRIL 10, 2001 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1), unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. Cond CUP 47 Green 44-greg, Page I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 331 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS AND OTHER STREET LOTS LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF FUTURE JEFFERSON STREET, APPROXIMATELY '/2 MILE SOUTH OF AVENUE 58 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28617 APPLICANT: AGIOTAGE LIMITED WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 241h day of October, 2000, and 10" day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings to subdivide 331 acres into four lots and other lettered lots (Lots "A" and "B") in Specific Plan 94-025 generally located on the east and west sides of future Jefferson Street, approximately '/2 miles south of Avenue 58, more particularly described as: Portion of the South % of Section 29, T6S, R7E, SBBM (APN: 761-030-001) WHEREAS, said Parcel Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-63 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 83-009 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164 Addendum. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which require preparation of a subsequent EIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval to the City Council of said Tentative Parcel Map 28617 pursuant to Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Ordinance: Finding Number 1 - Proposed Map Consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1) The proposed parcel map is consistent with the City's General Plan Low Density Residential and Open Space land use designations pursuant to Specific Plan 94- 025 (Amendment #1). Road development in hillside areas shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 9.140.040 of the Zoning Code, and the environmental impact mitigation measures of the Green Specific Plan. 09, A:\RESOpe TPM 28617 Green.wpd, 44 Greg T. Page 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TPM 28617, Agiotage LTD. April 10, 2001 Page 2 The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the City's General Plan with the implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide streets and adequate stormwater drainage via retention basins, culverts, etc. Finding Number 2 - Consistency of Design and Improvements with the General Plan and Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1) The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan 94-025. Implementation of the recommended conditions of approval ensures proper street widths and road design standards are met. Finding Number 3 - Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act The original Green Specific Plan EIR identified significant or potentially significant environmental effect associated with the project covered in Section III of the EIR. The findings, and facts supporting the findings, are required by Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Facts and Findings previously approved in the EIR are still applicable and enforceable. Substantial changes are not proposed by development of the road. Finding Number 4 - Consistency of Public Easements As conditioned, the design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the subdivision. Finding Number 5 - Public Health and Safety The design of the subdivision and type of improvements, as conditioned, are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1) in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. Finding Number 6 - Suitability of Site The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially, and unavoidably injure A:\RESOpc TPM 28617 Green.wpd, 44 Greg T. Page 2 0J.5 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TPM 28617, Agiotage LTD. April 10, 2001 Page 3 fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that SP 94-025 (Amendment #1) prepared for Parcel Map 28617 did not identify any significant impacts for this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby require compliance with Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1); and 3. This 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 Impact Report (#941 12047) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164. No changed circumstances or conditions exist and no new information has been provided which would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and 4. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28617 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 101h day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: I11163 * 1 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California A:\RESOpc TPM 28617 Green.wpd, 44 Greg T. Page 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TPM 28617, Agiotage LTD. April 10, 2001 Page 4 ATTEST: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Acting Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California City of La Quinta, California A:\RESOpc TPM 28617 Green.wpd, 44 Greg T. Page 4 097 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- Exhibit "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28617, AGIOTAGE LIMITED APRIL 10, 2001 GENERAL 1 . Tentative Parcel Map 28617, dated April 5, 2001, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this time extension request. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 3. The development shall comply with Exhibit "A" of Specific Plan 94-025 (Amendment #1) and those exhibits contained in the Final EIR and Addendum and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 4. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the Conditions of Approval, phasing plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The phasing plans are not approved until they are signed by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations in the order of the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be complete and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a sub -phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: * Fire Marshal * Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) * Community Development Department * Riverside County Environmental Health Department * Desert Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts * Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) * Imperial Irrigation District (IID) * Verizon * California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) A:XondTPM28617Gr.FinaLwpd - 44 greg M Page 1 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 2 * Time Warner * Sunline Transit The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. The Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR and Addendum shall be used in the review of all project proposals in the Specific Plan 94-025 area. Said mitigation measures are hereby incorporated into these conditions by reference. 6. Prior to issuance of the final map the applicant shall make the following lot designations: A. The "Open Space" portions of Parcels 1 and 2 shall be designated as separate lettered "Open Space" lots (i.e., Lots C and D); B. The private street providing access to Parcel 3 shall be designated as a lettered lot (Lot "B"); C. Parcel 2 shall show a 29-foot wide access easement extending from Jefferson Street to the private street providing access to Parcel 3. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall dedicate an easement or reserve unto themselves, their successors, and assigns an undevelopable natural open space easement over lettered lots "C" through "D" (designated as "Open Space" lots on the Final Map) and Parcel 4 for preservation of natural open space in perpetuity. 9 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) A:XondTPMZ8G17Gr.F1na1.wpd-44greg Page 2of 15 099 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 3 PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. All easements, rights -of -way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the subdivision and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or filing of a Certificate of Compliance for waiver of a final map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all required improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 1 1 . 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 to those properties alternate rights -of -way or access easements on alignments approved by the City Council. 12. The applicant shall dedicate public 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. Dedication required of this development include: A. Jefferson Street (Lot "A") - Full -width right-of-way pursuant to the Jefferson Street Alignment Plan made part of/or adopted with General Plan Amendment 95-048. PRIVATE STREETS A. Residential: 29-foot width (Lot "B"). On -street parking is prohibited and provisions shall be made for adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors. The CC&R's shall contain language requiring the Homeowner's Association to provide for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc. The applicant shall dedicate street rights -of -way prior to required approvals of any proposed subdivision or improvements to land within the specific plan boundaries. A: ICondTP1d28617Gr.Fina1.wpd - 44 greg sage 3 of J 55 log Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 4 If the City Engineer determines that public 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, then developer shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas within 60-days of written request by the City. 13. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 14. 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): Jefferson Street - 20 feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where sidewalks, bike paths, and/or equestrian trails are required, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements over the setback lots for those purposes. 15. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Jefferson Street from lots abutting the street. Access to the development from Jefferson Street shall be restricted to that shown on the "Circulation" diagram in the specific plan. 16. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox clusters. 17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this specific plan 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 AGREEMENT 18. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City for any tentative tract or parcel map or approved phase of development prior to approval of the map or phase or issuance of a certificate of compliance in -lieu of a final map. A: ICondTPM28G17Gr.FinaLwpd - 44 grog 101 Page 4 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 5 Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 19. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of the improvement costs. The estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not contained in the City's schedule of costs, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. 20. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements (i.e., streets) and development -wide improvements (i.e., perimeter walls, common area and setback landscaping, and gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 21. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" X 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading", "Precise Grading", "Streets and Drainage", and "Landscaping". All plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, parking lots, and water and sewer plans. Combined plans including water and sewer improvements shall have an additional signature block for the CVWD. The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscaping improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above, shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 22. The City may maintain digitized standard plans for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the developer may acquire the standard plan computer files or standard plan sheets prepared by the City. 102 A:WonffPM28617Gr.F1naLwpd - 44 grog Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 6 When final plans are approved by the City, the developer shall furnish accurate computer files of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in program format acceptable to the City Engineer. GRADING 23. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 24. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be submitted with the grading plan. 25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 26. Grading plans adjacent to General Plan designated open space areas shall comply with the requirements of Sections 9.110.070 (Hillside Conservation Overlay District) and 9.140.040 (Hillside Conservation Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance. 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, La Quinta Municipal Code. 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. 28. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each building pad in the development, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly 103 AAondTPM28817Gr.F1naLwpd-44greg Page 6of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 7 identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by development phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 29. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained on site (rather than detained and released as proposed in the specific plan document). The tributary drainage area for which the developer is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 30. 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 2.5 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impractical. 31. If individual lot retention is approved, the following conditions shall apply: A. Each private lot proposed for on -site retention shall be designed to receive and safely convey stormwater in excess of retention capacity, including inflow from adjacent properties. Front yards shall drain to the street unless constrained by the overall lay of the land. Basin capacity calculations and grading plans for each lot shall consider previously - approved grading plans for adjacent properties and shall be submitted, with copies of the previously approved adjacent lot plans, to the City Engineer for plan checking and approval. B. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of the final subdivision map, a homeowner's association or lot owner's association (HOA) shall be legally established and Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CC & Rs) recorded. The CC & Rs shall stipulate the requirement for design, construction and maintenance of individual on lot basins and the required retention capacity for each individual lot. The CC & Rs shall grant the HOA irrevocable rights to enter and maintain each individual retention basin and all other grading and facilities necessary for the stormwater retention design. The CC & Rs shall establish, in an irrevocable manner that: 1 . The HOA has responsibility for the overall retention capacity of the development; 2. If the HOA fails to maintain the overall retention capacity, the City shall have the right to seek other remedies to restore and/or A: ICondTPM28617Gr.FivaLwpd-44greg r,l Page 7 of 15 11 i Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 8 maintain the overall capacity or to establish or expand downstream facilities to mitigate the off -site effects of the HOA's failure to maintain the overall capacity; and 3. The HOA shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all costs incurred in exercising such right. C. The final subdivision map shall establish a perpetual easement granting the City the right to enter and maintain retention basins and other drainage facilities and grading as necessary to preserve or restore the approved stormwater conveyance and retention design with no compensation to any property owner of the HOA. 40. In design of retention facilities, the basin percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1 . If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. 41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape areal and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 42. No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 43. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 44. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 45. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 46. If any portion of the 100-year, 24-hour storm flow from this development is to be conveyed directly or indirectly to bodies of water subject to the NPDES, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water AACondTPM28617Gr.FfnaLwpd - 44 greg 105 Page 8 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 9 separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize the potential for conveyance of stormwater contamination to off -site locations. Drainage to off -site locations an methods of treatment or screening shall meet the approval of the City Engineer and other agencies that have jurisdiction. UTILITIES 47. Existing and proposed wire and cable utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be underground. Power lines exceeding 35 kv are exempt from this requirement. 48. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone strands, to ensure optimum placement for aesthetic as well as practical purposes. 49. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREETS AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 50. The City is contemplating adoption of a major infrastructure and thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below. 51. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Street right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801 , and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 10� A:ICondTPM286176r.Final.wpd - 44 grog Page 9 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 10 Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading, including site and building construction traffic. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section which will be subjected to traffic loadings, the partial section shall be designed with a strength equivalent to the 20-year design strength. 52. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 53. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond subdivision boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will insure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 54. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1 . 58th Avenue, Jefferson Street and 62nd Avenue in accordance with the Jefferson Street Alignment Plan. Development of Phases II and III, as defined in the "Phasing Plan" diagram of this specific plan, shall not begin until at least two lanes of the realigned streets have been installed from 58th Avenue to the south line of Section 29. 2. Jefferson Street (adjacent to this development) - Improvement section as determined by the Jefferson Street Alignment Plan. If the City finds it necessary to revise or abandon the Jefferson Street specific 107 A: ICoudTPM286176rY1naLwpd-44greg Page 10of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 11 alignment contemplated at the time of approval of this specific plan, the applicant shall revise this specific plan as required by the City to fully address revised access routing. B. PRIVATE STREETS AND CUL DE SAC 1 . Residential (Lot "B") - 28' minimum gutter flow line to gutter flow line, parking prohibited. Parking restriction shall be provided for and enforced by the Homeowners Association. 2. Collector (>:300 homes or 3,000 vehicles per day) - 40-feet wide. 55. All streets proposed for residential or other access drives shall be designed and constructed with curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding in yard or drive areas. 56. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to locations shown on the "Circulation" diagram of the specific plan, subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council during review of the subdivision map application(s). Provide a secondary (emergency) access entry (20-foot wide) from Parcel 3 through The Quarry. 57. Prior to occupancy of completed buildings within the development, the applicant shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those buildings. 58. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. These amenities shall include, as a minimum, a bus turnout location and passenger waiting shelter. The location and character of the turnout and shelter shall be as determined by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 59. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or lots along Jefferson Street pursuant to Section 9.60.240 of the Zoning Ordinance. The concept landscape plan for Jefferson Street shall be approved by the Planning Commission during review of a Site Development Permit and/or subdivision map application. Seventy -percent of the trees planted in the parkway shall be specimen trees (e.g., 24"- and 36"-boxes) having a minimum caliper size of 1.5- to 2.0-inches. Specimen trees shall be a minimum of 10 feet tall measured from the top of the container. 108 A:XondTPM28617Gr.Fina1.wpd-44greg Page 11 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 12 60, Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. Conceptual front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission during consideration of any Site Development Plan application. 61. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18-inches of curbs along public and private streets. 62. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in perimeter setbacks, medians and other publicly - or commonly -maintained landscape areas. 63. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 64. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 65. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be required for at least 90% of common planting areas. Provisions shall also be made for planting materials which provide forage and nesting areas for nearby wildlife. FIRE DEPARTMENT 66. All water mains and fire hydrants providing the required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Code in effect at the time of development. 109 A: ICondTPM28617Gr.Final.apd - 44 greg Page 12 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 13 67. The level of service required for this project shall be aligned with the criteria for Catalog II -Urban as outlined in the Fire Protection Master Plan and as follows: A. Fire station located within three miles. B. Receipt of full "first alarm"assignment within 15 minutes. Impacts to the Fire Department are generally due to the increased number of emergency and public service calls generated by additional buildings and human population. A fiscal analysis for this project shall identify a funding source to mitigate any impacts associated with any capital costs and the annual operating costs necessary for an increased level of service. Said analysis shall be subject to review and approval by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City of La Quinta. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 68. The applicant shall comply. with the requirements of the CVWD at time development plans are submitted. During project development all irrigation facilities shall be designed to utilize reclaimed water sources when such sources become available. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 69. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Imperial Irrigation District at time development plans are submitted. RECREATION 70. Prior to any final map approval by the City Council, the applicant shall meet the parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code and in compliance with the goals and policies of the La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan. QUALITY ASSURANCE 71. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 72. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet A: ICondTPMn6176r.Final.wpd-44greg Page 13 of 15 - 11�1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 14 of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. MAINTENANCE 73. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City. This shall include formation of a homeowner's association or other arrangement acceptable to the City for maintenance of retention basins, common areas and perimeter walls and landscaping. 74. The applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES AND DEPOSITS 75. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits. The applicant shall additionally pay any fees of any nature required by the City at the time of recording of the final map or the issuance of a building permit according to the fee requirements in effect at the time of issuance or approvals for those items. 76. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay all costs of the reapportionment. 77. In order to mitigate impacts on public schools, applicant shall comply with the following: "Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide the Building and Safety Department with written clearance from the affected school district stating that the per -unit impact fees have been paid." 78. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. A:XondTPMZ8G17Gr.Flna1.wpd - 44 greg Page 14 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Parcel Map 28617 April 10, 2001 Page 15 MISCELLANEOUS 79. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) and the City's NPDES permit. 80. Prior to issuance of any site permits, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department a detailed construction plan for the project's Multi -Purpose Trail. This plan shall include access, signage, and detailed design. The applicant shall create a 10-fcot wide Multi -Purpose Easement within the required 20-foot landscape easement plus the west side of Jefferson Street right-of-way. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 82. 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. 112 A:XondTPMZ86176r.Final.wpd-44greg Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENTS 1 113 Attachment 1 J < 2 i W W za m W o 2 W O N > C N W ~ a N > Z W U f q W U U ; n W Z W 1 O I vHo E H N N i ow Attachment 2 J uu� ni' rrr� row +xroxoar i-,xm nno same w,v ,unexn Y u. N'd�1d 'JI�1'JS♦d�S��.N/l�l�1klO/� oxw.w wn i arm«.,,a ,uu i aw.wv 7 NV_j I �/ u . V Gl$I I„I JNI 'S3IYIJOSSY ONY N1IX5 'ON3fNfYH Mo 0�0 JW� 0�j 0WO 0�0 zzz �52 NLo� 0. 0 0 00d60 0 co F jZZD C4I N 115 059 J I Q( < Ll- N bx F-L5 t L $m4m MZM r Attachment 3 0 prig Moll yyypyyyg EEaQ!Q! po tt! s �YY kr ,u uxx Y v A A 7 A l l l l B 1 r- L L• PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 10, 2001 CASE NUMBER: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-068 REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13 OF THE LA QUINTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT PER SECTION 15061(B.3) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its September 15, 1998 meeting, approved Ordinance No. 326 amending Title 13-Subdivision Regulations to add Section 13.16. 1 00-Amending Maps as well as revise Section 13.32.020 and 13.32.060- Lot Line Adjustments. Because there was no restriction on the number of lots that could be reconfigured with a lot line adjustment, developers were using this procedure to make significant changes to approved final subdivision maps. The lot line adjustment process only requires administrative approval and is not subject to public notification and approval by a governing body. Therefore, the amending map process (Subdivision Map Act-66472- 1) was incorporated into the City's subdivision regulations in order to allow for more significant changes to approved final maps. Currently the process requires the Planning Commission and City Council review and conditionally approve, approve or deny this application as a public hearing. PROJECT REQUEST: Staff is recommending that the Community Development Director, designated per the Subdivision Regulations as the "Advisory Agency" (Section 13.04.040), review and approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove amended maps so as to streamline the for amending of final maps. Currently the Director acting as the Advisory Agency reviews and conditionally approves, approves or denies Parcel Maps using the public hearing process. The State of California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474.7 - P:IC H RISTka mended maps PCStaff report 4-10-01.wpd i Advisory Agency May Approve or Deny Maps for Governing Body, states that "such appellant shall be entitled to the same notice and rights regarding testimony as are accorded a subdivider under Section 66452.5-Subdivider, advisory agency and interested person appeals." Within the attached resolution, staff has modified the appropriate Subdivision regulations to allow the Community Development Director acting as the Advisory Agency to approve, conditionally approve or deny amendments to final maps using the public hearing process provided there is an appeal process. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun on April 3, 2001, as a one-third display ad. To date, no correspondence has been received. REQUIRED FINDINGS: The Findings necessary for recommending approval of the Zoning Code Amendment can be made as noted in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2001-068, as submitted. Prepared and submitted by: 0 l�.(� k4 , Christine di lorio Planning Manager P:\C H RISTI\amended maps PCStaff report 4-10-01.wpd 113 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE LA QUINTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE (LQMC) RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 13.04.040(ADVISORY AGENCY), 13.04.060(REVIEW AND APPROVAL AUTHORITY), 13.12.130(APPEALS), 13.20.115(AMENDING MAPS) AND 13.120.130(APPEALS). CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-068 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 10th day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider revision to the Municipal Code Title 13 Sections 13.04.040, 13.04.060, 13.12.130, 13.20.115, and 13.120.130 within the City of La Quinta; and, WHEREAS, said request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Director has determined that the project could not have any significant adverse effect on the physical environment; therefore, the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zoning Code Amendment. 1. The proposed revisions will not adversely affect the planned development of the City as specified by the General Plan for the City of La Quinta because the regulations provide requirements which work in concert with and enhance the community. 2. The proposed Amendment would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the City in that it is only a procedural change which still requires the public hearing process. WHEREAS, Section 66472.1 of the California Government Code allows the Advisory Agency to review the amendment of final maps, if prescribed by local ordinance, by a process which includes public notification and an appeal process. PAC HRI STI\ResoPCAmdM ap. wpd - I1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Zoning Code Amendment 2001-068 filing fee, may be submitted to the Community Development Department. The City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the City Council. The hearing on the appeal shall be held not more than thirty (30) day from the date of receipt of the appeal and shall give written notice of the hearing to the subdivider, property owner, and those property owners or individuals originally noticed at the first public hearing. The decision of the City Council shall be rendered within ten (10) days following the conclusion of the hearing and shall be considered final. 13.20.115 AMENDING MAPS Final maps and parcel maps may be amended in conformance with Government Code Section (GC§) 66469 through 66472.1 and the following: A. If amendments are confined to those set forth in GC§ 66469, the amending map shall be filed with the City Engineer in accordance with Sections 13.20.040 and 13.20.050. The City Engineer shall examine the map and if he or she finds that the amendments are limited to those set forth in GC§ 66469 and the amending map complies with GC§ 66470, shall endorse thereon a certification of said finding and the applicant may submit the amending map to the county recorder for recordation. B. An amending map which exceeds the changes set forth in GC§ 66469 but conforms with GC§ 66470 may be filed in accordance with GC§ 66472.1 and the provisions of this section. The map shall be filed with the Community Development Department and shall include the initial application materials and fees specified in Sections 13.12.040 and the materials are as follows: 1. A five hundred foot radius map exhibit, drawn to scale, which displays those properties within five hundred feet of the subdivision boundaries and which identifies the names the affected property owners, as listed in the latest updated county equalized tax rolls; 2. One set of self-adhesive mailing labels and one photocopy of the names and addresses of those property owners with five hundred of the subdivision boundary; 3. Fifteen copies of the amending final map, folded accordion style to a size not exceeding sight and one-half inches by eleven inches, with reduced reproducible originals not exceeding eith and one-half inches by eleven inches in size; 12�) P:\CHRlSTl\ResoPCAmdMap.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Zoning Code Amendment 2001-068 4. A preliminary title report prepared and dated not more tha ninety days prior to submission of the application; 5. This list is not all inclusive and any other special studies required will be determined by city staff on a case -by -case basis. Prior to map and, if necessary, plan checking by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit the map checking application materials and fees specified in Section 13.20.50 and (if necessary) the plan checking fees specified in Section 13.24.180. The map shall be processed in the following sequence: Cursory review by staff and outside agencies deemed affected by the amendments; Review and Consideration by Advisory Agency at public hearing; If approved, map and plan checking, as necessary, by the City Engineer; preparation and execution of any needed revisions to the improvement agreement; signatures by City Engineer, City Clerk, and (if a new or amended improvement agreement required) the City Attorney and Community Development Director; recordation via the City's normal process for subdivision maps. Section 13.20.130 Appeals of City staff, Advisory Agency, or Planning Commission decisions concerning final maps, amending final maps, parcel maps and waivers of parcel maps shall be processed as provided in Chapter 13.12.140, Subdivision Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2001-068 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 10th day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: P:ACHRISTIAResoPCAmdMap.wpd 1'i Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Zoning Code Amendment 2001-068 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: CHRISTINE DI IORIO Acting Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\CHRIS"CI\ResoPCAmdMap.wpd ,� 2ti Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Zoning Code Amendment 2001-068 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta does recommend to the City Council the following modifications: 13.04.040 ADVISORY AGENCY The Community Development Director is designated an "Advisory Agency" under state law for the purposes of: A. Investigating and preparing reports to the Planning Commission on the design and improvement of subdivisions. B. Approving, conditionally approving or disapproving tentative parcel maps. C. Approving, conditionally approving or disapproving amending of final maps. 13.04.060 REVIEW AND APPROVAL AUTHORITY The authority for review and approval of subdivisions and related land actions is as follows: Type of Action Review Authority Approval Authority Tentative maps *City Staff City Council *Other responsible agencies *Planning Commission Vesting tentative maps Tentative parcel maps Tentative map extensions Final and parcel maps *City Staff City Council *Other responsible agencies oPlanning Commission *City Staff Community Dev't. Dir. 00ther responsible agencies *City Staff City Council 00ther responsible agencies oPlanning Commission oCity Staff City Council *Other responsible agencies oPlanning Commission P:\CHRI STI\ResoPCAmdMap. wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Zoning Code Amendment 2001-068 Waivers of parcel maps Reversions to acreage Lot line adjustments Lot & parcel mergers Amending Final Maps 13.12.130 APPEALS •City Staff *Other responsible agencies •City Staff *Other responsible agencies •Planning Commission *City Staff *Other responsible agencies *City Staff *Other responsible agencies City Staff Other responsible agencies Community Dev't. Dir. City Council Community Dev't. Dir. Community Dev't. Dir. Community Dev't. Dir. A subdivider or any other interested party may appeal a decision of City Staff, Advisory Agency or the Planning Commission by using the following procedures: A. Appeal of the Advisory Agency Within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the decision by City Staff, a written appeal, accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, may be submitted to the Community Development Department. The "date of decision" shall be either the time a formal noticed hearing is held or the date noted on correspondence mailed to the subdivider indicating the Staff decision. The appeal shall state the item to be appealed and the reason for the request. The Community Development Director shall set the matter for hearing before the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days after the date of filing the appeal. Written notice of the hearing shall be provided by mail to the subdivider, the property owner and those property owners or individuals originally noticed at the time of the first public hearing. Within ten (10) days following the conclusion of the hearing, the P181111ilig e0niMissior. shall rendei its decision. B. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the decision by the Planning Commission, a written appeal, accompanied by the appropriate P.ACIlRISTIAResoPCAmdMap.wpd FROM : Center for Dio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 10 2001 02:50PM P2 `t "�'�°4a Center for B iologieal Diversity Rom6ng mdsaaai'g-'-8vd -7XOC mAd -Yp4w ?f Votem Nonh-9,—xa �% �� Jl md>Ir, P�frrtfimagJr.rae�� a2va�cm, and ani,�nmatm'/oa •��ilk& VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY April 10, 2001 City of La Quinta Planning Commission c/o Christine Di Iorio, Acting Community Development Director City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quints CA 92253 Re: Environmental Impact Report (94-287) Addendum for "The Green" Honorable Commissioners and Ms. Di Iorio: Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report (94-287) for "The Green" development project in the City of La Quints. The purpose of this letter is to request that the Planning Commission deny certification of the addendum, and to require submission of a subsequent EIR addressing new information and changed circumstances regarding the Peninsular bighorn sheep prior to reconsideration. New information and changed circumstances reveal that the project will significantly harm the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep to an extent not known or considered during the course of previous California Environmental Quality Act analysis. I. The project applicant must prepare a subsequent EIR due to substantially changed circumstances and availability of new information Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code sets forth three circumstances which trigger the need for preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report: (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; Tucson • Phoenix • San Diego • Silver City • Berkeley • Portland • Shaw Island Sou*wm Cahb= Off a -PO Bcx 628 • SamaYskck CA-W70 T (760) 7a9744 • F. (76O) 782-0301 wwwLioloBcaldivruityo�g 12 04-10-91 14: 36 RECEIVED FROM: '1�•02 FROM : Center for Eio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 10 2001 02:50PM P3 Request for subsequent EIR for "The Greed' proiect April 10, 2001 Page 2 (2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which a project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; and (3) new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. In this instance, the last two triggering conditions apply, and a subsequent environmental impact report must be prepared before approval of The Green project. The EIR Addendum now under consideration by the Planning Commission wholly fails to address changed circumstances and new information regarding impacts to bighorn which will result from The Green project. According to CEQA Guidelines' section 15164(a): "The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." See CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), emphasis added. Here it is clear that The Green project will trigger the second two conditions described in Public Resources Code § 21166, thereby requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162_2 Several substantial changes have occurred with regard to circumstances surrounding The Green project. New information is also available regarding the effects of the project on Peninsular bighorn sheep. First, the Martinez Canyon bighorn ewe group population has declined significantly since The Green project EIR was approved in 1995. This ewe group lives in and around The Green project site. Bighorn in the Santa Rosa Mountains east of Highway 74 declined by roughly 42% between 1996 and 1998, from 83 down to 48 sheep.' These declines correspond with an overall population decline throughout the U.S. which triggered the federal listing of the Peninsular bighorn sheep as an endangered species on March 18, 1998. This listing occurred after The Green EIR was approved in 1995. Since federal listing, a recovery team was established and has prepared a recovery plan for the Peninsular bighorn. One of the first tasks accomplished by the recovery team was identification of 0 Peninsular bighorn habitat considered by recovery team experts to be essential for the ' CEQA guidelines are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq. ' A supplemental EIR is appropriate when only minor changes or additions are necessary to make the original EIR adequate. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15163(a). ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. R4-19-01 14:37 RECEIVED FROM: lzr P.03 . FROM : Center for Bio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. : Apr. 10 2201 02:51PIl P4 Request for subsequent EIR for "The Green" proiect April 10, 2001 Page 3 conservation (i.e. survival and recovery) ofthe species. This essential habitat is identified in the final recovery plan and includes all part of The Green project. Recovery plan at page 74. A major comprehensive study on the effects of urbanization on Peninsular bighorn sheep has also been completed since approval of The Green EIR.' Prior to completion of this study, urban effects on the Peninsular bighorn sheep were less certain. However, the 1998 study provided quantifiable data of adverse impacts that can be expected from urban projects such as The Green. The study focused on the harmful effects of urbanization on a ewe group in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains. The study found that between 1991 through 1996, 11 bighorn mortalities were directly caused by urbanization (5 struck by automobiles, 5 ingested toxic exotic plants, and 1 was strangled in a fence). Seven additional bighorn were documented in a compromised condition as a result of interactions with urbanization (4 struck by automobiles, 3 with heavy parasite infections). This study provides substantial new information regarding the likely negative effects of The Green project that was unavailable during prior environmental review. This information must be considered fully in a subsequent or supplemental EIR. All of this information — decline of the Martinez Canyon ewe group, decline in Peninsular bighorn sheep numbers throughout the species' range, federal listing as an endangered species, identification of "essential" Peninsular bighorn habitat on The Green project site and the effects of urbanization study — are clearly changed circumstances and new information that require substantial revisions to the previous EIR. These substantial revisions clearly cannot be addressed in an EIR Addendum. For thee reasons, a subsequent EIR must be prepared. II Federal listing of the Peninsular bighorn as endangered triggered a mandatory finding of significance requirement not present during the previous CEQA review Section 15065 ofthe CEQA Guidelines, entitled Mandatory Findings of Significance, provides in pertinent part that: "A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any one of the following conditions occur: ° DeForge, J.R. and S.D. Ostermann. 1998. The effects of urbanization on a population of desert bighorn sheep. A summary of the results of this study is attached, and the study hereby incorporated by reference. RECEIVED FROM: 04-16-61 14.38 127 P•04 FROM : Center for Bio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 10 2001 02:53P11 P5 Request for subseouent EIR for "The Green" oroiect April 10, 2001 Page 4 (a) The project has the potential to ... reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species ...." The plain, unqualified language of Section 15065 requires that any restriction of the range of an "endangered" species rises to the level of significant impact. Unlike several other impacts listed in Section 15065(a) which do not involve endangered species, impacts that have the potential to reduce the range of an endangered species are considered significant without a showing of "substantial" restriction of range or complete "elimination" of the species. In this instance, The Green project is poised to further reduce and restrict the range of the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep by destroying approximately 94 acres of essential bighorn habitat and indirectly affecting a much greater area through noise, lighting and other impacts associated with a greatly increased human presence. This further reduction of the endangered bighorn's range triggers Section 15065's mandatory requirement for a finding of significance. This in turn renders totally inadequate The Green EIR Addendum. The mandatory finding of significance is a new circumstance that was not in existence during the previous review because the Peninsular bighorn was not yet a federally listed endangered species.' The mandatory finding of significance sets into play a completely new level of environmental review that must be conducted before a proposed project can be considered for approval. This includes an analysis of the project in light of the acknowledged significant impact to determine whether there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. This analysis can only be accomplished through preparation of a subsequent EIR which is subjected to review and comment by the public and scientific community and adoption of findings appropriate for projects with significant impacts. Further, although Section 15065 refers to findings requiring preparation of an EK it applies equally to the analysis done when considering whether a subsequent EIR is required. This is made clear in the discussion section following the Guideline which reads, in pertinent part: 5 The Peninsular bighorn sheep was listed as a state threatened species; however, during the time periods in which the previous environmental review for The Green project was conducted, the section's mandatory requirements did not apply to restriction of a threatened species' range. Section 15065(a) was not amended until December 1998 to include restricting the range of a "threatened" species as a triggering event. RECEIVED FROM: 04-10-01 14:sy 128 P•05 FRAN : Center for Bio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 10 2001 02:54PN PG Request for subsequent EIR for "The Green" 2roiect April 10, 2001 Page 5 "This section provides additional explanation ofthe mandatory findings of significance required by the Legislature in [Public Resources Code] section 21083. These mandatory findings control not only the decision of whether to prepare an EIR but also the identification of effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. the requirement to make detailed findings on the feasibility of alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the significant effects and when found to be feasible, the making of changes in the project to lessen the adverse environmental impacts. This section is necessary to insure that public agencies follow the concerns of the Legislature in determining that certain effects shall be found significant and then take the actions at the different stages of the process that are required with significant effects." (emphasis added.) Facts similar to those presented in this instance were considered in Mira Monte Homeowners' Association v County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357,212 Cal.Rptr. 127, which addressed the applicability of the mandatory findings of significance to a project for which an EIR had already been prepared. The issue was a change in circumstance that revealed further intrusion into wetlands occupied by rare plant species. Id. at 364. Addressing the significance of this new information, the Court found the following: Significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment (§ 21068). The CEQA Guidelines require a mandatory finding of significance where, inter alia, the project "... has the potential to ... threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, [or] reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant ..." (Guidelines § 15065), Id. at 363. Although the County of Ventura had adopted a series of mitigation measures it claimed would reduce the new impact to a level of insignificance, the Court of Appeal was unpersuaded and found that the new significant impact triggered the need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Once the facts establish that the range of an endangered species was reduced, the duty to find significance was no longer discretionary, and opinions by experts that the impact is not significant were irrelevant to the legal question. Id. at 364 fn.10. See also Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.AppAth 1019, 1024, fn. 6. Mira Monte makes clear that the mandatory findings of significance apply to all stages of the EIR preparation and consideration, including post- EIR stages where new information is discovered. RECEIVED FROM: 04-10-01 14;4u 12�. 06 FRON : Center For Fio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 10 2001 02:55PH P7 Request for subsequent EIR for "The Green" project April 10, 2001 Page 6 III. A subsequent FIR is required for The Green project because several California Department of Fish and Game concerns have never been addressed The California Department of Fish and Game sent two letters to the City of La Quinta regarding The Green draft EIR.` These letters presented significant concerns regarding the failure of the EIR to address project impacts to the bighorn. The City and project applicant have never adequately responded, and these concerns must now be addressed in an subsequent EIR. Major concerns expressed by Fish and Game include, among others, The Green EIR does not adequately consider the importance of the project site as occupied bighorn habitat; • The Green EIR does not mitigate for significant project impacts to bighorn occupying the project site and adjacent Bureau of Land Management and California Department of Fish and Game lands; • CEQA Guidelines do not recognize plans as mitigation. The proposed Habitat Management Plan must be prepared as part of a draft subsequent EIR and distributed with that document for public review; • The FIR does not adequately address direct, indirect and cumulative effects of The Green project on the bighorn; • Mitigation measures in the EIR fail to include compensation for bighorn sheep habitat losses; • The project applicant must obtain take authorization from the Department of Fish and Game for the bighorn; 6 February 28, 1995 letter from Patricia Wolfe, California Department of Fish and Game to Jerry Herman, City of La Quinta regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for Travertine and Green Specific Plan SCH 94112047, Riverside County. This letter is available in La Quinta files and is hereby incorporated by reference. Also, May 1, 1995 letter from Patricia Wolf to Jerry Herman regarding Final Environmental Impact Report for Travertine and Green Specific Plan SCH 94112047, Riverside County. This letter is apparently not contained in the City's files according to communications with planner Greg Trousdell. This letter is attached and hereby incorporated by reference. 131) 04-10-01 14:41 RECEIVED FROM: P-07 FROM : Center for Bio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 10 2001 02:56PN P2 Request for subsequent EIR for "The Green" nroiect April 10, 2001 Page 7 The EIR provides no supporting rationale for its conclusion that impacts to bighorn can or will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I will be available at the Planning Commission meeting this evening, or please contact me at 760 782-9244 if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, David Hogan cc: Curt Taucher, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game 04-10-01 14:42 RECEIVED FROM: 13.1 P.OB FROM : Center for 5io-Diversity, CA FAX NO. : Apr. 10 2001 02:56PM P9 Effects of urbanization on desert bighorn. James R. DeForge and Stacey D. Osterman. DEFORGE, JAMES R., and STACEY D. OSTERMANN. Effects of urbanization on a population of desert bighorn sheep. Bighorn Institute, P. O. Box 262, Palm Desert, CA 92261 Peninsular desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) in the United States declined >70% in the past two decades, to approximately 280 adults in 1996. Peninsular bighorn are listed as threatened by the State of California and endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the northern Santa Rosa Mountains (NSRM) of California, Peninsular bighorn often use urban residential areas constructed within bighorn habitat. We studied cause -specific mortality of radio -collared bighorn in the NSRM between 1991-1996 and documented 11 mortalities directly caused by urbanization (5 automobile collisions, 5 exotic plant poisonings, and 1 fence strangulation). Urbanization accounted for 34% (11 /32) of the adult bighorn mortalities; remaining mortalities were attributed to predation (28%), disease (3%), and unknown causes (34%). Indirect effects of urbanization on bighorn included 4 injured from automobile collisions and 3 with clinical signs of parasite infection. Strongyle parasites are rare in desert ecosystems, but Strongyle ova or larvae were found in 86% (25/28) of the bighorn tested. Altered habitat use and behavior of bighorn sheep using urban areas appeared to contribute to the chronic low lamb recruitment recorded for this population. We recommend constructing a fence along the urban -mountain interface to exclude bighorn sheep from urban areas in the NSRM. TWS98 04-1B-B1 p 14=42 RECEIVED FROM: •� FROM Center F,�_rFio_-Di_ver_s_ity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 1E 2001 02:57Fh1 P10 �YJVYL Y}'. SATE Or rALIFORNIA—LYE RESOVECES AGENCY IEEE WILSON, Oow,n,, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 030 .GOLDEN SHORE, SUITE so LONG E^_ACH, CA 904W (3101 590-5113 May 1, 1935 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Ctuinte 78-495 Calle Tampico La Ouinta, California 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: Final Environmental Impact Report Travertine and Green Specific Plan SCH 94112047, Riverside County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced document relative to its affects on biological resources. The Department believes that the FEIR has failed _o respond to the issues we have raised: Many of the comments within the FOR are conclusionary relying on unsubstantiated opinion, or are non -responsive in nature. The FEIR operates on the assumption that future plans can successfully mitigate project related impacts. The FEIR also erroneously assumes that impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), a state -listed threatened species, have been mitigated to a level of less than significant. It is the Department's determination that proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and will need modification. Responses to our comments in the FEIR imply that project related impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep were mitigated in an Environmental Assessment (FA) prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (RLM) for a land exchange. The FEIR states that "The EA conclusions were utilized extensively in preparation of the Travertine and Green Specific Plan Draft EIR." Neither the EA nor its accompanying biological report were provided in the DEIR, technical appendices, FEIR or anywhere else in the administrative record. Department staff have acquired these documents and our review has revealed inconsistencies with the FEIR's interpretation of the EA and erroneou-1 assumptions related to bighorn sheep management. . The EA prepared by BLM is not a surrogate for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Furthermore, there is no formal recognition in the EA that the land exchange was mitigation for development. To the contrary, in the EA Mitigation Measures section on Page 18, it states: "..,deveiopmenrs most deveiop in accordance with an approved Specffic Plan after the approval of an ElR. impacts t�, the biological resources present on the selected public land would be addressed in this EIR. R 04-19-01 14:43 RECEIVED FROM: 133 P•10 FROM Cznter ror Eio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. : Apr. 10 2001 02:59PM P12 Mr. Jerry Herman Ma r 1, 1995 Page Three that buffers would be provided rut failed to provide a description. The current proposed buffer In the FEIR is substantially less than the minimum figure provided by the Department and significantly deviates from the buffers associated with the development example given in the biological technical report. Buffers at the development mentioned in the report were for 400 m (1312 ft) of natural landscape. The Department providec the fig.Ire of 184.6 m (605 ft) as a minimal distance. The FEIR, however, dr.scribes a 9' A m (300 ft) buffer encumbered with recreational development in the form of :3 go:f course. The buffer width described In the FEIR would not be acceptable to the Department. Its proposed configuration cannot be substantiated by any evidence in the record. In spite of our earlier cunamt= on the DEIR, the FOR continues to rely on the personal opinions of the consulting biologist as substantial evidence. The reputed notoriety of a consulting biologist is not a substitute for substantial evidence. The record does not contain any factual basis or reasonable assumptions predicated on facts to support iris contentions. Opinions and assertions presented in the biological report prepared for the BLM EA are also similarly deficient. The CEQA requires that expert testimony and opinion be supported by substantial evidence. The cumulative effects analysis remains deficient. The FEIR response to comments on issues raised in the Department's letter of February 28, 1995, is unresponsive in nature on this issue,. The FEIR compares cumulative effects with general plans for the county and the city, community plans and a street alignment plan, A comparison of cumulative effects on Peninsular bighorn sheep and the Santa Rosa Mountains was not provideu. Recent ;.curt decisions have held that an EIR must compare the impacts of the projecl with the actual environment upon which the proposal will operate and not witl' existing plans. Response to the Department's COMMerfirs on alternatives analysis is also unsatisfactory. CEQA Guidelines, § 15126 oequires that discussions of alternatives, "... focus on alternatives cepabl$ or' eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even it these alternatives would impede to some degree Ms. at!ainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. " Since the Project Obltotives section of the DEIR did not specify the proposed location, an off -site alt-rnative should have been considered. An EIR is not a document of advoca y but of information. A modification of the preferred alternative or an off -site siternativef could have provided an environmentally superior alternative. in the .)apartment's view, the DEIR and FEIR have not provided sufficient discussion of the merits of the alternatives that would allow for informed decision making by the City Council. 13 �,n_rA_ra1 14:45 RECEIVED FROM: P.12 10 2001 02:58P9 P11 FROM Center For Apr. "1io-Diversity, CA FAX N0. : VJuuz Mr. Jerry Herman May 1, 1995 Page Two The EA goes on to state, in the Recommendation/Rationale section, that the lands to be exchanged are approximately equal in •falue. The focus of the EA is on the land exchange itself, not on the appropriateness of the development. An additional inaccurate infeience r that the land exchange provided habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep in the San Jacinto Mountains. Two of the four sections exchanged by the property owner are outside of the range of Peninsular bighorn sheep in the San Jacinto Mountains (Sec 5, & 29, T5S, R4E). The other two sections (21 & 27, T55, RAE) are demi :.ated with vegetation which does not contribute to bighorn sheep habitat. On pages 12 of the EA in the Biological Resources section it states: ",At elevations above approxirnarely 3600 feet on the offered private land, the rrapsition to pinyon juniper habnat ocevr.> ". The I:.A continues, describing pinyon -juniper Bind chaparral habitat which is not suitable habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep, but is the predominant vegetation on all four sections. A fifth section of land (Sec. 33) previously owned by the Nature Conservancy is situated within bighorn sheep habitat in the Santa Rasa Mountains. Unfortunately, this section of land is traversed by the Dunn Road which was protected by an easement in the exchange.The presence of this road severely limits the Department's ability to manage bighorn sheep on the property in perpetuity. This road has contributed to poaching, OHV uses and trespass by recreationists into sheep habitat at sensitive times of the year. Land use under the current scenario does not provide an opportunity for acceptable management. The FEIR assumes that impacts to sensitive wildlife resources will be mitigated through unrealized planning effor`s. Plans reported to provide mitigation included a "bighorn sheep habitat management plan" and the "Coachella Valley Mutti•Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (C,JMSHCP). Neither of these plans have been described in detail nor have they beer implemented. The CVMSHCP is in the early stages of inception'and specific mitigation measures have yet to be described. Preliminary mitigation elements to be included in a sheep plan have been offered but they are vague and are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Department requested that mitigation measures for bighorn sheep be described In sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy requirements for a California Endangered Species Act -Memorandum of Understanding and that buffers be incorporated and designed in consultation with the Department. The DEIR stated 04-10-61 14:44 RECEIVED FROM: P - 1 1 FRAN : Center For Bio-Diversity, CA FAX NO. Apr. 10 2001 ©3:9aPi'1 P13 rfl 004 Mr, Jerry Herman May 1, 199$ Page Four To summarize the Department's;rvolyement, staff first Spoke with the biological consultants in May and urg%d them to participate in a pre -project planning meeting to discuss these issues. l he Department provided detailed scoping comments at the Notice of Preperacion stage on December 2, 1994, The Department also invited the consuiuAnt to a pre -project planning meeting on February 10, 1995 to discuss issues of concern. Consultants initiated a meeting with the Department on April 27, 1995 to discuss issues we had raised In our correspondence and at a previous meeting, Despite the Department's efforts to resolve tnese issues the necessary mitigations still lacking in the FEIR. The Department, therefore, requests tkat the EIR not be certified until a supplement can be prepared addressing wildlife resource issues. In conclusion, the Department reiterate(. its earlier comments and request that appropriate mitigation and conidensa:ion be provide for the significant issues we have raised. As always, if yoc have any questions, please contact Mr. Kevin -Barry Brennan, Associate Wildlife Eiologist, at !9C9) 659-2641 or Ms, Lilia I. Martinez, Environmental Specialist 111, at P10) 590;•48'3O. cc: See attached list Sincerely, Pa.ric:ia Woll Acting Regional Manager Rrgion 5 04-10-81 14:46 RECEIVED FROM: 136 P•13 • FROM Center for Elio -Diversity, CA FAX NO. Ile... Apr. 10 2001 O3:1OPH R1 10U05 Mr, Jerry Herman May 1, 1996 Page Five cc: Mr. Kevin -Barry Brennan Department of Fish and Game Idyllwild, California Ms. Lilia I. Martinez Department of Fish and Game Long Seach, California Mr. Jim Davis Department of Fish and Game Sugarloaf, California Mr. Glenn Black Department of Fish and Game Chino, California Ms. Dee Sudduth Department of Fish and Game Jamul, California Mr, Frank Hoover Department of Fish and Game Chino, California Mr. Jeff Lovich NBS c/o Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs, California Ms.Ann Kreager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California Ms; Julie Dugan Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs, California 04-10-01 14:56 RECEIVED FROM: 1P 01